Why the IMF must give China and other emerging economies a greater say
- The US, Europe and Japan will not gladly sacrifice their IMF quotas to give China and others more voting rights
- But a failure to reform the organisation will worsen rifts and weaken its ability to deal with looming global crises
Senior IMF officials warned in a recent blog post that “higher interest rates, higher levels of sovereign debt, and a higher share of that debt on the banking sector’s balance sheet make the financial sector vulnerable” to crises.
Western powers show no sign of being ready for such a change. The IMF and its Bretton Woods sister the World Bank were founded when Western economic supremacy was taken for granted, and attitudes have yet to adjust.
While the IMF board of governors approved a 50 per cent increase in quotas (raising its permanent resources to US$960 billion) in December last year, they steered away from the thorny issue of quota distribution. Instead, they asked the IMF to come up with a new quota formula by June 2025. Debate on this among governors will get under way soon.
Hung Tran, a former deputy director of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department and now a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted in a recent article that the IMF quotas are “misaligned”.
The quota formula is complex but on the basis of actual quota shares (AQSs) – which are partly politically determined and distinct from the economically determined calculated quota shares (CQSs) – the anomalies are clear.
Tran said China is “significantly” under-represented in AQS terms while Europe is “way over-represented”. But correcting these anomalies “would lead to outcomes not necessarily welcomed by many countries,” he argued.
China would benefit from quota changes. It has an actual quota of 6.4 per cent whereas its economic size suggests its calculated share should be more than double this at 13.7 per cent, according to Tran. But to accommodate that, the US would see a reduced quota share while the EU and Japan would also need to sacrifice some quota.
Hypocrisy over Japan’s monetary policy shows need for Asian IMF
The plan for an Asian monetary fund was strongly opposed in Washington (home of the IMF’s headquarters) and eventually watered down to the so-called Chiang Mai Initiative, a currency swap arrangement among Asian countries launched in 2010 that works in close cooperation with the IMF.
Six years later, China launched the Asian Inyfrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). One prominent Chinese economist I spoke to suggested the AIIB could serve as an alternative platform, giving Asia a greater voice.
China’s ambitions in this direction are very likely to be influenced by the outcome of the IMF’s quota reform negotiations and whether Beijing and other Asian capitals secure greater voting powers.
How these develop will depend on how far the IMF is prepared to reform its voting structure in response to calls for more genuinely devolved power, when it comes to dealing with global monetary issues.
A critical aspect of this debate is who gets to act as lender of last resort, and on what terms, in times of international stress or crisis. The IMF plays this role but is heavily influenced by the US and the predominance of the dollar in international finance.
Anthony Rowley is a veteran journalist specialising in Asian economic and financial affairs