Is it Important Whether a Woman Wins?

The FT just ran a blog on the African Union's endorsement of former World Bank Managing Director and Nigerian Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, for the post of Bank President. Ngozi was one of the most admired leaders when I was at the Bank (there are three Managing Directors, under the President), and she has a great reputation outside as well. Alongside Obi Ezekwesili, who is Vice President for Africa at the Bank (tire three in Bank hierarchy), Ngozi had a reputation of being fiercely passionate about development, and had the energy of a bulldozer.

Bob Zoellick, who has headed the Bank for five years, saw as one of his great achievements that two women, and both from the South, were Managing Directors at the Bank (the other is former Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Indrawati).

Ngozi is the third female candidate for World Bank that I have read about. The other two are Hilary Clinton and PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi. Male contestants include the US's proposed candidate, Jim Kim, Jose Ocampo, and Jeff Sachs, until he stepped down to support Kim's candidacy.

What I find striking is that the three women are on par with the men in terms of reputation and career, perhaps even further. It therefore does not seem to me a contest between women and men, but of individuals. The South-North debate seems to be far more important to most commentators.

I would of course find it great if a a woman would become World Bank President. To set a precedent, to break the ice (or glass ceiling) in yet another important institution. But I find other factors more important in this race, and the answer in this case to my subject title is No. At least not in this race.