Of all the self-serving reasons conjured up by European officials to keep one of their own in charge at the IMF, none can top the idiotic notion that a European is needed at the top because of the international agency's key role in sorting out the complicated sovereign debt crisis that threatens to undo the euro zone recovery -- if not the euro zone itself.
"That particular argument is such hogwash that it's barely worthwhile trying to refute it," says Willem Buiter, the London-based chief economist with Citigroup Global Markets. "Do I have to be a criminal to be a judge? The logic is completely missing."
The fact is that for much of its history, the financial crises that triggered IMF-led rescue missions have typically been located in emerging markets, where a bevy of U.S.- and European-trained financial and economic experts have done a noticeably better job in recent years of running policy than their counterparts in Europe or the U.S. And that was the case even before the Great Financial Crisis.
The problem for IMF candidates from the emerging world is that their governments can't come together as a bloc behind a single choice. It will be a frosty Friday before the Chinese, say, back a candidate from an Asian rival like India or South Korea, and vice-versa. That's something the often fractious Europeans actually do quite well, thanks to a little political horse-trading. And the Europeans control nearly a third of the IMF's allotted votes. Which is why their preferred candidate -- French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde -- seems likely to get the post.
Mr. Buiter acknowledges that Ms. Lagarde stands "head and shoulders" above other possible European candidates in the rumour mill. But he rightly adds: "It is a sad day that important positions like that are handed out on the basis of accidents of birth, rather than qualifications, both personal and professional."