Talk:International Monetary Fund/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

user bagel7

1) The World Bank and the World Bank Group are not exactly the same.

2) The IMF is not part of the World Bank nor the World Bank Group.

See http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK%3A20046275~menuPK%3A48380~pagePK%3A43912~piPK%3A44037~theSitePK%3A29708,00.html <-- this website doesnt work Bagel7 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion: Taiwan is not a UN member state

This sentence "With the exception of Taiwan, North Korea, Cuba, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Tuvalu, and Nauru, all UN member states participate directly in the IMF." makes it sound like that Taiwan is a member state, while it is not.

Sealyxi (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait........ shouldn't south Korea have higher percentage quota? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.155.184 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are completely right about taiwan, sealyxi. The same is true for North Korea. What is the second comment referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.218.97 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias: Power to control governments and information

As it stands, the entry gives no indication of the extent to which the IMF has usurped powers to extend the control that that capitalist organisations have over national governments and information. Much of this came to light as a result of a leaked document entitled Multinational Agreemennt on Investments (MAI). Although the outrage that this provoked led to its demise, its main provisions have been incorporated into standard IMF practice. Two sets of provisions are of the greatest importance. One are the clauses making it illegal in all member countries to say anything that might damage the future profitability of an individual company. Thus the Canadian government was fined billions of dollars for publishing information on the destructive effects of a petrol additive. Whether the information was correct or not was deemed to have nothing to do with the case. The second is a collection of requirements restricting the rights of national governments to introduce legislation protecting the environment because this is deemed likely to interfere with pricing and thus free trade. (This parallels existing components of standard IMF conditinalities for "loans"). In the context of these observations it is important to understand that the court which rules on alleged infringements of such rules consists of 3 (or maybe it is 5) private international corporations. Far from the critiques section being biassed against the IMF it is incomplete in important ways. I don't have time to edit it just now, but hope to do so at some point in the future if no one else gets there first.

Coming back to alleged bias, I note that the references section is virtually devoid of references to critiques, so I will drop in a couple.

Quester67 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Quotes section and other areas seem to be overly biased against the IMF.

quote what sections here please Bagel7 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I also find significant bias in this article - the remark that "the IMF has come under heavy criticism for failing to properly relieve the situations of poorer countries, and have even been called "Fascist pigs" by several members of the press.", particlarly the "fascist pigs" comment, is unsourced and at best should be in the criticism section, not the "organisation and purpose" section.Pepik70 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IMF is keynesianistic?

I just don't have the time or language skill or whatsoever to rework the article but want to make an addition:

I thought the IMF favours supply-side economics and does not follow a keynesianistic approach. At least that is what I had kept in my mind after reading Joseph Stiglitz' Globalization and it's discontents (on german) where Stiglitz (former chief economist of the world bank) critisized the IMF as imposing a too restrictive policy on countries the IMF gives loans to. In general, I think it is safe to say that the IMF follows "neoliberal" strategies (e.g. of the washington consensus) and thus is affiliated with monetarism. And in my personal experience of economic policies neoliberalism and monetarism are strongly affiliated with supply-side economics.

One may simply say "keynesian". :D ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Keynes and Dexter White were the ones who helped design the Bretton woods system in general. The IMF, along with every other BW institution, is a compromise between the Americans' desire (represented by Dexter) for mulilaterial free trade and fixed exchage and the Brit's desire (represented by Keynes himself) for a more automous trade, fiscal and monetary policy. The IMF finances the balance of payments deficts so that states won't have to devalue their currency like what happend in the 30's and what most state's felt contributed to WW2, or have a recession to adjust their price levels as happended under the gold standard, which would prevent full employment of an economy. It could be argued the IMF is Keynesian in that it was established because markets were believed to be imperfect and failed sometimes.

Keynes, and in turn Britain, was worried that the US would run constant trade surpluses and wanted to have the them fiance the trade deficts they would cause. Keynes wanted higher quotas (presentage of a state's reserve currency, e.g dollars or gold, used for loans) and the US wanted less. I think the number agree was like around $8 billion, way less then the $49 billion that keynes wanted. Still higher than the US's $0.

