Day 5: Open Letter to the Boards of the WB and IMF

Today’s open letter is addressed to the Executive Directors of the World Bank and the IMF. It asks the question the governance debate rarely puts directly: who is accountable for the outcomes of what these Boards approve?

The World Bank has committed $119.8 billion to Sub-Saharan Africa since 2015. $89.1 billion — 74 percent — went to projects rated below Satisfactory by IEG. In fragile and conflict-affected states globally, $58.2 billion has been committed to evaluated projects, of which $41.6 billion — 71 percent — was rated below Satisfactory. Every dollar was approved by a Board. No Board member has been asked to account for the gap.

The IMF Board approved $170 billion in COVID emergency financing across 88 countries. Its own Independent Evaluation Office described the governance framework as a checklist. Its own Legal Department subsequently documented budget losses of 20–30 percent in individual countries across 50 recipients. The largest single disbursement in Sub-Saharan Africa was $3.4 billion to Nigeria. The Accountant General was convicted in 2024. The repayment was collected in full. The IMF Board has not been asked to account for the gap between what it approved and what it delivered.

The structural reason is straightforward: a Board that co-approves every loan cannot independently scrutinise its failure without implicating its own prior endorsement. The Zedillo Commission identified this in 2009 and recommended a non-resident Board. Seventeen years later nothing has changed. The resident Board costs an estimated $100 million per year. The AIIB manages with a non-resident Board for approximately $5 million. The question is whether the current structure is delivering sufficient accountability value to justify the cost differential.