Justice for Blacks
Segregation exists in the employment practices and positioning of
Africans within the World Bank as a result of racist institutional
practice. Africans are muted in the Bank’s boardrooms, where strategic
policies that have significant bearings on Africa are set and this needs
to radically change
In an excellent expose published in this forum Phyllis Muhammad wrote
about ‘the twin evils that have bedeviled the World Bank’s relationship
with Africa as a continent and Africans as human beings.’ Her article
opened a space for a new perspective and discourse, identifying the twin
evils as structural and cultural. The structural ‘concerns a ‘democracy
deficit’ in the Bank’s governance architecture that has denied Africa
voice in the institution’s Boardroom.’ The cultural ‘involves
institutional discrimination in the day-to-day management of the Bank.’
See ‘Unmasking Racist World Bank,’ (12/18/2012).
The purpose of this article is to show that Africans are virtually
absent at any level to influence global policies that affect their
continent’s destiny. Since the late 1990s, Africa has taken center stage
of the Bank’s business, accounting for 50 percent of the International
Development Association funds. However, as Ms. Muhammad noted ‘Sub
Saharan Africa, home for 30 percent of the world’s poor, was allotted
5.55 percent of the World Bank’s voting rights.’ Africans are muted in
the Bank’s Boardrooms, where strategic policies that have significant
bearings on Africa are set.
A corollary question is: ‘who speaks for Africa at the management, and
administrative level in the day-to-day decision making process of the
World Bank?’ According to the World Bank, its primary focus in terms of
providing voice to its client countries is ‘its diversity in composition
associated with its global nature.’ This means in a very broad sense
Africans would have a reasonably meaningful role in the Bank’s
management in general, and in the Bank’s decision making process for
Africa in particular. But alas that is not the case. Blacks in the World
Bank’s professional cohort account for a mere 5.4 percent in the seven
most important vice presidential units (VPUs) where strategic
development policies and poverty alleviation programs are formulated
(See Table 1).
It should be noted that the 5.4 percent figure represents mostly entry
level professional grades and also includes white South Africans and
Africans of Asian origin. If only blacks were to be counted the 5.4
percent will be far below 5 percent. It should also be noted that
representation of Blacks at management level in the seven VPUs is closer
to zero percent.
What is also notable is that the situation has gotten worse between 2009
and 2011, showing an overall 20 percent reduction in representation of
Blacks in professional positions in the seven VPUs from an already low
level of 6.3 percent in 2009. This is a reflection of the total
disregard for racial equality during Robert Zoellick’s presidency
(2007-2012). Making matters worse the HR vice president, Hasan Tuluy,
showed no interest in discharging his responsibility. Representation of
Blacks declined in his own vice presidency (HRSVP) from 10.1 to 9.2
percent between 2009 and 2011, dropping further to 8.7 percent in 2012
(See World Bank HR Analytics FY2012).
BLACKS ARE SEGREGATED IN THE AFRICA REGIONAL VPU
In general, Blacks are segregated in the Africa VPU. The term widely
used inside the Bank is ‘ghettoization’ of Blacks because the Africa
regional VPU was nicknamed ‘the ghetto of the Bank’ in a public meeting
by one of the Bank’s senior officials in 1996. A 2003 World Bank Report
acknowledged ‘Blacks are told they can only work in the Africa region
because they can be more competitive there and some nationals do not
want to work with Blacks.’ A 2004 study by the Strategic Staffing wing
of the Bank’s HRSVP shows that only Africans are segregated in their
regional VPU, while other races are widely represented in all Bank VPUs.
In 2005, the Staff Association appealed to the Personnel Committee of
the Bank’s Board to ‘address seriously the issue of ‘ghettoization’ to
ensure that diversity cuts across the institution.’ Their repeated
appeals fell in deaf ears. In 2011, Blacks accounted for 2.1 percent of
the professional cohort in the East Asia and Pacific regional VPU. The
corresponding figure for the Africa regional VPU is 45.2 percent (see
Table 2).
