<p class = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "A A popular strategy to derail those trying to reform an institution is to brand them as opposed to the cause of the institution itself. That was tried with Nikki Haley at the United Nations, Scott Garrett at the Import-Export Bank, Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency, Mick Mulvaney at the Office of Financial Protection consumers and Betsy DeVos at the Ministry of Education. Each of these people may well have advantages and disadvantages to consider, but criticism of the institutions they were supposed to lead can only seriously be considered a problem if the goal of recruiting a new leader for an institution given is not to get real results. leadership at all. An institution as well as it does not need a new leader, and the idea that any institution on the list of federal agencies – or, God doubts it, "international organizations" – is acceptable because she is laughable. "Data -reactid =" 18 "> A popular strategy to derail people trying to reform an institution is to give them a branding as opposed to the cause of the institution itself. with Nikki Haley at the United Nations, Scott Garrett at the Export-Import Bank, Scott Pruitt of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mick Mulvaney of the Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Betsy DeVos of the Department of Education. people may have had advantages and disadvantages to consider, but they could be criticized were considered leaders could seriously be considered a problem only if the goal of recruiting a new leader for a given institution was to not get real leadership.An institution as well as it does not need a new leader and the idea that any institution fig The list of federal agencies – or, God forbid – "international organizations" – is perfectly appropriate because it is laughable.

And that brings us to David Malpass, the choice of the Trump administration at the head of the World Bank. Critics claim that the distinguished economist is ill-suited to this post because he has openly criticized the World Bank's cohesion policy with China (especially the country's "Belt and Road" initiative, a mess of infrastructure projects that has been so successful we could expect a hybrid of communism and cronyism. "Malpass criticized the lack of accountability at the bank, the lack of metrics to assess objectively the progress, and an imperfect basis in the execution of the bank's mission.In Malpass's view, the bank has departed from its mission – to promote sustainable economic growth in developing markets – to become on the contrary, a bureaucratic embarrassment for the failed cause of unsustainable aid.

If there is to be a World Bank, you have to rediscover its main mission. Facilitating dependence on lower-than-market interest rates is not a viable mission, it undermines economic stability and creates a bad investment in the most inopportune era. . Taking advantage of the bank's vast financial resources to adopt "strong growth principles" (in the words of Malpass) is not to reject the World Bank's mission, but to promote the best solutions for the poorest countries in the world. world. Its program is focused on accountability – finding ways to measure success so that the dollars provided by the bank can be optimized and consistently in pursuit of their most effective assignment. Malpass sees transparency as a fundamental element of accountability and has promised to enforce the obligations of borrowing countries with respect to the terms of their debt agreements. It seems to me that someone who asks for this basic step at the bank lending money probably cares more about the viability of the lender than the cheerleaders of the institution who do not care about it. Do not require.

Those who really support the World Bank's mission should praise David Malpass's critics. China has received nearly $ 2 billion in loans from the World Bank in 2018 and is the world's second-largest economy, with unhindered access to capital markets. The argument advanced by Malpass is irrefutable: when World Bank resources are used to help powerful countries that do not need them, the bank's mission is in question.

<p class = "canvas-atom-canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "Those who are livid to the idea of ​​transparency and transparency in the fight of their precious bureaucracy naturally chose to jump on the most obvious vulnerability of the summary Malpass – his role as chief economist at Bear Stearns until its collapse in 2008. It is a choice just, but that provides only optical nuances First, to dismiss an economist or a financial thinker who had not been able to predict perfectly the financial crisis in 2008 would be to send everyone around the world, the possible exception of the character of Christian Bale in The big court (believe me, the truth behind this story requires a whole series of articles). Most (but not all) of these critics know that large corporations are separated by light-years from proprietary trading desks where real damage (or profits) is caused. If you believe that those who lead the books at Bear Stearns are in contact with David Malpass, who wrote white papers and offered a macro perspective to the company, then I have a pool of subprime mortgages from 2006 to sell you. "Data-reactid =" 22 "> Those who are livid with the idea of ​​accountability and transparency who enter the ranks of their precious bureaucracy have of course chosen to tackle the most obvious vulnerability of the Malpass summary – his role as chief economist at Bear Stearns until his collapse in 2008. It's a fair choice, but that provides only optical nuances and not substantive criticism. First, to dismiss an economist or a great financial thinker who did not know perfectly well the financial crisis in 2008 would be to reject everyone, everywhere, with the possible exception being the character of Christian Bale The big court (believe me, the truth behind this story requires a whole series of articles). Most (but not all) of these critics know that large corporations are separated by light-years from proprietary trading desks where real damage (or profits) is caused. If you believe that those who lead the books at Bear Stearns are in contact with David Malpass, who has written white papers and offered a macro perspective to the company, I have a pool of risky mortgages from 2006 to sell you.

The fact is that 2008 managed to leave a nauseating smell on the resumes of many well-established financial personalities, with Brad Pitt and Ryan Gosling skating unscathed. Although guilt by association is mostly laughable, Malpass underestimated the impact that housing correction would have on credit markets (without knowing how much systemic risk had accumulated in the system). parallel banking). But to paint Malpass with Bear and Lehman's brush is logically absurd and absurd. (Now, if we want to talk about people who were deeply involved in the causes of the financial crisis and who were rewarded for important government posts, I would be happy to discuss Tim Geithner and Jack Lew at any time).

David Malpass does not adhere to a utopian vision of global institutions and has criticized the multilateral dreams of the fight against poverty. This does not make it unfit to lead the World Bank – this makes it the ideal choice.

More from National Review