The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank.
The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank. strongly agree
The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank. agree
The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank. not sure
The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank. disagree
The status quo should continue: the U.S. should maintain its customary prerogative of seeking World Bank Board approval for a single American candidate, after informal consultations with other shareholders, in order to help ensure U.S. support for the World Bank. strongly disagree
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens).
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens). strongly agree
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens). agree
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens). not sure
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens). disagree
The process should evolve: the U.S. should continue to play a dominant role, for example, by presenting a list of candidates for Board consideration (which could include both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens). strongly disagree
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board.
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board. strongly agree
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board. agree
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board. not sure
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board. disagree
A new process should be formalized: the Board should appoint an eminent persons group to conduct a search and present a limited number of qualified candidates to the Board. strongly disagree
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.)
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.) strongly agree
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.) agree
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.) not sure
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.) disagree
The bank’s members should agree on a voting process (variations of which are used at the Inter-American and the Asian Development Banks) in which, for example, a candidate would need to receive both a majority of the country members’ votes and a majority of the voting shares. (For example, the U.S. would have one vote as a country but 14% of the voting shares.) strongly disagree
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality.
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality. strongly agree
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality. agree
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality. not sure
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality. disagree
The U.S. prerogative to name the World Bank president and the European prerogative to name the head of the IMF should be replaced by a selection process that is open, competitive and merit-based, without regard to nationality. strongly disagree
