The Contestation of the IMF

Abstract

Few international organizations wield as much political authority over nation states, and provoke substantial political controversies, as does the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This chapter investigates the extent to which rising powers in the global economy, notably Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), contest the IMF’s policies and rules. Do they express a general discomfort with its economic policy paradigm, or do they seek to improve their position within the institution and extend their influence over it? In a quantitative analysis of statements during the meetings of the International Monetary and Financial Committee over time, the chapter finds that both rising and established powers contest the IMF to a comparable extent. Yet, the BRICS’ contestation behaviour differs qualitatively from that of the major advanced economies. While the latter demand institutional reforms, the former strongly criticize institutional procedures and rules. The BRICS most strongly contest the issue of their institutional representation in the IMF’s quota-based decision-making system and the Fund’s (neo)-liberal policy paradigm does not seem to play an important role in that behaviour.

The Development Concept in BRICS: An Analysis of Projects Financed by the NDB

“…The question of reforming and modernizing global governance reflects these countries' concern with accessing resources and instruments, much like their already developed counterparts [Tokhi 2019, Stuenkel 2013]. In the initial period (from its foundation to 2013), "BRICS steadily expanded its agenda, combining continuity and innovation, and consistently promoting the reform of the global governance architecture" [Kirton, Larionova 2022, 11].…”

“…The BRICS countries use criticism of the IMF's quota and voting system as their primary point of contention with IFIs [Tokhi, 2019]. However, they have been unable to propose reforms to these institutions, either because they lack an alternative to the Fund's liberal policy or because the normative-bureaucratic dynamics currently allocate BRICS, with the exception of South Africa, among the top 10 shareholders of the IMF.…”

Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance

“…Some have sought to measure legitimacy beliefs based on surveys and survey experiments (e.g., Caldeira and Gibson 1995;Booth and Seligson 2009;Johnson 2011;Anderson et al 2019;Dellmuth and Tallberg 2021). Others have sought to capture legitimacy beliefs with data on political communication, such as news media, social media, and parliamentary debates (e.g., Binder and Heupel 2015;Schmidtke 2019;Tokhi 2019;Rauh and Zürn 2020;Ghassim 2022;Sommerer et al 2022). Yet others have identified levels of legitimacy with data on political behavior, such as patterns of participation and protest (e.g., Velasco-Guachalla et al 2021;Sommerer et al 2022).…”

The long march through the institutions: Emerging powers and the staffing of international organizations

“…The IMF exercises a critical role in the governance of the international economy by monitoring countries' economic policies and exchange rates, surveying the global financial system, and acting as lender of last resort in the event of international payment crises. Its programmes come with conditions that can severely restrict the policy autonomy of debtor countries-making it into one of the most politicized institutions of global governance (Tokhi, 2019). The IMF is sometimes described as a 'staff-driven' organization because the Secretariat plays a central role in the Fund's technical work and in drawing up the conditions for its loan programmes (Barnett and Finnemore, 2004: 45-72).…”