Robert Zoellick was welcomed yesterday as the man who could draw a line under the recent crisis as the World Bank.

Opponents of Paul Wolfowitz during his presidency of the bank largely applauded Mr Zoellick’s nomination by President Bush, hoping that it would help to restore the reputation of an organisation that was tainted by the regime of his predecessor.

Pending confirmation by the board of the lender to the developing world, Mr Zoellick will start on June 30.

“Mr Zoellick is certainly the right man for the job,” Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said, referring to Mr Wolfowitz’s two years in charge as a “dark chapter”.

A spokesman for the British Department for International Development described Mr Zoellick, 53, as a “very credible candidate”.

The German Government, a key opponent of Mr Wolfowitz, threw its weight behind the nomination and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said that she was impressed by Mr Zoellick, noting that “he’s sensitive to the alleviation of poverty”.

The reaction contrasted starkly with Mr Wolfowitz’s appointment in 2005, which was widely opposed by European leaders because his background was thought to be versed in war rather than in poverty reduction. Although Mr Wolfowitz joined the bank after four years as US Deputy Secretary of Defence, during which he was defined by his role as a key architect of the Iraq war, Mr Zoellick is regarded as a leading light of the Doha Round of talks designed to promote free trade between countries, rich and poor.

Mr Wolfowitz’s presidency was notable for his single-minded pursuit of an ideology – corruption was his primary bugbear – and he shunned many regimes that he perceived to be rife with bribery in a manner that many Europeans believed was heavy-handed and at odds with the bank’s primary role of reducing poverty.

When it emerged that Mr Wolfowitz had arranged a substantial pay rise for Shaha Riza, his girlfriend and a World Bank employee, his opponents saw their chance, and, after a fight, he resigned on May 17.

Mr Zoellick is thought to more realistic about the political cultures of the countries that the World Bank seeks to help and is willing to adapt his stance to achieve the best outcome under the circumstances.

His management approach is thought to contrast with that of Mr Wolfowitz, who alienated many long-time senior World Bank staff members by circumventing them and working with a tight-knit group of former Bush advisers. Zoellick’s presentational skills are not silky-smooth. He can be abrasive, but he is a consensus-builder who canvasses the opinions of colleagues.

James Lucier, a senior political analyst at Prudential, said that despite the differences between Mr Zoellick and Mr Wolfowitz, they shared fundamentally similar views.

“No one ever got fired for buying an IBM,” Mr Lucier said. “Zoellick has an unimpeachable brand name, an impeccable résumé, and no one could ever be challenged for appointing him.

“But he, like Wolfowitz, is part of the Vulcan group of neo-con advisers that worked on Bush’s 2000 campaign. He is more pragmatic and more politic, but he is just as likely to shine a spotlight on the dark recesses of Africa or an inept government as Wolfowitz.

“But he won’t do it in an unpalatable way and won’t draw attention to himself while he does it.”

Times Recommends

• Housing gloom deepens as prices plunge 12.7%
• Nestle outsider to head Unilever
• BP's Dudley exits in Russian shake-up