Kristalina Georgiewa remains head of the International Monetary Fund, despite the inconsistencies in the data scandal.

The country representatives in the IMF find the evidence of Georgia’s data manipulation in favor of China not strong enough to warrant a change in leadership.

As a reminder: The World Bank, sister organization of the IMF, had found irregularities in the data of its important doing business report after information from employees.

After extensive inspection of documents and numerous testimonies, renowned lawyers incriminated Georgieva and especially their Bulgarian compatriot Simeon Djankow, his country's former finance minister.

This was never relieved and went underground.

According to insiders like the former World Bank chief economist Paul Romer, he was her right-hand man, the man for the rough.

It is incomprehensible that Georgieva gets away with this connection.

She obviously knows how to deal with the IMF's stakeholders.

As always, decisions about how to run multilateral organizations are overshadowed by political considerations.

Europeans with an unfortunate role

It is never just about whether a candidate is capable and decent.

In this case, the Europeans, led by the French, played an unfortunate role.

They had Georgieva at the top of the IMF - as part of a carefully balanced staffing board that promoted the old IMF boss Christine Lagarde to the head of the ECB and Ursula von der Leyen to the head of the EU Commission.

Georgieva's promotion was intended as compensation for Eastern European countries.

Politicians don't like to touch such tables.

In addition, there was evidently the concern that other continents might now dispute the informal privilege of Europeans to decide who should fill the top IMF post.

A positive result of the data affair can be seen in the fact that the World Bank and the Monetary Fund, together with their extensive literature, have been demystified.

Anyone who now assumes objectivity is naive.

However, one has to doubt whether, after this form of “processing”, there will still be employees in the future who will publicize grievances as whistleblowers.