Wednesday, October 22, 2014


Press Release: Global Financial Institutions Doing Little to Nothing to Reduce Inequality

October 8, 2014


In spite of warm words about the need for inclusive growth and shared prosperity, the global financial institutions are doing little or nothing to combat inequality, and in some respects are exacerbating it. This is the main conclusion of the 2014 Global Financial Governance and Impact Report, released by New Rules for Global Finance (and 15 other organizations), to be released on October 8th.
Jo Marie Griesgraber, Director of New Rules for Global Finance, said: “Inequality is worsening in rich and poor countries alike. The world requires financial institutions and rules which will ignite and maintain sustainable, inclusive growth.  The G20 needs to wake up and exercise the leadership it claims for itself.”

The Report evaluates the leading global financial rule-making entities:  the G20, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and this year for tax rule-making, the OECD. It asks what impact they are having on reducing inequality, especially in developing countries, and finds two institutions with marginal positive impact, two virtually none and one marginally negative.

The IMF and FSB score highest (2.2 out of 4, marginally positive effect).  The IMF has encouraged slightly higher government spending to combat inequality, and led global thinking (through speeches and research) on the need for redistribution and more progressive tax policies: but it has yet to deliver consistent policy advice so tax, spending, employment and financial systems all combat inequality. The FSB has made considerable progress in generating consensus to regulate “Over the Counter Derivatives” and establish a Global Legal Entity Identifier System (GLEIS) to trace owners of financial entities, but less progress on cross-border crisis resolution, stopping “too big to fail” and regulating “shadow banking”.

The OECD and World Bank score only 2 (no discernible net effect). The OECD is making modest progress on curtailing illicit flows and tax evasion, and supporting (with the IMF) increased tax collection, but has made little progress on tax avoidance, avoiding tax wars or promoting progressive tax policies. It is not “fit for purpose” to coordinate global tax practices because its exclusive membership serves the wealthy countries and gives the poorest no decision-making power. The World Bank has recently recommitted to fight extreme poverty and inequality, and has a positive commitment to universal education and health care. However, its policy assessment frameworks (notably Doing Business) and lending conditions, and its private sector support via the IFC, are in some respects (on tax and labor) exacerbating inequality. 

The poorest performer is the G20 (1.9).  It deserves some credit for reopening debate about global tax reform, but is neither monitoring nor acting against rising inequality, deteriorating labor conditions and falling real wages, in its member states or in developing countries.  As it currently controls the mandates of the other organizations, it must take primary responsibility for lack of progress in fighting inequality.

The report also finds that a key reason for inaction is relatively poor governance of these institutions. They are not transparent enough, do not (especially in OECD, G20 and FSB) have enough representation of low income countries, and are not accountable or responsible enough to civil society or citizens.

The report therefore recommends measures by all institutions to monitor and combat inequality, especially progressive fiscal policies, social protection floors and improved labor conditions and wages. The most dramatic recommendation is to establish a new World Tax Authority to fight “tax wars”, combat tax avoidance more effectively, and ensure companies pay their taxes in the poorest countries.

John Christensen of the Tax Justice network says:

“For decades powerful OECD countries have tolerated profit shifting, tax wars and tax havens which undermine the development of poorer countries. The case for a globally accountable World Tax Authority capable of setting effective rules for taxing transnational companies is utterly compelling.”


For more information on the report, contact Nathan Coplin at (810)348-3165 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
For more information about New Rules for Global Finance, please visit

Holding the IMF and Governments Accountable for Subsidy Reform

IMF Findings for Subsidy Reform in Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducted a study that identified factors for successful subsidy reform in MENA. These factor should be considered the minimum Governments and the IMF should be held accountable to these minimum standards when developing subsidy reforms.

The IMF focused on aspects particularly relevant for MENA – namely political economy factors (type of government), macroeconomic environment and fiscal pressures, and social safety nets and mitigating measures. The IMF gathered 22 country case studies with 28 reform periods.

