The Bush Administration, often slow to fill vacancies, moved quickly to replace outgoing World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz with Goldman Sachs executive Robert Zoellick. So instead of an American former deputy secretary known as a brilliant thinker, we’ll have… an American former deputy secretary, known as a brilliant thinker. Surface similarities aside, Zoellick brings some distinctive qualities to a job that is notably more difficult than the one his predecessor took on.

Before looking over Zoellick’s qualifications, there is the lurking question of whether it should really be the Bush Administration making the appointment—technically, a nomination that the World Bank’s Board must still approve. After the turmoil over Wolfowitz there has been renewed international pressure to open the job to applicants of all nationalities, instead of the current informal system under which the leadership of international institutions is formulaically divided among nationals of the member countries.

There are some highly talented and eminently qualified people whose names were mentioned for the position, such as Ashraf Ghani from Afghanistan; Prime Minister Tony Blair from the United Kingdom; or former President Ernesto Zedillo from Mexico. They all have distinguished records that include important achievements in development. There is something deeply unsettling about a system that automatically excludes them from consideration.

But the United States is not the only country that notices nationality. Everyone notices. Not just at the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where there is a long tradition of the Bank being run by an American and the IMF being run by a European, but at almost every international organization, such as the InterAmerican Development Bank, NATO, the World Health Organization, and so forth. Even though the United Nations Secretary General may come from any country in the world, aficionados pay close attention to how that job rotates among regions. The balance of nationalities applies not just to the top leadership of these institutions, but to the layers below as well.

It would be wonderful to be in a world of international organizations in which merit counted and nationality didn’t, but we’re not in that world. If there is to be a demand for balance, then there is a lot to be said for following traditions; they save everyone from acrimonious haggling and renegotiation. The White House need not be ashamed of putting forward a well-qualified American.

Given recent history, Zoellick may not want to ride in loudly proclaiming an anti-corruption crusade. He could make the same point a different way by stressing the effectiveness of assistance.

Zoellick is well-qualified. He is a top competitor in “brightest guy in the room” contests. He has been an undersecretary and a deputy secretary of State and served with great distinction as the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Among his signature issues at the State Department were the rise of China and the decline of Sudan. As USTR, he was instrumental in launching the Doha Development Round of WTO trade talks in the wake of September 11. If diplomatic achievements were scored based on degree of difficulty, however, Zoellick’s best work might have been the revival of the Doha talks in July of 2004 in Geneva. At a time when the talks appeared hopelessly lost, Zoellick worked personally and tirelessly to persuade international counterparts to keep the talks alive.

The bank presidency requires development expertise, management ability, and tact. In some ways, the development expertise is the least important of these. The bank president is surrounded by some of the top development experts in the world. To the extent that Zoellick calls on them for their counsel, he will be both mastering his brief and healing wounds.

The management challenge is immense. The World Bank has roughly 10,000 staff spread all around the world. As the events of recent weeks have reminded us, the bank president reports to the Board of Directors, made up of representatives from the Bank’s shareholding countries. Those Directors report back to their national capitals. Skilled leaders of institutions like the Bank and the IMF spend much of their time making sure that their Boards are well-informed and supportive of their initiatives.

With both the Board and the staff, there is also the necessity of dealing with people from many different countries and cultures. This does not require any sort of compromise in the substance of a leader’s presidency, but it does require some additional attention to diplomacy and interpersonal dealings.

Zoellick’s management strengths and weaknesses were best illustrated when he was USTR. A staff of over 200 people worked together with a strong sense of purpose and direction. For the most part, the staff spoke of Zoellick with loyalty and admiration. However, in none of his recent assignments was Zoellick known to suffer fools gladly.

This brings us to the reason that the bank presidency is tougher now than when Wolfowitz took over. The recent fighting has left scars. Staff sensitivities will subside after a period of calm and progress, but feelings are sufficiently raw that a leader would be well-advised to take a particularly considerate approach. Zoellick is plenty smart enough to see this.

Zoellick can and should push good governance, both within the bank and in recipient countries. If done correctly, such a push could win broad support. Wolfowitz’s downfall has often been painted in simplified, and starkly wrong, terms: he opposed corruption and the staff opposed him, so the staff must favor corruption. There may be some staff who do, but the bank is also home to many who realize just how essential good governance is in fostering economic development. Bank researchers such as Dani Kaufmann have been leaders in developing ways of measuring governance and demonstrating its importance. While Wolfowitz placed added emphasis on fighting corruption, the campaign to combat it within the bank was begun by his predecessor, James Wolfensohn, who did not encounter anything like the opposition Wolfowitz found.

Given recent history, Zoellick may not want to ride in loudly proclaiming an anti-corruption crusade. He could make the same point a different way by stressing the effectiveness of assistance. If aid dollars end up in the pockets of corrupt country officials, the aid will not achieve its goals. A broader theme of effectiveness would also acknowledge the argument of some critics of the Wolfowitz approach that corruption is hardly the only problem facing developing countries, and may not always be the most important one. Even those European nations that battled for quantity over quality of aid earlier this decade are now aware that to maintain support for assistance they must show results.

Zoellick can save the bank. By assembling an international team that shares his vision and that commands respect within the bank, offering direction and vitality, and acknowledging the expertise and commitment that already exists within its staff, he can restore its prestige as an essential promoter of global economic development.

Philip I. Levy is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image credit; AFP/Getty