The president of the World Bank (WB), David Malpass, informed the Executive Board of the organization on Wednesday of his intention to leave office by June 30.
"This afternoon I met with the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank Group and informed them of my intention to leave by June 30 of this fiscal year. It has been an honor and privilege to serve as President of the World Bank," Malpass wrote in his twitter account.
In a WB statement, Malpass himself explains that he wants to "pursue new challenges." Nominated by former US President Donald Trump (2017-2021), he held the position since April 2019.
"It has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve as president of the world's leading development institution alongside so many talented and exceptional people," Malpass said in a statement posted on the bank's website.
The last four years, he points out, "have been some of the most significant of my career", during which time "I have made a lot of progress", he says. "After thinking about it a lot, I have decided to pursue new challenges," adds the American economist (Michigan, 1956).
In the message, he thanks the staff of the development bank and its board of directors for "the privilege of working with them every day to strengthen the effectiveness of our operations in the most difficult moments."
Malpass will step down on June 30 and expects "a smooth leadership transition" as the World Bank works "to address growing global challenges and to facilitate private investment."
Malpass's role was called into question after he repeatedly avoided answering in a panel discussion last September whether he recognized the scientific consensus that humans burning fossil fuels were "warming up the planet rapidly and dangerously."
"I don't even know, I'm not a scientist and that's not a question," he told a New York Times meeting at Climate Week in New York, a response that led some climate activists to call for his resignation.
Malpass later acknowledged that his words were unfortunate and that when asked if he was a climate change denier he should have clearly said "no."
The economist also generated controversy after reaching the post, since before that he had stood out for his criticism of that institution, alleging, for example, that the only ones who benefit from their credits are those who fly first class "to give advice to governments ".