The IMF defines a reform as successful if it leads to a durable increase in prices of subsidized goods, thus reducing fiscal costs and freeing resources to better support the poor, even if it does not fully bring up prices to international levels. The IMF recommends developing well-targeted measures to mitigate the impact of price increases on the poor, a crucial component for building public support for subsidy reforms. The IMF does not discuss how to design effective mitigation measures, but this should be done in close consultation with civil society and impacted communities.

How the IMF judges the success of a reform:

o   Unsuccessful (Score=0): reform attempts were short-lived (the initial price increase was reversed or reduced)

o   Partially Successful (Score=1): initial price adjustments at time of implementation of the reform were sustained and/or when there were significant adjustments of domestic prices but not enough to reduce the price gap

o   Successful (Score=2): the initial price adjustment was followed by additional adjustments leading to a significant reduction of the subsidy burden and the price gap

Key Factors for Successful Subsidy Reform

Factors essential to successful subsidy reform:
*associated with a successful outcome in 100% of cases

1.     Cash and in-kind transfers were granted

2.     Other mitigation measures (e.g. social safety nets) were implemented

3.     Subsidies targeted specific groups

4.     Government ownership and commitment is strong

5.     Government tried to build consensus

6.     Government developed communication strategy and undertook a public information campaign

Other factors that the IMF highlights as having very high rates of success:

§  Sufficient analysis of subsidy incidence is associated with a successful outcome in 86% of cases

§  Gradual price increases are associated with a successful outcome in 75% of cases

§  Technical assistance by international partners is associated with a successful outcome in 88% of cases

6 Factors in Successful Subsidy Reform

Factor for Success


Case Studies & Indicators

Good reform preparation, gradual pace of adjustment, and breadth of reform

Well prepared reforms which draw on accurate diagnostics and allow for gradual pacing

1983 reform of subsidies on cereals in Tunisia, where a 100 percent price increase led to riots and forced the cancellation of the price increases

Sufficient analysis of subsidy incidence, which contributes to good policy discussion and targeting of mitigating measures

86% of the cases where the authorities conducted an incidence analysis were associated with a successful outcome

Gradual pace of reform (versus a shock approach)

·         subsidy is phased out slowly (5 years or more)

·         Price increases are modest (less than 50%)

Case studies indicated that gradual price increases (defined as less than 50% at the start of the reform) are more likely to be successful. 75% of the cases where price increases were gradual were associated with a successful outcome

Breadth of reform: more comprehensive of a scope, targeting a wide range of fuel or food products. In the case of fuel products, the development of substitute forms of energy is often effective when the new product offers a lower-cost alternative that also has economic benefits. When countries are not ready to implement a comprehensive subsidy reform, phasing in price increases and sequencing them differently across energy products may be appropriate

Examples include reforms that improve service delivery or product availability in exchange for tariff and price increases, such as electricity tariff adjustment and power sector restructuring in Mauritania

Strong government leadership and consensus building

Effective communication strategy that underlines the costs of the subsidy, who benefits from it, what are the reform benefits, and why other options for assisting the poor (other than subsidies) are better. Comparison with peer countries more advanced in the reform process can be useful

A well-planned communications strategy is essential to help generate broad political and public support. For example, a government awareness campaign preceded price adjustments in Tunisia’s 1991 successful food subsidy reform. Newspapers also focused on the weight of food subsidies on the budget and compared food prices in Tunisia with those in neighboring countries

Stakeholder consultation and consensus building: parliament outreach plays a positive role in reform. Outreach to influential beneficiaries, who are directly affected by subsidy reform, is also necessary to manage vested interests

For example, fuel subsidies may be intended to lower transportation, heating, and cooking costs for the poor but may actually have benefits that accrue to only a limited segment of society (and not necessarily the intended target group) – policymakers must consult with these key stakeholders

