Businessday :: News you can trust

The International Monetary Fund  (IMF) and the World Bank have  emerged from the global economic  crisis as very important and critical institutions to the global economy. The institutions helped in coordinating the response to the crisis, and led some of the responses themselves. Through the activities of these institutions, and their collaboration with governments, both in developed and developing countries, the impact of crisis has been minimized. However, the strongest supporters of these institutions will agree that reforms are needed because the ongoing global economic crisis has sufficiently exposed the inadequacies of the IMF. These inadequacies must be corrected in the expected reforms.
The dynamism of the Breton Woods institutions has been demonstrated by relevant changes it had made to the way it does business, changing with the economic reality of the day. Just as the global economy has often evolved, we have seen in the last two decades tremendous changes in the global economy, trade, investment and capital flow. 
The world economy has seen superb growth in China and India which has so much impact on the level of poverty in these countries. Many other developing countries have also emerged. The integration of all the economies of the world is much stronger than would have been imagined two decades ago. The new IMF and the World Bank must reflect these changes in the global economic landscape.
The on-going economic crisis has exposed the best and the worst of IMF. It showed IMF as the only institution still able to lead the coordination of the international monetary system, especially in times of crisis. However, it exposed the fund as lacking adequate mandate and resources for the purpose. Any reform of the fund must ensure its new mandate is sufficient to forestall or manage any future financial crisis. In times of crisis, IMF needs to be seen as the fulcrum around which international monetary and financial system revolves.
Many developing countries allege that IMF lectures them, rather than listens to them. First, most of the economic policies dictated to them have failed because of the fund's inflexibility. The structural adjustment programme, with many of its important policy contents for developing countries failed on grounds of inflexibility, sequencing and ignorance of the fundamental structure of these economies. Also, most of the macroeconomic imbalances of the last decade emerged after the IMF bungled the response to the Asian 1997 crisis. While it is generally recognized that IMF has learnt from this mistake, it will take consistent and deliberate measures of a new IMF for developing countries to regard it as partner, rather than a protector of western interest. In our opinion, one way to regain the confidence of the developing countries will be for the IMF engage them in the coming reforms. 
The goal of the international monetary system remains global economic stability. This role has become more important as monetary exchange becomes critical on the heels of increases in capital, investment and trade flows. The mechanism for this is the exchange rates in many countries. How these rates are "managed" will continue to increase in importance, and the IMF must be seen to help stabilize this. Alongside this is the issue of liquidity problems that sometimes emerge in some countries when faced with deficit problems, even in the absence of any form of international crisis. 
We suggest that IMF should intensify changes to quota rights in the IMF. Quota rights in the fund dictate power relations, and it is important that it reflects not only the changing economic landscape in the global economy, but also reflects the use of IMF resources. On this score, we welcome the decision of the group of 20 to agree to work on the redistribution of about three percent of voting power in the IMF and five percent in the World Bank. To us, a comprehensive and flexible reform is what is most needed at the IMF at this time.