Anyway, I really don't think the IMF that keynesian or anything. Maybe more neo-liberal after the pegged exchange rate ended. The structual reforms that are conditional in loans, are highly influenced by the Washington consensus in the late 70's-80's. But, remember the BW system is more a compromise. I mean, fixed-but-adjustable-exchange-rate highlights this.

---

IMF: Keynesian vs. Supply Side: DELETE

The entire reference to the Keynes versus Supply Side issue should be deleted. 1) The IMF's inception being influenced by Keynes has no relevance to the actually policies implemented 40 to 60 years later. 2) Neither Keynesians nor the IMF advocate raising taxes during a period of recession ("austerity" sic). Keynesians advocate lowering taxes during such a crisis, which is the historical and theoretical basis for the Supply side position, thus they are not in opposition on this point. The IMF advocates balancing the budget and reducing deficits. This could be done by raising taxes, but no economic theory would support this during a recession. Rather the IMF advocates reducing the deficit and balancing the budget by cutting government spending, NOT by raising taxes. 3) From 1982 to 2005 IMF policies of structural adjustment more closely reflected monetarist and supply side theories than Keynesian theories. The criticisms attributed in this article to the supply-siders are more accurately reflective of Keynesian criticism of the IMF. By 1982 the IMF had re-oriented away from its original Keynesian policy goals of monetary and exchange rate stability to the promotion of global financial market expansion. The editors should remove the entire reference or provide extensive documentation as the entry bungles economic theories, economic policies, and IMF history.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoloco (talk • contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Veto

I've read that US has sole veto power in IMF, can anyone confirm? Mir 01:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a link to an article of a guy who claim the same thing

"There have been some minor adjustments since, but the major developed countries run the show, with only one country, the United States, having effetive veto" (Stiglitz 2003:12). -From 2003 Edition of Globalization and Its Discontents. Alex van Schaick 18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going back a bit here by commenting on this, but whilst doing my A-level Geography coursework I read in a book on globalisation ('Globalisation', Guinness, P., Hodder & Stoughton, 2003) that this is because the USA holds 17% of the voting power (because of the size of its quota). As any major change to IMF policy requires 85% backing the USA is able to block by itself any proposed change it might not like. I wondered if anyone had any more up to date information on this? - Sophie, 17th January 2006.

United States' voting power at the IMF is 17.08 percent (see http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm). Many decisions at the IMF require 85 precent majority, including the ammendments to the Articles of Agreement, creation of new financing facilities, quota increases, and gold sales. The most reliable way to confirm all of the above and more is to use the web site www.imf.org. For example, you can read there an article about gold, see http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm --Klava, March 1 2006

Keynesian IMF?

I a;so think any reference to Keynesian economics shall be removed from the article. Current IMF policies are more in line with liberal economic policies and the monetarist school. Aman--213.172.73.210 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the Keynesian - neo-liberal debate above: The IMF was instituted in and operated as a short-term credit fund for exchange rate stabilization throughout the Keynesian Welfare State era of 1945 - ~1971. With the removal of the fixed exchange rate system in the early 70s - the orignal role for the IMF was largely defunct. As neo-liberalism took hold in the US and Western Europe through the 70s and 80s, the IMFs role effectively switched to a generic creditor - loaning funds to 'developing' nations on the condition that they restructured their economies in line with neo-liberal and classical economic ideology. Arguably there has been a qualification of this stance with the recent HIPC initiatives, but it is safe to conclude that the IMF remains a neo-liberal institution, much removed from its original mandate.

Tverbeek: Good edit. I agree.Nobs 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I dont have time to rework the article either, but in the early 1980s the IMF was purged of its Keynesian elements as far as I know. It most certainly is not a Keynesian institution: although my understanding is limited,its pretty clear that Keynesian economics advocates deficit spending in order to stimulate demand during a depression. The IMF is deadset against such policies and Stiglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents is pretty much attacking the IMF on those grounds.

