World Bank searches for meaning of its existence

PAUL Romer's departure last week as chief economist of the World Bank is not an event about just one man and his former job. His exit was undoubtedly influenced by individual factors, but it also illustrates broad challenges for the bank as an institution.

Mr Romer is, to put it bluntly, a contentious man. A celebrated researcher of economic growth, he has spent years vigorously attacking the ideas of his doctoral adviser, macroeconomist Robert Lucas, and the very field of macroeconomics itself. At the World Bank, his tenure has been marked by heated disputes, including one over how many times the word "and" should be used in official communications.

That sort of approach can be very useful in an academic setting. Indeed, many of Mr Romer's criticisms of macroeconomics were truths that others in the field had been afraid to speak (though I am not so sure about his grammatical advice). But when it comes to navigating the complex bureaucracy of an institution like the World Bank, perfectionism, bluntness and prickly precision are not necessarily the most endearing traits.