Tweet
"It's a victory for France," President Nicolas Sarkozy said of Christine Lagarde's appointment as the new head of the International Monetary Fund.
Christine Lagarde leaves a private TV studio after appearing on prime time news in Boulogne Photo: REUTERS
It should come as no surprise that the unpopular French leader is trying to put a positive spin on losing his highly-regarded finance minister. And, in one sense, Sarkozy is spot on.
Lagarde becomes the IMF's fifth French leader, and her appointment ensures that the Gallic republic keeps a powerful voice at an institution that has made a comeback thanks to the financial crisis. But Lagarde won't have appreciated her former boss airing his sentiment in public. The 55-year old will start her first day in the job next Tuesday with three question marks hanging over her appointment.
The first and least troublesome one is some inevitable concern within the IMF that she's not an economist. Lagarde trained as a lawyer and spent 25 years working at US law firm Baker & McKenzie before moving into politics in 2005. Some of this will be intellectual snobbery, but some will be legitimate concern over whether she's qualified for the job. She's regarded as highly intelligent and the fund already has an army of economists that matters can be delegated to.
The second is whether her selection was a stitch up. And it was. Europe still wields a disproportionately large amount of votes at the IMF's top table - a gift from history that the continent is understandably reluctant to relinquish. There's nothing she can do about that, and Lagarde has already pledged to make changes to the voting system so it better reflects the shifting balance of economic power in the world.
The third is by far the most serious. As the French finance minister intimately involved in Europe's debt crisis during the last 12 months, will she be able to give the IMF an independent voice and protect the interest of its creditors? Lagarde certainly thinks so. During her job interview last week she told the IMF's Executive Board that "I will not shrink from the necessary candour and toughness in my discussions with European leaders." Adding that "there is no room for benevolence when tough choices must be made."
Lagarde becomes the IMF's fifth French leader, and her appointment ensures that the Gallic republic keeps a powerful voice at an institution that has made a comeback thanks to the financial crisis. But Lagarde won't have appreciated her former boss airing his sentiment in public. The 55-year old will start her first day in the job next Tuesday with three question marks hanging over her appointment.
The first and least troublesome one is some inevitable concern within the IMF that she's not an economist. Lagarde trained as a lawyer and spent 25 years working at US law firm Baker & McKenzie before moving into politics in 2005. Some of this will be intellectual snobbery, but some will be legitimate concern over whether she's qualified for the job. She's regarded as highly intelligent and the fund already has an army of economists that matters can be delegated to.
The second is whether her selection was a stitch up. And it was. Europe still wields a disproportionately large amount of votes at the IMF's top table - a gift from history that the continent is understandably reluctant to relinquish. There's nothing she can do about that, and Lagarde has already pledged to make changes to the voting system so it better reflects the shifting balance of economic power in the world.
The third is by far the most serious. As the French finance minister intimately involved in Europe's debt crisis during the last 12 months, will she be able to give the IMF an independent voice and protect the interest of its creditors? Lagarde certainly thinks so. During her job interview last week she told the IMF's Executive Board that "I will not shrink from the necessary candour and toughness in my discussions with European leaders." Adding that "there is no room for benevolence when tough choices must be made."
The former lawyer spent much of the past month visiting China, India and Brazil to assure them that she will not throw good IMF money after bad to solve Europe's debt dilemma. The fund, which means its donors, is supplying about a third of the €110bn that was pledged to Greece as part of the first bail-out in May, 2010. Such assurances appear to have won over those three economic heavyweights, who declared for her rather than Agustin Carstens, the head of Mexico's central bank, and Lagarde’s only rival.
Victory, though, only came when the Obama administration threw its weight behind Lagarde this week. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sang the praises of his former counterpart and new neighbour in Washington DC. But it's politicians in the US capital, rather than Beijing, Delhi or Sao Paulo, that pose the greatest threat to Lagarde.
Despite the warm and no doubt genuine words from Geithner, The White House is increasingly frustrated at Europeans' handling of their own debt debacle. Its latest flaring comes as the US economic recovery is losing momentum, and Obama is trying to wrestle back the political initiative from a Republican party emboldened by the recent US slowdown. The irritation was likely behind an unusual public rebuke to European leaders from Geithner last week when he said it would be better if they could speak with one voice.
A still bigger threat comes from Congress. The Obama administration struggled to push through an extra $108bn in funding for the IMF in June 2009. If bail-out was a toxic word in Washington then, it has only become more so since. So far the contributions from the IMF, where the US is the biggest single donor, have raised relatively few heckles in the House of Representatives or Senate. But with Republican candidates currently vying for the right to challenge Obama next year, the chances are that will change. And any money required from the IMF for Greece's second bail-out will receive far more political scrutiny in the country that will have to dig deepest into its own pockets.
It's to her new neighbours in Washington, more than anyone else, that Lagarde needs to prove that her appointment is no victory for France.
Victory, though, only came when the Obama administration threw its weight behind Lagarde this week. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sang the praises of his former counterpart and new neighbour in Washington DC. But it's politicians in the US capital, rather than Beijing, Delhi or Sao Paulo, that pose the greatest threat to Lagarde.
Despite the warm and no doubt genuine words from Geithner, The White House is increasingly frustrated at Europeans' handling of their own debt debacle. Its latest flaring comes as the US economic recovery is losing momentum, and Obama is trying to wrestle back the political initiative from a Republican party emboldened by the recent US slowdown. The irritation was likely behind an unusual public rebuke to European leaders from Geithner last week when he said it would be better if they could speak with one voice.
A still bigger threat comes from Congress. The Obama administration struggled to push through an extra $108bn in funding for the IMF in June 2009. If bail-out was a toxic word in Washington then, it has only become more so since. So far the contributions from the IMF, where the US is the biggest single donor, have raised relatively few heckles in the House of Representatives or Senate. But with Republican candidates currently vying for the right to challenge Obama next year, the chances are that will change. And any money required from the IMF for Greece's second bail-out will receive far more political scrutiny in the country that will have to dig deepest into its own pockets.
It's to her new neighbours in Washington, more than anyone else, that Lagarde needs to prove that her appointment is no victory for France.
No comments:
Post a Comment