Ian wrote: I wonder how Ann Krueger feels about this?
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Is the question whether the number of women makes a difference or should
>it be the style that women have to adopt to succeed? Is the world better
>off from Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir or Madeline Albright? Is gender
>a good indicator of behavior.
>
>A stronger argument might be that if insitutions opened up to different
>types, the prevailing style of behavior might change.
>
>I think of the ambiguities of The Good Woman of Szechuan, where the
>heroine gets money and has to adopt a different face.
Thanks for the great thoughts. I may be mistaken but isn't recruitment a process to augment a body with new members. If the IMF and World Bank allow countries to appoint/select their own Governors and Directors, isn't that in a sense the recruitment process for the upper level? I think taking a broader definition of recruitment, WEDO focuses on the importance of the numbers.
I agree that different types are clearly needed in theses institutions. But how will it happen on its own? Bringing new members on board with most of the "in" group attributes except for perhaps one "out" group member feature is a starting point...but ultimately the numbers will be needed for true representation. Joseph Stiglitz, as Chief Economist at the World Bank, has shown that he is a slightly different type than the usual IMF/World Banks elites from all the "in" groups, but whenever he opened his mouth to speak he was always under pressure to keep quiet and go with the flow. He was frustrated and eventually resigned in protest. Why? Because the numbers do matter and they mattered for Stiglitz's effectiveness.
If there are enough different types one may not then have to adopt a different face like The Good Woman of Szechuan or perhaps Mamphela Ramphele and Anne Krueger.
Yours, Diane