SINCE their establishment in 1944, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have been headed by Europeans and Americans (except for Sir James Wolfensohn who was an Australian with US citizenship).

This arrangement has been by agreement between the Europeans and the Americans and reflected the power configuration in global affairs nearly 70 years ago when they came about at Bretton Woods. The US is still the largest shareholder in both institutions and wields a veto power over decision-making.

The managing director of the IMF has, since its inception, been a European from the Treasury or a former finance minister. Ironic, since the US dollar was and still is the main global currency and most countries hold their international reserves in US$ or financial instruments denominated in that currency. New York and London were, and to a large extent remain, the dominant financial centres as reflected in currency trading, stock markets and international capital market transactions.

The US chose to have in perpetuity the presidency of the World Bank, the better to complement and promote their direct foreign investment in developing countries. They have consistently selected Wall Street investment bankers with little knowledge of economic development and less empathy.

Persons being dropped from the US Cabinet and bureaucrats who did not get a Cabinet post (Mr Robert McNamara is a case in point) are given the presidency of the World Bank as a consolation. Some had no training in economics and no previous experience in economic policy.

The world has changed, and it’s the G-20 that runs the world economy, not the G-8, and therefore the headship of the IMF and World Bank must now be open to appointment by merit and, in the case of the World Bank, the president should be from a developing country. For an American to head the World Bank is an oxymoron.

But, we believe, the opportunity for a change in the leadership of both institutions may come sooner than later. The current managing director of the IMF, Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn, will soon have to make up his mind whether to run as the Socialist party candidate in next year’s presidential election in France. Already a number of Europeans, including former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have sent out feelers on the assumption that the new MD will be European.

It is unfair and anachronistic to reserve these important posts for the EU and US, given the world’s new distribution of economic power. This tradition must be expunged if these institutions are to have political legitimacy and technical credibility.

The two posts must be open to all based on qualifications and merit and the selection process must be transparent and democratic. Indeed, an effort should be made not to select a European so as to indicate a change and signal the possibility of a rotation of regions such as what prevails in the case of the appointment of the UN secretary general.

Particularly at this time when the global economy is struggling to emerge from a deep and prolonged recession, it is important that the managing director of the IMF and the president of the World Bank be the best qualified persons. This is only possible if the jobs are open to everyone throughout the world.

If they ask us, we might have a Jamaican or two to suggest as possible candidates.