The role of the IMF

The basis of this discussion is that Mervin King suggested the IMF should become a non-resident board, IMF might be in charge of lending decisions, but the management should be much more independent. Thomas Mirow, President of ERDB, recommends to be cautious. “All that is decided, has daily impact on the people.” To think “the people will just be doing fine” would be naive (err… that’s an Erkenntnis, innit?) - regards Bretton Woods II that means that it would not be recommendable to spend too much time in creating novel institutions, more important is cooperation, regional integration. “We should not think that a college of wise man would be in a situation to govern the world.” (Laughter or jewellery rattling from the audience) Thanks for acknowledging.

On the other hand, Werder di Mauro sees that the advantages to more independence in banking supervision - towards accountability - would be logical to extend this to international institutions. I’d say she probably wants to be one of those wise women. Global vs regional coordination, it seems.

Jong-Wha Lee from South Korea sees the fundamental problem in governance and accountability. How do EU-countries report? They seem to be calling the shots. And, at the same time, a number of them are debtors. Why are Asian countries not included in decisionmaking of IMF? At the same time, “we support the increase of the financial importance, but IMF its not a regulator: without private capital influx, this will not be successful.”

Mirow makes another point towards his regional approach: A lot of banks think about leaving economies where they have made a lot of money: they should stick to them, because fundamentally they are good, and politically it would be a catastrophy. This is, what Köhler just earlier meant with  “Anstand”, making a plea to responsibility.

Seems they got the picture - or at least they are debating it?

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.