Transparency: communication is more credible when accompanied by a systematic effort at improving transparency overall. Transparency helps avoid conflicts of interest, reduces the power of vested interest groups, and allows for identification of political and economic relationships

In the case of fuel, it is useful to explain the composition of the prices at the pump and corresponding tax, the size of subsidies, and the functioning of automatic pricing mechanisms

Introduction of mitigating measures to soften the impact of the reform on the poor

Reforms were more successful when governments introduced measures to mitigate the impact of the price increase on the poor and most vulnerable. For this reason, the introduction of alternative measures, appropriately designed to mitigate impact on those most affected by subsidy removal, is crucial

One means for doing so would be compensating the immediate impact of the subsidy removal in the short term and replacing the subsidy model of social support with a different model centered on targeted social safety nets in the longer term. These measures can include cash and in-kind transfers. Mitigation measures are associated with successful outcomes in 100% of cases

Reform follow-up: governments must keep the reform momentum to resist the push-back from the vested interests that are likely to mobilize when the effects begin to be felt

In Iran, the reform was preceded by a broad communication campaign to educate the population on the growing costs of low energy prices. However, following its implementation, the government did not provide equally extensive public official information about the de facto implementation and outcome of the reform which limited the program’s success

Support from international partners, particularly technical assistance

Collaboration with and support from international partners such as international financial institutions, multilateral agencies, and donors can be essential. They provide political legitimacy, peer pressure, research and technical assistance, sharing of best practices, establishment of rules, financial support, and increased accountability

88% of the cases where the reform was undertaken with technical assistance were associated with a successful outcome

Favorable economic conditions, particularly higher economic growth


Reforms launched in the context of low growth were less successful than reforms undertaken in an environment of high economic activity

Inflation and international commodity prices

A high level of initial inflation was associated with least successful outcome. Commodity prices do not seem to play a significant role

Public finances

Reforms have been more successful when they are part of a broad-based fiscal strategy to reduce fiscal deficits and free resources toward social spending and infrastructure

Presence of a coalition government at the time of reform

Political conditions

More successful reforms were associated with a multiparty government. Under a minority government, reforms are less likely to be revered because their implementation likely required support of the opposition


IMF Releases Preliminary Considerations for Lending Framework and Sovereign Debt

The IMF has released a paper detailing the preliminary considerations for the Fund’s lending framework and sovereign debt following the Executive Board’s June 13 discussion on the issue. Here are some brief highlights/analysis:

1)      The paper proposes an alternative to restructuring sovereign debt that will permit the Fund to finance member countries under its exceptional access policy. The proposed approach – which the Executive Board strongly supports – is a “reprofiling” of sovereign debt. Reprofiling is limited in nature and a “light touch approach,” under which there will be a “short extension” of maturities, but no reduction in the principal or interest.

2)      Creditors will still be required to agree to this operation and the transparency of negotiations between the Fund, the sovereign and the creditors will be critical to ensure that the terms – regarding both reprofiling and adjustment measures – protect all actors, especially the citizens of the affected country. Collective action problems may still exist under this method but the IMF indicates that collective action clauses (CACs) will remain a solution to this issue.

3)      Countries in debt distress will be required to accompany the limited reprofiling with a “strong adjustment program” in order to restore market access and debt sustainability. The Fund envisions that this adjustment program will include fiscal consolidation, but that these measures will be less harsh (less procyclical) than similar adjustments paths that are undergone without reprofiling. The reprofiling method is expected to allow a buffer so that the governments can put forward moderate adjustment measures as opposed to severe ones. The IMF claims that this operation would help to propel growth and reduce economic dislocation.

4)      The paper also states that the “systemic exemption” to the fund’s 2002 lending framework could possibly be eliminated, the reasons for this being that it is seen to be “inequitable” and “excessively open-ended”. More importantly, the Fund asserts that the unevenness and uncertainty that arise from this exemption worsens issues and risks of contagion.