The data also shows blacks are relatively more represented in the Middle
East and North Africa (6.7 percent), Latin America and the Caribbean
(6.0 percent), and South Asia (5.1 percent) compared to 2.1 percent in
East Asia and the Pacific and 4.6 percent in Eastern Europe and central
Asia. The 6.7 percent, 6.0 percent and 5.1 percent figures reflect
relatively high representation of blacks in regions where the population
consists of black and/or brown people. For example, the majority of
Black staff in the Latin America and Caribbean regional VPU are in the
Caribbean islands.
AFRICA ORPHANED AND UNDER GUARDIANSHIP
How well represented are Blacks in the management of the African
regional VPU? The data is available within the Bank, but not made
readily accessible. Data compiled by Justice for Blacks from the Bank’s
2008 telephone directory shows the following.
As noted above Black professionals are segregated in the African
regional VPU representing 52.2 percent of the professional body, but
account only for 20 percent of the management team (see Table 3). Asians
account for 24 percent and Europeans, and North Americans represent 52
percent of the senior management cohort in the Africa VPU. Blacks in
general have less say in the Bank’s management of Africa than Asians,
Europeans and North Americans. Alas, Africa is orphaned and under
guardianship.
In comparison, Asians account for 45 percent of East Asia’s and 37
percent of South Asian Management teams. Blacks account for 3 percent of
the professional staff in each of the East Asia and Europe and Central
Asia regional VPU. The corresponding figures for South Asian and Latin
American and Caribbean regional VPUs are 7 percent. The pattern is
strikingly similar to what is observed at the lower professional levels,
showing that outside of Africa, Blacks are more represented in regions
where the large majority of the people are Black or Brown. Another
interesting point is that Europeans and North Americans account for 60
percent of the management cohort of the Bank, but represent 74 percent
of the management team in Europe and Central Asia (the Bank’s white
region). It is a modern day caste system. It reflects what Adrienne
Smith called ‘good-enough’ racial equality in her piece published in
this forum. See ‘Good-enough Racial Equality at the World Bank’
(12/19/2012)
ARE THERE NO QUALIFIED BLACKS TO FILL MANAGEMENT POSITIONS IN THE AFRICA VPU?
Economic development is not all about complex general equilibrium and
macroeconomic models. Nor is it all about fancy econometrics. Economic
actions are governed not only by quantifiable macro economic and
financial variables, but also by unquantifiable social organization of
networks as well as by informal norms and culture that general
equilibrium models do not capture. Intimate knowledge of Africa’s norms
and culture is important in shaping its development trajectory.
Nonetheless, not a single black African has been appointed regional
chief Economist for Africa. This, in and of itself, is conspicuous in
light of the fact that most of the Chief Economists for Asia have been
Asians, including the current one. What can explain the virtual absence
of Black managers in the African regional VPU? Is there not an adequate
pool of qualified Blacks to fill management positions in Africa?
Overall, Blacks account for 15 percent of the Bank’s work force, but a
large majority, including those with MBA and PhD degrees, are
concentrated in sub-professional levels or short term consultancy
assignments. The Bank’s own 1998 report acknowledges that ‘black staff
members are recruited disproportionately in the secretarial grades,
ignoring the educational and professional success they have achieved.’
The report goes on to note that ‘many of them are qualified for the
professional ranks of the Bank.’ A 2005 Staff Association report
highlighted:
• It is not unusual to see many black graduates of US Ivy league schools
in critical areas in demand in the Bank trapped in the short term
consultant stream after many years in the Bank (15 years for some).
• It is also not unusual to see Bank staff of African descent, with more
than 30 years of Bank experience, with excellent performance
evaluations, graduates of US Ivy League schools, with PhDs, in the
sunsets of their careers [never having broken into the management
ranks.]
Let us provide three examples out of several dozens of cases.
