Sometimes appearances are everything
The headlines following the G-7 and World Bank-IMF meetings this last week were not all about global imbalances, the changing role of the World Bank in poverty reduction, growing unease about globalization, or calls for reform of the IMF. No, they have also been focused on the relationship of the president of the World Bank to a former Bank employee, and the manner in which he has handled the appearance of conflict of interest in managing the departure of this romantic interest when he took over at the Bank. Who needs substance, when you can have scandal?
If you work for the U.S. government as a civil servant, you need to follow a certain set of rules guiding ethical behavior. If you look closely at those rules, you will find that they do not really proscribe behavior that is unethical. Rather the rules proscribe the appearance of such behavior. I was, at one time, baffled by those rules. They are made by a Congress who generally and explicitly exempt themselves from those same ethics rules (so that they can and do continue to run ethically amok, individually and collectively.) Yet the rules do serve a purpose. For the electorate to have faith in the workings of the government, they must believe it is ethical and fair. An ethical and fair regime populated by career employees that appear corrupt will be crippled in its operations. You can vote out unethical congressman and parliamentarians. A functioning civil service shows much more inertia in terms of (potential and actual) employee turnover. For this reason, it is a necessary though not efficient condition that civil servants appear to be free of corruption, regardless of the tabloid-based entertainment provided by politicians. Indeed, if a politician wants to go after the civil service, he will attack its reputation in this regard individually or collectively (witness Reagan's attack on the U.S. civil service in the 1980s, and the Valerie Plame affair more recently).
In a similar vein, international civil servants must also appear operationally honest. This is especially true for the man/woman tasked with running the World Bank. The Bank, among other tasks, has appointed itself a promoter of good governance. It cannot do this, and has no credibility if it tries, under present circumstances. If there is the appearance of corruption around its top employee -- aka Bank President Paul Wolfowitz -- then that employee must go. If he is going to stay, it simply has to be the case that doubts about his ethical character can be fully removed. If they cannot, then regardless of the actual ethical qualities of the situation, he must go.
Now maybe the Bush administration is playing a deep game, and their strategy is to attack the World Bank from within by piling it from the top down with corrupt leadership. I do not believe they are capable of actually managing such a game (though if they were they would try). But regardless of whether the present situation is deliberate or accidental, it must end.
If you work for the U.S. government as a civil servant, you need to follow a certain set of rules guiding ethical behavior. If you look closely at those rules, you will find that they do not really proscribe behavior that is unethical. Rather the rules proscribe the appearance of such behavior. I was, at one time, baffled by those rules. They are made by a Congress who generally and explicitly exempt themselves from those same ethics rules (so that they can and do continue to run ethically amok, individually and collectively.) Yet the rules do serve a purpose. For the electorate to have faith in the workings of the government, they must believe it is ethical and fair. An ethical and fair regime populated by career employees that appear corrupt will be crippled in its operations. You can vote out unethical congressman and parliamentarians. A functioning civil service shows much more inertia in terms of (potential and actual) employee turnover. For this reason, it is a necessary though not efficient condition that civil servants appear to be free of corruption, regardless of the tabloid-based entertainment provided by politicians. Indeed, if a politician wants to go after the civil service, he will attack its reputation in this regard individually or collectively (witness Reagan's attack on the U.S. civil service in the 1980s, and the Valerie Plame affair more recently).
In a similar vein, international civil servants must also appear operationally honest. This is especially true for the man/woman tasked with running the World Bank. The Bank, among other tasks, has appointed itself a promoter of good governance. It cannot do this, and has no credibility if it tries, under present circumstances. If there is the appearance of corruption around its top employee -- aka Bank President Paul Wolfowitz -- then that employee must go. If he is going to stay, it simply has to be the case that doubts about his ethical character can be fully removed. If they cannot, then regardless of the actual ethical qualities of the situation, he must go.
Now maybe the Bush administration is playing a deep game, and their strategy is to attack the World Bank from within by piling it from the top down with corrupt leadership. I do not believe they are capable of actually managing such a game (though if they were they would try). But regardless of whether the present situation is deliberate or accidental, it must end.
Labels: civil service, corruption, ethics rules, resignation, scandal, Wolfowitz, Wolfowitz resignation, World Bank