To read the entire document, click here: ”The Fund’s Lending Framework and Sovereign Debt – Preliminary Considerations

Launch of Consultation on Sovereign Debt


CIGI commissions New Rules for Global Finance Coalition to initiate global consultations on sovereign debt restructuring

Waterloo, Ontario – June 16, 2014The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) will task the New Rules for Global Finance Coalition (New Rules) with leading collective consultations with global civil society on sovereign debt restructuring.

New Rules will leverage its extensive network from across global civil society to solicit views through online consultations, and international webinars and conferences. The new online forum will allow CIGI experts to input policy relevant research into an international forum of civil society representatives and receive direct feedback from across global civil society.

In addition to the online consultations, CIGI-led workshops will, in the coming 12 months, bring leading experts and policymakers together at regional conferences to discuss major policy developments in the area of sovereign debt restructuring. The global consultations will start on July 1, 2014, and run for one year, to ensure that global civil society can effectively shape their content. They will be triggered by an issues paper and will result in a final consultation report. The drafts will be extensively reviewed and commented on at various stages throughout the global consultative process. The final report will be presented at the margins of the October 2015 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Lima, Peru.

“CIGI’s mandate to New Rules is a unique model of global consultation that solicits civil society views in a real-time environment and on a key issue as it is being discussed in major policymaking forums,” said Domenico Lombardi, Director of CIGI’s Global Economy Research Program. “Such consultations build, and aim to provide input, on the ongoing and important work that the IMF is leading, yet they remain clearly independent of it.”

“New Rules is enthusiastic about this opportunity to engage global civil society in one of the core issues of international economic justice: sovereign indebtedness,” said Jo Marie Griesgraber, New Rules Executive Director. “The IMF’s discussions on a third way to deal with private sector debt are most welcome, while the US Supreme Court’s decision not to review the ‘vulture fund’ decision of a lower US court are most discouraging. New Rules and global civil society welcome this opportunity CIGI provides to engage in what promises to be a substantive conversation.”

Declan Kelly, Communications Specialist, CIGI
Tel: 519.885.2444, ext. 7356, Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Nathan Coplin, Deputy Executive Director, New Rules
Tel: 810-348-3165, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) is an independent, non-partisan think tank on international governance. Led by experienced practitioners and distinguished academics, CIGI supports research, forms networks, advances policy debate and generates ideas for multilateral governance improvements. Conducting an active agenda of research, events and publications, CIGI’s interdisciplinary work includes collaboration with policy, business and academic communities around the world. CIGI was founded in 2001 by Jim Balsillie, then co-CEO of Research In Motion (BlackBerry), and collaborates with and gratefully acknowledges support from a number of strategic partners, in particular the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. For more information, please visit

New Rules for Global Finance is a 501(3)c non-profit organization that promotes reforms in the rules and institutions that govern international finance; in order to support just, inclusive and sustainable economic development. For more information, please visit

Development Groups Urge IMF to Protect Poor in Debt Workouts

June 12, 2014

Board of Executive Directors

Office of the Executive Director

International Monetary Fund

1900 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20431

Dear Member of the Board,

As you are aware, the IMF Executive Board is engaging in conversations around the Fund’s Lending Framework and

Sovereign Debt policy. During this discussion, we strongly encourage you and your peers on the Board to debate

how international debt restructuring can be independent, comprehensive, transparent, predictable, accountable

and arbitrated neutrally.

We understand that in initial conversations, solutions are sought to limit or eliminate extreme predatory and

hold-out behavior that violates global debt relief policies, debt restructuring and sound operation of the financial

system. We welcome your efforts on these extreme issues and your further discussions of supporting solutions to

international financial crises.

The global economy is still fragile and recovery remains uneven. Many countries, in an effort to restore economic

growth, have sought external financing. This has led to a buildup of sovereign debt. This is a particular concern for

emerging markets and developing economies, which have already endured the financial crisis and its subsequent

monetary easing, currency fluctuations and speculative activity of investors.

