Robert Zoellick announced on February 17 that he would not seek a second mandate as president of the World Bank. Little has been heard since from Washington or Brussels about possible replacements. Does this mean there is some hesitation in the US administration about which American to nominate? Or does it mean that the unwritten convention, allocating the leadership of the IMF and the Bank respectively to Europe and the US, is at last giving way to the idea that the World Bank should be managed by the most qualified person, whatever his or her origin?

As chief economists and senior vice-presidents of the World Bank from 1997 to 2007, we urge the US administration and the international development community to end an outdated and counterproductive monopoly on selecting the head of that global institution. We believe it is time to adopt an open and efficient selection procedure, clearly open to candidates from developing countries. And it is time that the pious declarations of commitment to such a process showed some sincerity. To say it is merit-based, and to choose an American repeatedly, shows scant respect to the citizens of other countries.

Developed countries have a majority of voting shares in the World Bank and the IMF, and so control the leadership of these institutions. We are now close to the turning point where developing countries will represent half of real global output. They already drive global growth. More important, the developing countries represent 6bn of the 7bn world population.