Alex van Schaick 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the IMF is a generic creditor - that's the World Bank. I would also argue that that the IMF was never Keynesian, since Keynesian policies generally involve government spending to promote growth, or at least to stimulate growth in a downturn. The IMF engages countries which are typically massive overspenders throughout the economic cycle, which is usually why they are in so much trouble. Pepik70 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

link to wiktionary

I just added a link to wiktionary after the word 'overdraft' (way at the end) because I had to look it up. The reason is that the English version of wikipedia is of course not just for native English speakers (if only because (at the moment) it is the biggest version of wikipedia). I know there's also a simplified English version, but for people like me, who know English well enough to understand almost everything in normal English, that is of course not the preferred choice.

I'd say that if I (or someone with my command of the English language) need to look up a word to understand the article, it deserves a link to wiktionary. Are there any rules on this? Also, I'm not sure I've made the link the right way.

DirkvdM 08:07, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I reformatted the link. In general, you can link to witkionary like this: [[Wiktionary:Overdraft]]. However, I'm not sure if there's a wiki policy on formatting links like that. [[Wiktionary:Overdraft]] renders as Wiktionary:Overdraft. I thought that was ugly, so I tried [[Wiktionary:Overdraft|overdraft]], which renders as overdraft. However, this version looks just like a wikipedia link, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Do we want wikipedia and wiktionary links to look the same? That's why I settled on ([[Wiktionary:Overdraft|definition]]), which renders as (definition). I'm now going to find somewhere to post a question about the nature/formatting of interwiki links... b/c it there certainly needs to be a policy.Feco 08:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignore all of that above. The page now has the correct wikistyle for interwiki links. I should've looked a little harder before messing around with the styles above. See Wikipedia:How_to_link_to_Wikimedia_projects for more info. Feco

IMF as a Lending Insitution

The article as it is written repeatedly describes the IMF as an International lending instiution. While in recent years the IMF has gotten into the lending business in a limited way(only to assist debtor nations in managing their foreign debt), lending is not the IMF's primary function. Here are samples within the text where this assumption is made:

responsible for managing the global financial system and for providing loans

the World Bank, its twin organization

In order to gain access to IMF loans

IMF was instituted in and operated as a short-term credit fund

IMFs role effectively switched to a generic creditor - loaning funds to 'developing' nations

criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called "Conditionalities"

limit the amount of money that the organization could use to help debt-ridden countries

IMF interventions aggravate the poverty and the debts

While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 over 100 countries have experienced a banking collapse

There is much confusion about the difference between the IMF and its twin organisation the World Bank. On the large scale of things the IMF and World Bank play essentially the same role

Since the IMF is not really a bank, it doesn’t give loans as such. Rather, it has a pool of money from which member countries can borrow when they need to stabilise their currency quickly"

While much of this criticism is valid, there is little discussion of the IMF's purpose. The section header Criticism is very good, but it curiously mingles a discussion of monetarism and exchange rates with lending. Some separation of topics needs to be done.

I would be interested in working with editors to resolve some of the issues.--nobs

I agree. I think some of the specific differences between the world bank and IMF need to be pointed out in the article Lonjers 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We really need this picture on the IMF page

I googled around for the picture the quote below refers to, but i am disappointed i wantn't lucky. I do however think collectively, we wikipedias can eventually find it. The quote is a word to word from Globalization and its Discontents page 40.

"All too often, the Fund's approach to the developing countries has had the feel of a colonial ruler. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a single picture snapped in 1998, shown thoughout the world, has engraved itself in the minds of millions, particularly those in the former colonies. The IMF managing director, Michel Camdessus, a short, neatly dressed former French treasury bureaucrat, who once claimed to be a socialist, is standing with a stern face and crossed arms over the seated and humiliated president of Indonesia. The hapless president was forced, in effect, to turn over economic sovereignty of his country to IMF in return for the aid his country needed. In the end ironically, much of the money went not to help Indonesia but to bail out the "colonial power's" private sector creditors.

Defenders of Camdessus claim the photograph was unfair, that he did not realise that it was being taken and that it was viewed out of context. But that is the point........."