As an Executive Director at the IMF, you understand these problems and the consequences they have for sovereign

debt. If countries trying to finance development experience turmoil – either economic or political – and need to

restructure their debt, what are they to do?

We need a reliable process to resolve debt crises. We both lead organizations that work to ensure that finance

serves all of us, not just the interests of a few. IMF Executive Board discussions must move beyond the position of

creditors and consider the positions of those who ultimately pay the price for sovereign debt crises – the poorest

and most vulnerable.


Jo Marie Griesgraber, Ph.D, Executive Director, New Rules for Global Finance

Eric LeCompte, Executive Director, Jubilee USA


Press release: IMF begins to make good promise of inclusion


June 6, 2014

IMF Begins to Make Good on Promise of Inclusion


IMF Includes Civil Society in Myanmar Consultations But Excludes CSOs in Ecuador

Washington, D.C. – The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been increasingly vocal about its commitment to inclusion. The IMF has not limited this commitment to only inclusive growth, but also inclusive decision-making and dialogue. “Engaging civil society organizations is crucial to the IMF’s work. The ongoing dialogue helps and strengthens our policy recommendations” tweeted Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, last October.

An invitation to IMF Art IV Consultation[1] in Myanmar has been sent to the representatives of academic institutions, private sector and civil societies in Myanmar. As part of this consultation, the IMF will share with participants the IMF’s views on the economic outlook for Myanmar and the region. In turn, participants will expect the IMF to consider their concerns in the Fund’s policy recommendations to the government.  

“Congratulations to Mr. Matt Davies, the Deputy Division Chief of Asia and the Pacific Department for this great initiative” said Dr. Jo Marie Griesgraber, Director of New Rules for Global Finance – a DC-based NGO which promotes public participation in economic policy making. “I encourage other IMF Divisions to follow this example by inviting in advance civil society organizations to participate to those key consultations.”

The President of Burma, Thein Sein, has established an ongoing reform process since his inauguration in 2011. Combined with a vigorous and dynamic private sector, Myanmar is now emerging after being economically and politically isolated for fifty years. As the country begins to catch up to its Southeast Asian neighbors, the upcoming Article IV Consultation could be a springboard for CSOs’ participation in the country’s keys decision-making processes going forward.

Dr. Griesgraber added “Including civil society voices in the dialogue is important for two reasons. First, this ensures that the critical issues impacting citizens are considered in designing economic reforms. In Myanmar’s case, this means taking into account agriculture and small farmers, among other issues. Second, inclusive consultations increase transparency, public understanding and “buy-in” into economic reforms.  

According to the IMF’s website, the Fund often holds discussions with private investors, members of parliament and civil society during Art IV consultations. However, advocacy organizations are concerned that civil society organizations are too often excluded and insist that inclusive processes, such as the consultation in Myanmar, become the norm.

New Rules for Global Finance notes that the IMF does not always include CSOs in their consultations. Commenting on the IMF’s current Art IV Consultation with Ecuador, Dr. Griesgraber stated:

“It is almost shocking that while Deputy Managing Director of the Fund, Min Zhu, promises consultation with civil society organizations from Ecuador, those consultations will be hosted in Washington D.C.! Unless the IMF proposes to fly CSOs from Ecuador to Washington it cannot be called an inclusive consultation.”

Correction: The statement above was not intended to imply that the IMF was hosting Ecuador's Art IV consultation in Washington DC in order to exclude civil society. The Government of Ecuador and the IMF have had a strained relationship. This will be the first Ecuador Art IV since 2006. Thanks to the initiative of Ecuador's advisor to the IMF, the Fund is expected to coordinate video conferences with civil society and private sector representatives during the Art IV consultation. 


Notes to Editor:

New Rules for Global Finance is a 501(3)c non-profit organization that promotes reforms in the rules and institutions that govern international finance; in order to support just, inclusive and sustainable economic development.

