It can hardly be more ironic that while the Bank withholds aid from developing countries it accused of poor governance, its chief Paul Wolfowitz is now battling accusations of impropriety. First, appointments of both president and staff must become more transparent. Wolfowitz’s appointment was pushed through by the U.S. in spite of widespread opposition not only from many developing countries – the Bank’s primary clientele – but also from Bank staff. It is not only Wolfowitz’s promotion of girlfriend Shaha Riza that has raised a stink. There are others, such as the lack of transparency in his appointment of senior staffers Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems. Both were parachuted in from jobs in the U.S. administration.

Currently, twenty-somethings from Western nations often fresh out of college write the economic plans for developing countries they have often never set foot in. These "one-size-fits-all" policy prescriptions are often based on models worlds removed from the grinding reality in developing countries. The hold of Western nations, in particular the U.S., must be broken if the Bank and the Fund are to become more credible. The U.S.’s veto is an anachronism now. In developing countries the bank’s reputation has long taken a plunge, and it is now widely viewed as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. For example, aid to developing countries has dropped, except to Iraq and Afghanistan – key foreign policy priorities of the U.S.

Giant developing country economies such as those of China and India have altered economic and political power in the world; this will have to be reflected in the structure, decision-making and policies of both the Bank and the IMF. Surely, the developing world should have a bigger say in decisions, policies and appointments at these institutions? As a case in point, it cannot be right that the UK still have more voting power than all Bank members in Africa combined.

Furthermore, the Bank must get rid of its onerous lending conditions. It should lend to countries based on the needs that borrowers identified – not the other way round is as currently the case. As the Shaha Riza scandal shows, the Bank’s overbearing focus on corruption in developing countries rings hollow. Corruption in the West is often overlooked.

Good governance means that developing countries must have a say in the way the Bank and the IMF are run, which includes that candidates from their countries are appointed as senior staff. And since the Bank these days lends more to developing countries, it makes sense that its head should be from the developing world.