You get the reason i think we need this picture. This book is way cool that i firmly believe it is the best value i have ever got from any book i have ever bought.

Difference Between IMF and World Bank

Anon reverted this section & it's placed here for disccussion.

There is much confusion about the difference between the IMF and its sister organisation the World Bank. The IMF keeps account of trade balances between member states, basically who owes whom how much, as an independent auditor. The World Bank on the other hand, gives more long term loans for more general purposes. What it does, as an investment bank, is essentially to intermediate between lenders and borrowers. It sells bonds to corporations, individuals, and sometimes governments, and lends that money to borrowing governments.

The IMF was originally founded to stabilise countries’ currencies in relation to each other, and to oversee the currency exchange market. Since the IMF is not really a bank, it doesn’t give loans as such. Rather, it has a pool of money from which member countries can borrow when they need to stabilise their currency quickly. This can be compared with an overdraft (Wiktionary - Entry on overdraft) on a current account. All loans from the IMF must be paid back within 5 years.

Nevertheless, I think one should add something about the differences between IMF and World Bank (I don't know for you, but for me it is not obvious). I found this paper on the net: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/differ/differ.htm . Should it be added at the end (link section) or should one add a paragraph summarizing this information (copyright issue?) ? Nicogla 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Asian financial crisis

I think we need to add asian experience under criticism of IMF. After all, Asian countries that received aid from IMF suffer deeper recession than those that refused the aid, i.e. Malaysia and Taiwan (or was it South Korea?) recovered somewhat faster than the rest. __earth 18:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes's opposition to the IMF

I've changed this sentence:

The principal architects of the IMF at the Bretton Woods Conference were Fabian Society member John Maynard Keynes and the Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury, Harry Dexter White.

According to [1], "Keynes was, in fact, its most prominent opponent". Palefire 12:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The truth is somewhere in between. What the IMF turned out to be was not entirely along the lines of Keynes's proposals, but it was vaguely in that direction. Essentially, Keynes wanted an even more radically centralized IMF, complete with a central bank for the world, the Bancor. The final IMF proposal that was accepted was much less radical than that, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that Keynes opposed it either---it contained many of his ideas, but simply didn't go nearly as far as he would've liked. --Delirium 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Vandalized

This article has been vandalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.232.148 (talk • contribs) .

Someone has fixed it. Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anne O. Krueger

Anne O. Krueger was never an IMF Managing Director. She has been the First Deputy Managing Director since September 1, 2001.

Time between the end of the term of Horst Köhler and the beginning of the term of Rodrigo de Rato is about the same as the period between Camdessus and Köhler, however Camdessus's first deputy is not considered to have been the Managing Director during that time, and neither is Anne O. Krueger according to the IMF website:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/chron/mds.asp

http://www.imf.org/external/np/omd/bios/ak.htm

Lotvas 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance and reforms

I've expanded on this section to include the function of the IMF and of the SAPs, which was missing from the article.Jackson744 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

It appears that this article is in major need of a cleanup. The language at some points is difficult to understand and the ideas seem a little scattered. As I know little about the subject matter, I will refrain. Agentcdog 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Inception

Two different dates are given as the date when the IMF came into existence - December 1945 and May 1946. Which one is right? Paddyman1989 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

"Whatever the feelings people in the Western world have for the IMF, research by the Pew Research Center shows that more than 60 percent of Asians and 70 percent of Africans feel that the IMF and the World Bank have a positive effect on their country [4]. This may largely be due to the fact that the media and textbooks in developing countries' schools describe the IMF as having a positive role in their countries, despite the increase in poverty, increase in the debt-burden, and reduction of economic growth that IMF opponents argue its policies have resulted in."

The last sentence is extremely biased and remains uncited. Increase and poverty, debt-burden, and such as well as the fact that media and textbooks describe the IMF as positive all need to be cited in some way.

