was operative inside the WB (e.g. under Robert Mc Namara from 1968 to 1981 when
there were a Senior Vice President for Operations), he too was American. The same
under President Tom Clausen until 1986. Under President Barber Conable, after the well
known “reorganization of 1987”, two parallel number 2 positions were created (Senior
Vice-President for Operations and Senior Vice president for Finance). One of them was
American. Under Lewis Preston, and then under Jim Wolfensohn, the last two Presidents
of the World Bank, three Managing Directors were created immediately under them. At
least one of the three was always American. Europeans have held positions of
responsibility vis-à-vis Western and Central Europe and North Africa. Despite the
justifiable public perception of US overwhelming influence in the World Bank, core
European interests in parts of Europe and Africa have also been reflected in managerial
responsibilities allocated inside this organization.
The Managing Directors of the IMF have all been European. The first was Belgian
(Camille Dutt), the second and third were Swedes (Ivan Rooth and Per Jacobsson). Three
of the next five were French (Pierre Paul Schweitzer, Jacques De La Rosiere and Michel
Camdessus). In between (1973 to 1978) there was a Dutchman—Johannes Witteveen,
and lately a German (Horst Kohler). The current Managing Director, Rodrigo Rato, is a
Spaniard. Particularly long was the period of helmship of this institution by Frenchmen:
1979 to 1999. Throughout the period during which a formal number 2 in the IMF has
existed (either a Deputy MD or a First Deputy MD), it was always been an American
national. The situation is still the same today.
Until quite recently, therefore, one might have characterized the US position in the top
management of the World Bank as dominant, while the top management of the
International Monetary Fund for at least the past thirty years could be seen as a kind of
European-US partnership. All in all, however, the influence of the largest shareholder
(the United States) and of a few European nations (traditionally the United Kingdom,
France and more recently Germany) through the top management of both institutions
seems to have remained very strong, continuous and visible in both institutions.
More difficult is to gauge the influence of member countries in the Boards of Directors of
the two institutions. Assessments of this nature are somewhat subjective and also
inevitably tinged by specific personalities, but at least the” oral tradition” concerning the
two institutions has gone fairly consistently in the following direction: US Executive
Directors are generally very influential inside the two Boards, followed by British,
French and recently also German Directors. The United States Treasury, moreover, has
been able to exert a relatively stronger day to day monitoring and “control “over both
organizations because of its locational advantage.
In the end, however, in order to infer patterns of influence in the WB and IMF, a safer
and more meaningful way may be that of looking at the broad factors that shape their
lending and at how it is distributed among members. Decisions about lending are the
most continuous and homogenous among those made inside them. They are also
precisely known. The World Bank lending is none the less by nature more steady, being
influenced (at least historically) by development needs, while the IMF lending is more