Bureaucratic Representation in the IMF and the World Bank

C. Weaver, Mirko Heinzel, Samantha Jorgensen, Joseph Flores
{"title":"Bureaucratic Representation in the IMF and the World Bank","authors":"C. Weaver, Mirko Heinzel, Samantha Jorgensen, Joseph Flores","doi":"10.1525/gp.2022.39684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legitimacy and effectiveness of international organizations are often linked directly to issues of representation—not only on their high-level governing boards and in top leadership but also within their staff. This article explores two key questions of bureaucratic representation in the critical cases of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. First, we seek to unpack three essential dimensions of staff representation—nationality, education, and gender—to explain how representation may matter for international organizations. Second, we aim to describe the multiple dimensions of representation in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank over the past twenty years by deploying a novel dataset on staff demographics, focusing on ranks with decision-making authority within the institutions. Our descriptive analysis reveals that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have made considerable efforts to diversify their bureaucracies. Nonetheless, representation remains uneven; for example, nationals from middle- and low-income countries, women, and staff without economics degrees from prominent US- or UK-based universities are less present in key leadership positions. These results may be well explained by the particular needs of the institutions’ technical mandates and limits in the supply of qualified staff and, as such, need not be seen as suboptimal. Nonetheless, perceived imbalances in representation may continue to pose external legitimation and operational challenges to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in a complex political environment where such multidimensional representation is important to sustaining the buy-in of donor and borrower countries alike. To this end, we recommend that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank enhance their diversity and inclusion efforts by increasing transparency via reporting disaggregated data on workforce composition and introducing annual requirements to publish progress reports with management feedback to strengthen internal and external accountability.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2022.39684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The legitimacy and effectiveness of international organizations are often linked directly to issues of representation—not only on their high-level governing boards and in top leadership but also within their staff. This article explores two key questions of bureaucratic representation in the critical cases of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. First, we seek to unpack three essential dimensions of staff representation—nationality, education, and gender—to explain how representation may matter for international organizations. Second, we aim to describe the multiple dimensions of representation in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank over the past twenty years by deploying a novel dataset on staff demographics, focusing on ranks with decision-making authority within the institutions. Our descriptive analysis reveals that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have made considerable efforts to diversify their bureaucracies. Nonetheless, representation remains uneven; for example, nationals from middle- and low-income countries, women, and staff without economics degrees from prominent US- or UK-based universities are less present in key leadership positions. These results may be well explained by the particular needs of the institutions’ technical mandates and limits in the supply of qualified staff and, as such, need not be seen as suboptimal. Nonetheless, perceived imbalances in representation may continue to pose external legitimation and operational challenges to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in a complex political environment where such multidimensional representation is important to sustaining the buy-in of donor and borrower countries alike. To this end, we recommend that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank enhance their diversity and inclusion efforts by increasing transparency via reporting disaggregated data on workforce composition and introducing annual requirements to publish progress reports with management feedback to strengthen internal and external accountability.
国际货币基金组织和世界银行的官僚代表权
国际组织的合法性和有效性往往与代表性问题直接相关——不仅在其高层管理委员会和最高领导层中,而且在其员工中。本文探讨了国际货币基金组织和世界银行关键案例中官僚代表性的两个关键问题。首先,我们试图分析工作人员代表性的三个基本方面——国籍、教育程度和性别,以解释代表性对国际组织的重要性。其次,我们的目标是通过部署一个新的工作人员人口统计数据集来描述过去二十年来国际货币基金组织和世界银行代表性的多个维度,重点关注机构内具有决策权的级别。我们的描述性分析显示,国际货币基金组织和世界银行为使其官僚机构多样化作出了相当大的努力。尽管如此,代表性仍然不均衡;例如,中低收入国家的国民、女性以及没有英美知名大学经济学学位的员工在关键领导岗位上的比例较低。这些结果可以很好地解释为各机构技术任务的特殊需要和合格工作人员供应方面的限制,因此不必认为是次优的。尽管如此,在一个复杂的政治环境中,这种多层面的代表性对维持捐助国和借款国的支持都很重要,因此,在代表性方面的明显不平衡可能继续对国际货币基金组织和世界银行构成外部合法性和业务挑战。为此,我们建议国际货币基金组织和世界银行加强其多样性和包容性工作,通过报告劳动力构成分类数据提高透明度,并引入年度要求,发布包含管理层反馈的进展报告,以加强内部和外部问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信