For more information, please visit


Nathan Coplin
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Press Release: Exclusive Institutions Call for "Inclusive Capitalism"

New Rules Letterhead

Thursday, May 29
Heads of Exclusive Global Institutions Call for “Inclusive Capitalism”

IMF Promises Consultation with Civil Society from Ecuador But Hosts Consultation in Washington D.C.
Washington, DC – Leaders from the world of finance and politics met in London this week at a conference on “Inclusive Capitalism.” The heads of the IMF and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) both called for more ethical behavior in the financial sector. IMF Managing Director, Christine Lagarde, declared that unethical behavior depletes “the treasury of trust” and “could again destabilize the global economy.” Mark Carney, FSB Chairman, offered similar remarks stating that “for markets to sustain their legitimacy, they need to be not only effective but also fair.”

Jo Marie Griesgraber, Director of New Rules for Global Finance – a DC-based NGO which promotes pro-poor reforms in finance, welcomed this message, but replied:

“Inclusive capitalism will require inclusive institutions to govern it. As it stands now, the global institutions responsible for governing the financial system – the IMF, FSB, G20 and OECD – remain exclusive. There have been limited improvements. Participation by non-G20 governments and civil society organizations in these institutions is grossly inadequate.”

A 2013 report assessing these institutions ranked the governance all these bodies 2.5 or less out of 4. The IMF reform process has become a symbol of the global economic governance problem. In addition, many global institutions struggle to adequately include public input into their consultations and decision making processes. Where there is public consultation, the private sector often crowds out public interest groups.  

“The FSB does a great job of posting consultations and publishing the public responses, but we’ve found that more than 90 percent of responses are from the financial industry” added Dr. Griesgraber. “The IMF messaging on inclusion, inequality and redistribution is constructive. We look forward to seeing the evidence of its implementation.”

“Now the IMF needs to deliver on Lagarde’s words through its policy advice” said Matthew Martin, Director of Development Finance International. “If the IMF is serious about inclusive growth, it should be advising countries to introduce progressive tax policies that reduce income inequalities and create adequate space for social spending.”   

Ecuador and Civil Society Participation

Today, the IMF announced that it will resume Article IV consultations with Ecuador. Deputy Managing Director of the Fund, Min Zhu, promised the IMF staff will engage with many representatives from civil society. However, the consultation period he announced will take place over the next few weeks in Washington DC. This will make participation of Ecuadorian civil society and smaller private sector representatives difficult, if not impossible.

While the IMF has had some success at including public input, it is evident that it continues to operate in a way that considers civil society engagement irrelevant or unnecessary.

Notes to Editor:

New Rules for Global Finance is a 501(3)c non-profit organization that promotes reforms in the rules and institutions that govern international finance; in order to support just, inclusive and sustainable economic development.

For more information, please visit


Nathan Coplin
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Press Release: US Congress Fails to Pass IMF Reforms, Again


Tuesday, March 26, 2014

US Congress Fails to Pass IMF Reform, Again
Major Blow for Global Economic Governance and Credibility of US Leadership

Washington, DC – Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the US Senate will remove the IMF reform legislation from its Ukraine assistance bill. This is a major setback for global economic governance and the credibility of US leadership. In 2010, the United States – in cooperation with emerging economies –spearheaded the IMF reforms. Since then, every country has ratified the reforms except for the US, whose approval is required in order for the reforms to become effective. Congress has had several opportunities to approve the IMF reforms, including January of this year.

“We are astonished that Congress failed, again, to pass the 2010 IMF reforms. This not only undermines the credibility of the US as a trusted leader and partner, it fragments global economic governance. US inaction weakens the prospects for international cooperation, especially with emerging powers. While these reforms are not perfect, they are a step toward bringing emerging powers to the table, instead of isolating and pushing them away” said Jo Marie Griesgraber, Executive Director of New Rules for Global Finance.

