On Saturday, March 30, the New York Times ran a curious editorial about the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The piece makes the case for a quick ratification of IMF’s quota reform by the United States, which it pictures as being in America’s interest. Unfortunately, the article is somewhat casual when it comes to the evidence it presents in support of its argument.
Firstly, the authors claim that the IMF
“has helped stabilize the global economy, most recently by providing loans to troubled European countries like Greece and Ireland.”
It is far from obvious that the repeated bailouts to Greece, in which the IMF has participated, have done much to calm the financial markets or to help the country’s economy. Recall that Greece is still going through a recession deeper than the Great Depression, with youth unemployment at around 60 percent, and no signs of recovery.
Secondly, there is the following assertion:
“[T]he fund’s capital […] has fallen sharply as a percentage of the global economy in the last decade.”
That is misleading as it does not take into consideration the increased use of the ‘new arrangements to borrow,’ (NAB) through which the Fund’s lending capacity was tripled in 2009, from $250 billion to $750 billion. That represented a historically unprecedented hike in the amount of resources available to any international organization.
Thirdly, the statement that the increase in quotas will happen “without increasing America’s financial commitment to the organization” is disingenuous. While the increase in quotas is to be accompanied by a reduction in the use of NAB’s – making it appear fiscally neutral on surface – the deployment of the NAB’s is accompanied by a stringent approval procedure, whereas the quotas can be deployed towards various lending purposes at the Fund’s discretion. Greater reliance on quota funding would thus enable the Fund to make bigger claims on the public purse, with less accountability.
A debate about the future of the IMF is long overdue in this country. But it should be a debate based on a careful examination of the Fund’s track record in mitigating financial crises around the world. To flatly assert, like the editorial does, that “[i]ncreasing the fund’s resources will ensure that it can respond quickly to another wave of turmoil in Europe or elsewhere” does not do the job. If anything, that claim — like much of the editorial — only strains credulity.