Leader from The Economist:
"Officially the search for a new head of the IMF, to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who awaits trial on charges of sexual assault, has barely begun. The fund’s member governments have until June 10th to propose candidates, after which a shortlist will be drawn up. But in practice the race seems all but over. That is because European countries, which hold over a third of the votes on the IMF’s board, have rallied around a single contender: France’s finance minister, Christine Lagarde.
In contrast, emerging economies, which have long argued that the fund should have a non-European boss, have so far conspicuously failed to fix on an alternative candidate. The Americans, kingmakers in this contest, have said little in public but in private seem happy with Ms Lagarde, not least because they hope to keep both the deputy’s job at the fund and the presidency of the World Bank. Barring embarrassments, one French politician is likely to succeed another."
The rest is here: http://tinyurl.com/43oh82k
If now is not the time to seriously debate this and break with 'tradition', then when?
The "tradition" makes no sense (beyond obvious attempt of political control), but I also don't see any good in electing someone on an anti-Europe basis during a time that intervention in Europe is the main focus of the IMF. Seems to me that his/her agenda would probably be unnecessarily harsh and unflexible just to justify his appointment.
I think the best way would be to let Lagarde serve the end of DSK's term and then elect a non-European.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat are your thoughts, specifically, on this section of the leader column?
The "tradition" makes no sense (beyond obvious attempt of political control), but I also don't see any good in electing someone on an anti-Europe basis during a time that intervention in Europe is the main focus of the IMF. Seems to me that his/her agenda would probably be unnecessarily harsh and unflexible just to justify his appointment.
I think the best way would be to let Lagarde serve the end of DSK's term and then elect a non-European.
Moreover, the case against appointing a euro-zone finance minister as head of the IMF now is overwhelming. The main issue facing the fund is the euro zone. The fund is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy. It is the only organisation likely to force a rethink of the euro zone’s failed strategy towards Greece, Ireland and Portugal. There were already fears that Mr Strauss-Kahn’s presidential ambitions led the fund to be too soft on Europe. Ms Lagarde has played a central role in forming the euro zone’s response to its debt crisis, and whatever her private views, she has a public record of defending the indefensible.
Originally posted by FMFI'm not sure what they mean by "defending the indefensible", apart from anti-Euro propaganda. The problems are due to overspending in public finances and an unregulated banking system. Without the Euro all those countries would be worse off due to plummeting currencies and Germany's banks would be facing their nightmare of holding worthless assets.
What are your thoughts, specifically, on this section of the leader column?
Moreover, the case against appointing a euro-zone finance minister as head of the IMF now is overwhelming. The main issue facing the fund is the euro zone. The fund is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy. It is the only organisation likely to force a ret ...[text shortened]... , and whatever her private views, she has a public record of defending the indefensible.