The Pew Research Center is funded by big oil who obviously benefits from IMF policies. It's certainly biased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Pew,_Jr.#Philanthropy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.28.22 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Washington Consensus" is a descriptive term used in professional and academic settings as shorthand for the neoliberal policies described. It's not really fair to describe it as a derisive appellation, since both friends and foes use it. Cdoten 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with [User:Cdoten|Cdoten]], the phrase 'Washington Consensus' was coined by the economist John Williams, who was clearly not a critic of it! Not only is it used by both supporters and critics as shorthand for the policy package, it's also useful because it highlights the fact that it is the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury (all DC based, thus the name) who have promoted them. If you have access, see Williamson's 1993 article in World Development (28/8 p.1329) for more details. Since no-one has disagreed with [User:Cdoten|Cdoten]] I've gone ahead and made the edit.

--81.154.27.117 11:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article, particularly the criticisms, seems to miss the point that the countries working with the IMF are in trouble already. Associating the IMF with crises is like associating the fire department with fires - of course the fire department is associated with fires, but not because they are arsonists. Pepik70 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it seems me after reading the article that the "firefighters" have oxygen, not water in the hose--then asking the people in the burning building to pay the oxygen back as they suffocate from carbon monoxide poisoning. Some firefighters. Maybe we should leave the metaphors aside and concentrate on presenting facts in a non-biased way. The evidence of critics seems to suggest a pattern of IMF funding military dictatorships. Popular opinion is not the standard for consensus here at wikipedia, and there are a lot of socially charged issues you can check on to prove it. For the moment my opinion rests with the critics of the IMF. Perhaps if there were more solid numbers to demonstrate the positive impact of the IMF, I could more heartily support a change in tone of the article.

For now, the positive impact of the IMF is simply not well-quantified here. The article should read congruently according to the evidence supported. I'd advise editors to refrain from rhetoric on economic issues. The principle of the subject is Keynesian. There should be ample opportunity for the affirmitive to state its case in strict numeric terms. To state a case of bias here with rhetoric is inappropriate. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

The article includes the text:

The Vatican City, Hong Kong of the PRC (HKMA), Macao of the PRC (MAM), Taiwan, Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Republic are the other entities not participating in the IMF.

I am not sure why this entry is necessary/useful. None of these entities has its own currency, so that there is no reason to expect they would participate in the IMF.

I am contemplating deleting this entry and would be glad for your comments.

--Philopedia 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dont remember what they used in Macao but HK has its own currency, the Hong Kong Dollar, even after incorporation into the PRC

Yes, both HK and Macao have their own currencies. Also, many other states that don't have a currency are members of the IMF. Also in the other part of this list were the more notable entities - non-members of the IMF - some independent states, but now the whole phrase is missing. Alinor 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also consider these to be irrelevant exceptions.Pepik70 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wish to edit article

I would like to make a few changes to this article on the IMF, and I wanted to test the water before plunging in. So, I'm sort of writing to ask for a mandate to do so. The kinds of things I feel need improving are:

1) In Organisation and Purpose: criticism of Ricardo's theory does not flow. Needs to be a footnote or something

2) In Organisation and Purpose: the praise for the IMF in the third to last paragraph is POV. If it goes anywhere, it shouldn't be in the description of the organisation and purpose. There may be many reasons why there has been no Great Depression during the time since the IMF was founded - the causal link implied here is not qualified. Secondly, the paragraph picks out one piece of economic 'good news' without mentioning any economic 'bad news'. For example there have indeed been many depressions; there have been huge economic crises in many countries (mostly developing); and poverty and inequality has grown.

3) The Criticism. It makes some good points, but it would be good if it was re-arranged a bit. I can see that critics of the IMF have written lots of scattered thoughts, and then defenders have thrown in additions which make the whole thing quite scatty.

4) In the Criticism. The IMF is definitely not Keynesian. It was founded upon Keynesian notions but has transformed. The economic theories it is based on were developed by economists working within the IMF during the 50s, post-John Maynard Keynes. I can see this has come up in the discussion, and yet no one has done anything to rectify it in the text.

