The suggestion that the IMF may not have quite lived up to its reputation for global financial propriety, or even upheld its role in helping prevent crisis points, is lent fresh weight by the letter of resignation of departing economist, Peter Doyle.
Accusing the current managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, as being “tainted” by a faulty selection process which perpetuates cronyism and fails to deliver the best person for the job, Doyle lists a number of points
where the IMF failed to act as it was supposed to and, indeed, appeared to go out of its way to not act at all.
Lagarde, no stranger to criticism, last drew a lot of fire from the international press for her criticism of Greece where she publicly stated that “Greeks should pay their taxes” when she, herself, draws a tax-free salary
for her job.
That note of hypocrisy seems to have passed on the assumption that technical quibbles about tax-status aside, those who run the IMF do a great job in a highly sensitive role and the Fund runs as it should. Now that assumption seems to have been undermined raising fresh questions over the choice of leadership at the IMF
and its role in global financial crises.
In his letter, obtained by CNN and then spread throughout news networks Doyle writes: "This fact is most clear in regard to appointments for managing director which, over the past decade, have all-too-evidently been disastrous.
"Even the current incumbent [Christine Lagarde] is tainted, as neither her gender, integrity, or elan can make up for the fundamental illegitimacy of the selection process."
This development is bound to bring the spotlight of bad publicity
back on the IMF at a time when the institution thought that it perhaps might be able to continue in its opaque way of working in a ‘business as usual’ sort of way.