CASE 1: EN V. WORLD BANK (2000)
Mr. EN holds two graduate degrees from leading universities and Grandes
Ecoles in France, including an MBA and Masters in Economics and two Post
Graduate degrees in Banking and Finance, and Information Systems and
Business Reengineering. Grand Ecoles in the French system are equivalent
to Ivy Leagues in the US. Mr. EN was one of 17 graduate students
accepted into one of the Post Graduate programs out of 700 competing
candidates.
Mr. EN authored two widely referenced books on African economic
development. He also won two Awards of Excellence from the World Bank
and IFC, the private sector wing of the Bank. These are awards given to
exceptional performers. Mr. EN is a globally recognized expert who has
delivered keynote speeches in a number of high level forums in Africa,
Europe and the US.
Anyone with such an extraordinary achievement and international
recognition should have move up the World Bank’s management ladder in a
short time. Indeed, two of Mr. EN’s post graduate classmates are vice
presidents in the World Bank. Others are in leadership positions at the
IMF and a number of large private corporations. Unfortunately, in the
eyes of some World Bank managers Mr. EN’s achievements could not
overshadow two major handicaps: His color and place of origin.
During his tenure with the World Bank (1995-2000), Mr. EN was a Team
Leader for Private Sector Development (PSD) for a number of African
countries. In spite of being a team leader, he had the lowest salary in
the team. Some of his team members were paid more than 70 percent than
he was. Mr. EN complained about this unjust salary differential. The HR
reviewed his salary and sent him a note acknowledging that his salary
was low and advising him to talk to his manager. He did as advised and
this was the beginning of the end of Mr. EN’s position in PSD. The
manager claimed that he would need to first ‘open Mr. EN’s position for
competition’ before he could adjust his salary. On this basis, in 2000,
Mr. EN applied for the very position he had been holding and performing
with excellence since 1995. Shortly thereafter, he was informed that the
position had been cancelled for ‘budgetary reasons’ and his service was
no longer needed in PSD.
Mr. EN applied for the position of manager for Strategy in the IFC. He
went through a series of interviews which went very well. IFC promised
to send him a letter of employment. While he was waiting for the letter,
he was informed that the manager’s position had been cancelled and he
would be hired as Senior Strategy Officer. Mr. EN was given a position
one pay scale below what he was cleared for. His performance with IFC
was excellent as documented in his annual performance evaluation and his
Award for Excellence. Unfortunately, a new director came and made it
clear from the day he arrived in the department that he was not
interested in having Mr. EN in his department. The director claimed he
needed to reorganize the department and let Mr. EN go even though he was
the only member of the team with an Award for Excellence.
CASE 2: BK v. World Bank (2011)
Having earned a Masters Degree, graduating at the top of his class, and
being an award winning Ph.D. in Economics from one of the leading
universities in France, Dr. BK joined the Bank through the very
selective Young Professionals (YP) program in 1986. The YP program
annually selects about 30 high caliber youngsters out of a pool of
10,000 accomplished applicants from around the world. Most YPs go
through the ranks fairly quickly to high-level management positions. Two
of Dr. BK’s YP cohorts made it to Vice president. Many are Directors
and the rest are at least Sector Managers. Dr. BK was the only one who
did not break into the management grade, despite an excellent
performance record and recognition at different levels including by a
former President of the Bank, James Wolfensohn, for exemplary work.
Every time he was up for promotion or for a higher grade assignment the
Bank freely violated its rules and kept him trapped bellow the glass
ceiling.
Between 2005 and 2010 Dr. BK applied for 14 positions, but without
success. During all those unsuccessful attempts, he made the shortlist
only a few times. This is despite the Bank’s hyped public relations
campaign to assist qualified Africans to get promoted to management
ranks following the Bank’s highly publicized but never enforced ‘zero
tolerance for discrimination.’
Far from assisting Dr. BK, the Bank blocked his promotion repeatedly
using discriminatory actions. For example, for one of the management
positions his prospect for promotion was high as the most qualified
applicant in the shortlist. However, the Bank gave the position to a
non-black candidate, who was not even on the short list. It should be
noted that the chosen candidate’s application was turned down by the
short-listing Committee because the candidate did not meet the
advertised minimum requirement for the position.