5) In the Criticism. Something must be done about this reference to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey data (70% of Africans favour the IMF). Such data is quite frankly useless. How many Africans know what the IMF is and does? (I'm not being racist here - how many Americans what it is either). Assuming the interviewer perhaps gives them some hint that it's a western-based organisation, and knowing that the interviewer represent a western organisation, it's not surprising that respondents say they think it's positive. Far more sensible is to consider the many genuine critics of the IMF in the 3rd World - Stiglitz is a good starting point for finding out about them. Saamah 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal Corruption

I see that no discussion on the internal corruption within IMF takes place in this article. The issue of lavish holdiday parties, nepotism, funtionality of the internal dispute resolution system, IMF Tribunal -should all be discussed in this article. As it stands the article is biased and heavily favors IMF.

Refrain from editing the article in such a manner. Please find a objective article or book etc that discusses the criticisms you are asserting. Once you've done so, it becomes something worthy of inclusion. Sephui 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From Scout :: Regarding the Pew Global Attitudes Survey data (70% of Africans feel positively about IMF/WB/WTO). This information is incredibly misleading. I sat down and went through the couple hundred pages of that report. This statistic is simply not representative of Africa as a whole. In fact, only ten countries were included (Angola, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda) while there are over 50 countries in the continent, all of which are IMF member states (excepting Western Sahara, one of the most sparsely populated territories in the world). Furthermore, the sample sizes in each country were incredibly small -- the majority under 1,000 people and often centered in urban areas (102, 161). Less than 10,000 people cannot statistically reflect the views of an entire continent. It is also clear that those living in abject poverty are not being well-represented in the survey, though they are the ones more likely to feel negatively towards IMF and World Bank strategies. Almost 18% of African people surveyed were internet-users, 15.6% owned a cell phone, and 31.5% watch international news on television (my calculated averages, statistics 101-103). If we use access to modern technology as a partial indicator of wealth, we can assume that those surveyed were not the majority of Africans facing the 'short end of the stick' regarding structural adjustment programmes, conditionalities, privatization, etc. Let's remove this stat, please, or drastically change its wording.

It's an actual poll and it should be included. Any criticisms you or I may have of it are original research and should not be included. If you can cite a reputable source criticizing the poll, then that criticism can be included.--Jsorens (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a poll that is funded by big oil. That's a fact. Are we going to pretend that they have a neutral POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.28.22 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of who put money into IMF and how much IMF has. Does it "create money" by selling treasuries such as a central bank does? Where did it get all this gold? Who gave it to them? These questions are fundamental to any lending agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.223.122 (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic Positions

OK is the World Bank the More Neo liberal and Powerful and of the two institutions?--J intela 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

• "World trade declined sharply, as did employment and living standards in many countries."

When? Does this refer to the Great Depression, or the effects of the IMF's activities. The context is entirely unclear.

• "Vatican City, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) are the non-UN member entities not participating in the IMF, although the Palestinian Authority currently receives IMF technical assistance."

So... these countries are not members of the UN, and are not associated with the IMF? If so, then why are they being discussed. If not, then how can the language be improved. Can these actually be the only four "entities" that are not a part of either organization?zadignose 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality of this article

I find this article extremely poor. I realize that IMF is an extremely controversial subject. Unfortunately that has led to quite a bit of editing and injection of things that are either irrelevant or political. Examples:

- History Section

• It starts with "In the Great Depression of the 1930s, economic activity in the major industrial nations slumped." and continues talking about "Ricardian comparative advantage". What does one have to do with the other and in which fashion does that relate to history?
• "The statutory purposes of the IMF today are the same as when they were formulated in 1944". So what? How does that relate to the history itself? shouldn't that appear - if at all - in the secion IMF today?
• "capitalist world experienced unprecedented growth in real incomes." A kind of weird formula. Most people talk in terms of political entities and not in ideological structures. It does not make sense.
• "Rapid advances in technology and communications have contributed to the increasing international integration of markets and to closer linkages among national economies. As a result, financial crises, when they erupt, now tend to spread more rapidly among countries." How does that passage relate to the history?

