European Tribune

Power Struggle At The IMF

by Richard Lyon
Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 09:47:35 AM EST

The financial institutions that came out of the Bretton Woods structure are undeniably out of sync with the economic realities of the post cold war world. Previous attempts at "reform" have resulted in patch work compromises that have done little to improve the situation. We now have an interesting conflict between Washington and Europe that highlights the current differences in international agendas.

http://euobserver.com/9/22293

The EU Observer reports


EU set to lose out on US push for IMF reform

 The EU is facing an overall loss of power in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the US plans to increase the voting weight of emerging states such as China in the body.

Europe currently has over a third of the voting weights of the 184-member IMF, a key international organisation which seeks to secure monetary and economic stability around the globe notably by providing credits to states with financial problems.

But the organisation is now facing reforms strongly pushed by US president George W. Bush, boosting the decision-making powers of emerging economies such as China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

By backing Beijing's aspirations for a greater say in the IMF, Washington is primarily seeking Chinese cooperation on international economic issues, writes the New York Times.

US state secretary Timothy Adams said that China like many other fast-developing countries is "woefully underrepresented" at the IMF.

But the move is facing resistance in Europe, which traditionally holds the IMF's highest post of managing director - currently former Spanish finance minister Rodrigo Rato.

The EU's traditionally rich states particularly - such as Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries - are set to lose out if Washington's designs are seen through.

German national bank president Axel Weber last weekend warned against any preliminary concessions in the upcoming IMF power battle, which is set to come at a height at the body's annual meeting on 15-22 September in Singapore.

"We should find an overall package for a transparent and fair representation of all IMF member states. In this respect, EU states should not already put their own positions and claims for disposal at an early stage," said Mr Weber according to Handelsblatt.

But the EU also faces internal divisions on the matter, as the bloc's own fast-growing economies - such as Ireland and Spain - could actually profit from the power reshuffle sought by Washington.

One idea under discussion is to group European states' seats under one EU umbrella, but Mr Weber said it is too early for such a move.

"We believe a common EU external representation at the IMF is premature. For this, Europe should be much more strongly politically integrated," he stated.

But Jean Pisani-Ferry who leads Brussels-based think-tank Bruegel criticised the EU for its failure to speak with one voice, the BBC reports.

"There is a tendency in Europe to stick to the existing arrangements ... It's not a good strategy, it's a losing strategy."


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
From Dean Baker:


 Inviting China to the I.M.F.: Too Late

Like the exclusive WASP-only country club that opens the door to blacks and Jews after it can no longer raise the money to fix the roof, the I.M.F. is inviting China to play a larger role. The problem is that it is far too late to invite China to be a junior partner in this U.S. dominated institution, a fact that would be more apparent if reporters recognized the true size of China's economy.

The I.M.F. has been used by the United States to enforce a creditors' cartel against countries that did not follow an economic path that fit the interests of major U.S. corporations. The basic story is that the I.M.F. would lay out an economic program and if countries didn't follow it, they would be denied credit by not only the I.M.F., but also the much larger World Bank, as well as other international development agencies. In general the private sector would follow suit. The power of the I.M.F. was best illustrated in the East Asian financial crisis, when it imposed harsh conditions, requiring governments in the region to assume responsibility for the debt of private companies to major western banks.

The world has changed since the mid-nineties, as is best illustrated by the case of Argentina. After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001, the I.M.F. tried to impose its usual harsh "rescue" package, but the country balked. Instead it managed to circumvent the creditors' cartel, and has now experienced four years of exceptionally strong growth.

Argentina's success was a huge blow to the I.M.F.'s credibility. Furthermore, with China sitting on $1 trillion in liquid reserves, and feeling no compunction to adhere to the I.M.F's assessment of sound economic policy in its lending practices, the I.M.F. faces a rapid slide into irrelevancy.

This is the context in which China is being invited into the club. But, there seems little reason that a country with a GDP that is approaching $10 trillion, and whose economy will surpass the size of the U.S. economy in less than a decade, should be anxious to accept the role of junior partner in a dying institution.

--Dean Baker

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 11:35:05 AM EST
The financial elite of Western Europe have been very willing participants in the Washington consensus. Collectively they have more votes than the US and have been given the perk of supplying the head of the IMF while the US controls the head of the World Bank. It's been very much a joint effort. However, what is interesting about the latest proposal is that the tokens being offered to China are coming at the expense of major European powers. I think this is all patch work that isn't going to change things.

 What's really needed is a new Bretton Woods conference to design a new global financial system from scratch. That's not likely to happen. Bretton Woods resulted in a somewhat coherent system for the time because the US had most of the money in the world in 1944. They dictated a system that served their interest. When power and resources in the world financial system began to diversify in the 1970s that system started to break down.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 11:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Technically the very-well-paid economists that engineered the bloody mess in many countries are desesperate to keep their job (IMF and World Bank), they need to make loans to get money...

No one wants their money and  advice anymore and governments all over the place (many left-wing in eg: south america) have done well to cut all ties with those bastards.

China will do bilateral deals anyway (see Venezuela), since USA strong protectionism keep them for spending their dollars on USA assets.

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 02:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly their "wisdom" for promoting development has been pretty thoroughly discredited. The IMF is supposed to have a function of stabilizing international currency exchange. That seems to me like something that needs to be done by somebody. The chances of that being designed as a truly independent international institution don't look very good.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 02:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read the books by William Easterly and Joseph Stiglitz on their experiences at the World Bank (and indirectly with the IMF) to see how things are changing.

Easterly's newest book "The White Man's Burden" goes into great detail as to why corruption and top down project design have failed to achieve any real progress in the developing world.

There may be a hitch in progress until Wolfowitz leaves. He represents the last of the old guard and will try to prevent meaningful change.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 01:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, so the US wants to reduce the EU's voting power at the IMF. If I am not mistaken, the IMF and World Bank are configured so that the US makes, by itself, a blocking minority [i.e., it has veto power]. I presume the US intends to keep that veto power?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 2nd, 2006 at 06:44:46 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]