Dr. BK had seven different racial discrimination cases. In the first two
cases the Bank mediated the cases and compensated him financially
without admitting fault. In the next three cases the Bank’s Tribunal
reviewed his charges of discrimination and summarily dismissed them, but
found that the Bank violated its HR procedures in the recruitment
process in which Dr. BK was denied higher level positions, and the
Tribunal awarded him financial compensation instead. In the last two
cases the Tribunal ruled he could not be compensated because he had been
compensated in previous similar cases, even though cases six and seven
involved separate causes of action that he presented on the merits
without relying on any of his previous cases.
BO V. WORLD BANK (2011)
Dr. Bo has an exemplary professional career at the Bank. For example, he
task managed the influential ‘Can Africa Claim the 21st Century’ report
(2000); and co-managed the ‘Evaluation of the Banks Comprehensive
Development Framework: CDF’ report (2001). The CDF was a major
milestone in development partnership, aimed at enhancing recipient
countries’ ownership of their development discourse by moving away from
the dysfunctional and ill-fated ex-ante conditionality to ex-post and
results-oriented aid relations. The CDF provided the conceptual
framework for the Bank’s poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) aid
modality. Moreover, as the Bank’s leading expert on the economics of
civil wars and conflicts Dr. BO directed four major research projects on
the subject during 1999-2008 that produced more than 30 research
papers, three books, two special editions of journals, and several
policy and operational products.
Having gone through a very extensive competitive process, Dr. Bo was
short-listed, interviewed by senior managers and selected to fill the
Chief Economist position for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
region of the Bank. His appointment was stopped by former President
Robert Zoellick, who insisted that the Bank ‘can do even better’ and
instructed his senior management team to reopen the competition process
and expand the list to include women and candidates with ‘a better name
recognition in the MENA region.’ The President’s instruction ‘to do even
better’ without clearly defining what that means is a telling example.
After the Bank failed to find a woman candidate who met one of the key
selection criteria for the job, ‘deep knowledge about the MENA region,’
the Bank dropped the requirement altogether. Obviously, a candidate
without knowledge of the region cannot have name recognition in the
region as an expert. Therefore, it, too, was dropped from the criteria
and Dr. Bo’s selection was ruled out and the position was given to
another candidate. This is blatant discrimination considering the
current chief economists for Latin America, East Asia and South Asia
regions are from their respective regions with name recognition.
According to the Bank’s definition, ‘discrimination takes place where
staff who are in basically similar situations are treated differently.’
Why was Dr. Bo’s appointment treated differently? Why did the search for
a candidate ‘with a better name recognition,’ presumably better than
Dr. Bo, end up selecting a candidate without name recognition? Did the
Bank ‘do even better’ by appointing a candidate who did not meet the two
abovementioned selection criteria? Did the Bank ‘do even better’ by not
appointing Dr. Bo, who met all the selection criteria?
Dr. Bo’s appointment as Chief Economist would also have served an
important diversity objective, of which the Bank’s record is nothing
short of appalling. If appointed, Dr. Bo would have been the first Chief
Economist of African descent since the inception of the World Bank over
65 years ago.
Each of the above three individuals filed discrimination complaints, but
the Tribunal summarily rejected their discrimination claims with abject
disregard for the merits of their cases. A further review of the
Tribunal’s systemic violation of the due process rights of Blacks is
presented with breathtaking evidence by Taye Abayre in an article
entitled ‘World Bank: Anatomy of a Criminal Tribunal.’ Suffice it to
say that such a persistent, pernicious pattern of denying African staff
due process in promotion cases, particularly those cases of African
staff occupying the professional levels, whether by Bank management or
its Tribunal, firmly institutionalizes the culture of obstructing
Africans from influencing global policies that affect their continent’s
destiny. Depriving Africa of the wisdom of its own professional
development experts leaves it orphaned.