There was disagreement in Congress about the relevance of the IMF reforms to providing financial assistance to Ukraine, as well as misunderstanding of the IMF and the changes that the 2010 reforms would impose. The IMF reforms –which would provide a modest increase in voting power to emerging economies and reduce overrepresentation of European countries – would not require any new financial commitments from the US

“This was a win-win for members of Congress who would like to strengthen US global leadership, specifically its position on Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia, without additional costs to US taxpayers” stated Ms. Griesgraber. “It is disheartening that political brinkmanship has spoiled another opportunity to approve the 2010 IMF reforms.

We stand with former Cabinet members and government officials from both parties, as well as policy experts and civil society, who agree that the US Congress cannot wait any longer to approve the 2010 IMF reforms.”


Notes to Editor:

New Rules for Global Finance is a 501(3)c non-profit organization that promotes reforms in the rules and institutions that govern international finance; in order to support just, inclusive and sustainable economic development.

For more information, please visit


Nathan Coplin
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


PRESS RELEASE: Letter to Congress Urges IMF Reforms as Part of Ukraine Assistance



Broad-Based Coalition of Policy Experts Urges Congress to Pass IMF Reforms

Ukraine Economy and US Leadership at Stake


WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 10, 2014) —Today 190 policy experts, business and academic leaders, and former Senate-confirmed appointees who had oversight responsibilities for organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank delivered a unified message to Congress: promptly enact IMF quota reform legislation.  

The broad-based bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid comes at a time when Congress is considering a $1 billion bilateral emergency assistance package for Ukraine to help the country stabilize its economy during its crisis with Russia. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Ranking Member Bob Corker (R-TN) displayed the foresight and joint leadership to respond strongly to the Ukraine crisis by introducing the Ukraine relief bill, which includes the IMF quota reform legislation. Ukraine is also seeking IMF assistance directly.

Treasury Under Secretaries Tim Adams, David McCormick, David Mulford, and Jeffrey Shafer, and five IMF Executive Directors that served under Republican Administrations, among other former senior government officials, support the IMF reform legislation. “The IMF has played a crucial role in the global approach to recent financial crises and in navigating the world economy through severe threats. While the United States is on a path to recovery, threats remain…and the IMF has been called upon to support reform in Ukraine. In times like these, a financially strengthened and reformed IMF is in the U.S. interest,” notes the letter.

The letter points out that “the IMF is the leading international institution dedicated to promoting U.S. objectives of advancing global growth, financial stability, and sound economic policy.” It implies that the integrity of the IMF as a global governance forum, as well as the credibility of the United States on the world stage, would diminish without strong U.S. leadership in the IMF. 

“Additional quota resources for the IMF are essential to preserve its central role in a global financial system that benefits the United States. Realignment of IMF quota shares, while preserving U.S. influence in the IMF, will enable the IMF to respond to shifts in the global economy, involving emerging powers more deeply in the institution and avoiding their disengagement,” notes the letter.

All other major countries, including those in the G-20, have ratified the 2010 reforms negotiated with substantial US leadership.  However, U.S. delays have prevented the quota and governance reforms from going into effect, thereby undermining U.S. credibility and influence in the IMF and the G-20. The signatories of this letter urge Congress to seize this opportunity to strengthen U.S. leadership, both vis-à-vis Ukraine and the global economy.

The letter was jointly distributed by New Rules for Global Finance and The Bretton Woods Committee.  The full text of the letter can be found here.


The Bretton Woods Committee is the nonpartisan network of prominent global citizens, which works to demonstrate the value of international economic cooperation and to foster strong, effective Bretton Woods institutions as forces for global well-being. For more information contact: Randy Rodgers, Executive Director at 202-331-1616

New Rules for Global Finance is as a non-governmental organization with the aim to promote reforms in the rules and institutions governing international finance and resource mobilization, in order to support just, inclusive and economically sustainable global development. For more information contact: Jo Marie Griesgraber, Executive Director at (202) 277-9390


Page 1 of 22

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Follow Us


Share this page

Join Our Mailing List
For Email Newsletters you can trust