May, 06 2009, 01:08pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tillie McInnis,Domestic Communications Coordinator,202-293-5380 x117,E-mail,Dan Beeton,International Communications Coordinator,202-239-1460,E-mail
IMF Voting Shares: No Plans for Significant Changes
WASHINGTON
The
International Monetary Fund (IMF's) governance structure is much more
reflective of the world of 1944, when it was established, than of the
world today. Since 85 percent is needed in order to amend the IMF's
charter, and for some other important decisions, the United States'
16.7 percent of voting shares gives it direct veto power over much
important decision-making and potential reforms. More importantly, the
United States together with other high-income countries has a solid
majority. For the past 65 years, Europe and the rest of the high-income
world have almost always voted with the United States within the Fund.
Thus, the high-income countries effectively run the organization, with
the U.S. Treasury as the principal overseer (despite the fact that the
managing director of the IMF is by tradition a European). Low and
middle-income countries have almost no significant voice.
There have been efforts for many years to reform the governance
structure of the IMF. These finally bore fruit in the Singapore reforms
of 2006. Figures 1 and 2
show the voting shares of the IMF before and after the Singapore
reforms. As can be seen from the figures, after twelve years of efforts
by reformers, the change is very slight. The United States share fell
from 17 to 16.7 percent. China, which has the world's second largest
economy and 1.3 billion people, went from 2.9 percent to 3.6 percent.
South Korea and Singapore (combined) went from 1.2 percent to 1.7
percent. The rest of the changes were much smaller and basically
insignificant. High Income countries went from 52.7 percent to 52.3
percent, maintaining their majority control over decision-making. On
the other hand the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries
plus Mexico went from 10.1 percent to 11.1 percent. The rest of the
world (163 of 185 countries) dropped 0.5 percentage points from 37.1
percent to 36.6 percent.
Figure 1: Pre-Singapore (2006) IMF Voting Shares
* High Income Oil Producers Includes: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain
High Income Countries
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India China) Countries Plus Mexico
All Other Countries (163)
Source: IMF, 2008. "Report of the Managing Director to the
International Monetary and Financial Committee on IMF Quota and Voice
Reform." <<https://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4242> >
A number of governments have raised
objections to giving more money to the IMF without a change in its
governance structure to assure some significant representation to
countries other than the handful that currently control the Fund. At
the G-20 meeting in London on April 2, the G-20 communique included a
statement that was interpreted as saying that the head of the IMF will
no longer have to be a European. However, without a significant change
in the voting structure, it is not clear that this symbolic change will
give developing countries any more voice or lead to any significant
reforms or accountability at the Fund.
Figure 2: Post -Singapore (2006) IMF Voting Share Reforms
* High Income Oil Producers Includes: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain
High Income Countries
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India China) Countries Plus Mexico
All Other Countries (163)
Source: IMF, 2008. "Report of the Managing Director to the
International Monetary and Financial Committee on IMF Quota and Voice
Reform." <<https://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4242> >
On
April 25-26, 2009, the World Bank and IMF held their semi-annual Spring
Meetings in Washington, and the question of governance reform became
more prominent. During the Annual Meetings in Singapore in 2006, it was
agreed that there was a need for further changes. Last year the Board
of Governors of the IMF agreed on additional changes in voting shares,
but these have not yet been implemented.
Figure 3: IMF Voting Shares After Reforms Currently Under Discussion
* High Income Oil Producers Includes: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain
High Income Countries
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India China) Countries Plus Mexico
All Other Countries (163)
Source: IMF, 2008. "Report of the Managing Director to the
International Monetary and Financial Committee on IMF Quota and Voice
Reform." <<https://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4242> >
Figure 3 shows voting shares for IMF
member countries if the second round of reforms were to be
implemented. As can be seen, the changes are again very slight. The
United States keeps it's voting share of 16.7 percent. The group of
high-income countries maintains its majority, with 50.9 percent - down
1.8 percentage points from present. This majority is more than enough
to ensure their unchallenged control, since there will always be some
low- and middle-income countries that join with the high-income
countries, given the enormous disparities of wealth and power both
inside and outside of the institution. The BRIC countries plus Mexico
pick up just 0.6 percentage points, while the 163 remaining low- and
middle-income countries pick up 0.9 percentage points.
Conclusion
It is clear that the proposed changes in the voting shares of the IMF
will not significantly alter the balance of power within the
organization. This could have adverse consequences for countries that
borrow from the IMF, and are subject to its conditions. The Fund first
encountered serious pressure for reform after its mishandling of the
last set of major financial crises, which began in Asia and spread to
Russia, Brazil, Argentina, and other countries.[1]
It is difficult to find evidence that Fund officials have been held
accountable for any of the major mistakes that they made. Part of the
reason may be that the governments who control the Fund do not have any
compelling incentive to hold the Fund accountable for mistakes that
negatively impact other, less well-off countries. In fact, the
incentives are in the opposite direction: to do so could call attention
to mismanagement of the Fund, with the risk that culpability could
eventually be laid at the doorstep of the G-7 governments that are the
decision-makers.
Most recently, nine agreements negotiated by the Fund since September
of last year contain pro-cyclical conditions, despite the severity of
the current world downturn; some of these conditions would appear to be
inappropriate.[2]
The lack of governance reform could also have adverse consequences for
the rest of the world, which might benefit from reform of the IMF. For
example, the IMF publishes numerous working papers and research
articles, conducts Article IV consultations with member countries, and
twice annually publishes the World Economic Outlook, which includes
economic forecasts and analysis of current and projected trends in the
world economy.
The IMF missed the two biggest asset bubbles in the history of the
world - the U.S. stock market and housing bubbles -- despite the fact
that these were quite obvious to economists who took the time to
analyze them.[3] It has made other serious forecasting errors in specific countries and regions.[4]
It is possible that the Fund's research and analysis would also show
improvement if it were not controlled by such a narrow range of
interests.
*Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director
and Jake Johnston is an International Program Intern at the Center for
Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
1].
For a review of these policy failures and their impact on the IMF and
its relations with borrowing countries, see Weisbrot, Mark. (2007). "Ten Years After: The Lasting Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis," in Ten Years After: Revisiting the Asian Financial Crisis.
Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. p
105-118, see also, Weisbrot, Mark and Luis Sandoval. (2007). "Argentina's Economic Recovery: Policy Choices and Implications." Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.
2] Weisbrot, Mark, Jose Cordero and Luis Sandoval. (2009). "Empowering the IMF: Should Reform be a Requirement for Increasing the Fund's Resources?" Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.
3] Baker, Dean. (2002). "The Run-Up in Home Prices: Is It Real or Is It Another Bubble?" Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Baker, Dean. (1997). "Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don't Add Up." Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.
4] See Weisbrot, Mark and David Rosnick. (2007). "Political Forecasting? The IMF's Flawed Growth Projections for Argentina and Venezuela." Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research; Baker, Dean and David Rosnick. (2003). "Too Sunny In Latin America? The IMF's Overly Optimistic Growth Projections and Their Consequences." Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research; and Rosnick, David. (2009). "Troubled Assets: The IMF's Latest Projections for Economic Growth in the Western Hemisphere." Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Keep reading...Show less
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular