News
Program UpdatesSix Video Conferences Organized to Encourage “Southern” CSO Input into Discussion on IMF Governance Reform
Six Video Conferences Organized to Encourage “Southern” CSO Input into Discussion on IMF Governance Reform
As part of a Civil Society Consultation, New Rules for Global Finance is facilitated a series of video conference discussions on Governance Reform of the International Monetary Fund.
Johannesburg, South Africa and Nairobi, Kenya. July 30, 2009- Montevideo, Uruguay and Lima, Peru. July 30, 2009
- Mexico City, Mexico and Buenos Aires, Argentina. July 31, 2009
- Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and Almaty-Kazakhstan. August 5, 2009
- Accra, Ghana and Lilongwe, Malawi. August 7, 2009
- New Delhi, India and Jakarta, Indonesia. August 10, 2009
The following agenda was used for each of the “The Fourth Pillar” video conferences.
1. The introduction of each participant and a brief statement of each one’s experience with the IMF
2. The purposes of the IMF have been described as:
a. Helping countries meet short term balance of payments problems
b. Providing financial stability which the IMF sees as a pre-requisite for growth
c. Working on Global Financial Stability
d. What has been your country’s experience
3. Identify the constituencies represented by people in the room:
a. What has been the quality of the representation of your country at the IMF
b. How much do you know about what the IMF is doing generally and with regard to your country?
4. Governance Reform proposals: (see CSO paper submitted July 13)
a. Greater Transparency
b. Greater Accountability
i. Evaluation
ii. Transparency
iii. Participation
iv. Voice and Vote—changes in quotas, chairs, etc.
1. Do you have ideas of what should be included in a “new quota”?
2. Consultation with CSOs and Parliament in-country
v. External complaint mechanisms
1. Ombudsman
2. Ex Ante Poverty Impact Assessments
c. Besides the ideas in the paper, how what would you recommend to increase IMF accountability?
5. Some CSOs think that changing conditionality is more important than governance reforms:
a. Is such a change possible without changing governance?
b. Would changing governance still be important even if changes occurred in conditionality?
6. What works best about the IMF?
7. What needs to be changed most urgently?