Global Development: Views from the Center
« World Bank to double aid to Pakistan -- Will the money help? | Main | CGD Workshop Explores Economic Performance of the World's Youngest Democracies »
June 13, 2006
IMF, Heal Thyself! (Why Daniel Bradlow's Diagnosis is Mostly Right)
Posted by David Goldsbrough at 03:34 PM
Professor Daniel Bradlow presented his ideas for reforming the IMF at a workshop on Friday organized by the New Rules for Global Finance coalition. Based on his paper - The Changing Role of the IMF in the Governance of the Global Economy and its Consequences (pdf) - he argued that the IMF has slowly mutated from a global monetary organization into a macro-economically oriented development financing institution but has not yet sufficiently recognized the implications of these changes. As a result, its decision-making and governance structures, and its existing interpretation of its mandate, no longer fit well with its current functions. He identifies five consequent “distortions” that are undermining its effectiveness:
- legal problems such as the principle of uniformity of member treatment and the lack of clarity of how political considerations are taken into account in IMF decisions;
- relations with industrialized countries, which he notes are now only suppliers of financing to the IMF, with little need to heed its advice;
- relations with those developing countries that are heavy consumers of IMF financing, where the IMF, in its gatekeeper role, has become much more heavily involved in the policy dialogue without corresponding changes in its way of doing business and accountability,
- relations with citizens of member countries (where there is no effective accountability now that the range of policy discussions has stretched well beyond ministries of finance and central banks, and where clear channels of communication for non-state actors are lacking); and
- relations with other international organizations.
In discussing the possible solutions to these underlying problems, Bradlow rejects the option of abolishing the IMF as unrealistic, since an increasingly integrated global financial system needs an international institution with the appropriate mandate. But he argues that a focus on changing specific IMF policies, without addressing the problems with the governance structure that determines these policies will be insufficient. Instead, he recommends comprehensive reforms based on the same principles of good governance--transparency, participation, effectiveness, and accountability--that the IMF itself advocates for national and sub-national governments. He divides the reforms into a short, medium, and long-term agenda, but in each case they would include (1) actions to make the IMF more responsive to its developing country member states (including changes in the voting structure); (2) making the IMF more accountable (including full transparency of Board discussions); (3) clarification of the IMF mandate (which may include a reconsideration of the division of responsibilities with the World Bank); and (4) actions to improve coordination with other international agencies.
I think Bradlow is right that the IMF’s structure and operating practices are out of line with its current functions. But while many of the reforms he recommends--especially the changes in the structure of the Board--would improve the situation, the functions also need to be reexamined. In particular, the IMF’s surveillance role needs to be strengthened to give it greater relevance to the whole membership. The IMF has already begun some modest steps in this direction, but more is needed. Otherwise, the IMF's future will indeed be limited to that of as a “macro-economically oriented development institution”.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/470
Comments
I think the IMF should ultimately be disbanded and abolished. There are so many government clubs now -- IMF, WB, UN, OECD, WTO, ADB, AfDB, APEC, ASEAN, MERCUSOR, various other regional and bilateral clubs of governments. Such international and regional clubs cost money to taxpayers, and national and international bureaucrats and apparatchiks endlessly spend such tax money, from fat salaries to endless travels and conferences.
Many governments in the world, both rich and poor countries, are fiscally irresponsible. They spend more than what they can collect from taxes and privatization, so they borrow and borrow left and right. Nowadays, irresponsible poor governments cannot borrow much rich governments because the G7 countries's governments, for instance, are themselves highly indebted. So, those irresponsible governments borrow from private bondholders, and the IMF is not being looked up much by bondholders to provide the macroeconomic scanning, but the ratings agencies and the big investment banks.
Not much relevance for IMF and many other government clubs. The money of taxpayers siphoned off by governments to sustain those international bureaucracies are better spent by taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, so they can take care of themselves and their families, rather than be dependent on various subsidies from highly-indebted and fiscally-irresponsible governments.
Posted by: Nonoy Oplas at June 20, 2006 09:18 PM