- Data Dissemination Systems

• Why this Passage there? Wouldn't it be more sensible to talk about structures first? Why is it so important that is gets all that passage

- IMF/World Bank support of Military Dictatorships

• I realize the political issues at play here, but a table of that size? I thought it is a Discussion about the World Bank itself. I don't want to suppress anything, but shouldn't it be found in the Criticism Area and maybe more proportional? It might be sensible to put the table itself on a separate page, if people feel so strongly about it and take only 2 or 3 cases from that.

--Ebralph 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ebralph, it should be in the criticism area and taking up so much space with this point seems excessive. Pepik70 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is of poor quality. All of the factual information can be obtained in a more precise and reliable form from the official IMF website imf.org. The various opinions (both favorable and unfavorable) have been better expressed and documented in the academic literature, almost none of which is cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.168.214 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

China Added to 'IMF support of Military Dictatorships' list?

With the evidence of human rights violations and repression from Reporters without borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty etc. in China. I think it makes sense to label them as a military dictatorship, and should therefore be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.169.47 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 member countries list

The table under section IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors, titled Table showing the top 20 member countries in terms of voting power: is sorted alphabetically. If it is to be consistent with the table title then shouldn't the table be sorted by voting power? Any objections? --Daleh ^T 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

Shouldn't Uruguay be added to the list of members under a military dictatorship? Didn't want to add it myself because i am a wikipedia newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.213.213 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents

Don't we need a list of Presidents just as there is a list of Managing Directors? 152.23.195.16 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotas don't add up

The Table referring to the Quota adds up to 101.49 Percent of Voting Rights, clearly one of the countries with 1.49 Percent Voting Rights is counted twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.182.229 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moi ≠ Dictator

Moi may not have been the best president ever, but as an elected official, I don't think its right to have him listed on the table as a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSix (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

make up mind on creation/organization date

1. "The International Monetary Fund was created in 1944"

2. "The International Monetary Fund was formally created in July 1944 "

3. "The IMF was formally organized on December 27, 1945,"

while #1 and #2 are essentially the same, why repeated? and then how to make agreement with #3?

perhaps article in general is in need of a hard read and cleanup. don't have time (or relevant knowledge) at moment.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence?

This article contains no statistical evidence to support its claims that IMF policies increased poverty and caused economic decline. And the Kenya reference is contradicted by the Economy of Kenya article which acts like the IMF's involvement began in 1993, after the scandal. I'm not saying what's being said isn't true, but you would think that such assertions would not be made without solid evidence presented to back it up. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela is not a member of the IMF

Venezuela is not a member of the IMF. Please remove Venezuela from the map in this article. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.106.50 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to IMF site Venezuela is a member state. Any sources for the opposite? Sharkb (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-NPOV content from History

More than fifty years after its creation, the IMF's shortcomings have become evident. Its reforms, which aimed at economic development through the liberalization of markets, have not served to assure the development of nations. Some might even think that it has assured the dependency of these countries on developed nations by the construction of an economic system based on external dependency. Restrictions in budget expenditure, necessary to ensure investment not only in education and health but also in industrial development, are partly to blame. It is important not to forget that the industrial success of most developed countries is due to heavy state investment, regulation and protectionism--three elements absent in the IMF's policy.

This is definitely not NPOV. Some of it might be interesting in the criticism section, but I'm kind of tired. Maybe if I remember I'll try to work it in tomorrow. It definitely shouldn't be there phrases like this though, and doesn't belong in the history section except maybe as "In recent times the IMF has been criticized for it's policies (see criticism)". Korin43 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

List of IMF members

Is there a list of IMF members? If not there should be Ijanderson (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Connections to the BIS Bank for International Settlements

What are the banks connections to the BIS , The Bank for International Settlements? Nunamiut (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo is now a full member of the IMF [3] Ijanderson (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Percentages don't add up

The percentages of quotas adds up to 100.39, that is probably just rounding errors and can be ignored. The percentage of votes, however, adds up to 98.91, which seems to far off to be just rounding errors. Every country in the list has a smaller percentage of votes than quotas and so does the "remaining countries" row at the bottom - that can't be right. Looking at the source, the smaller countries should have disproportionately high percentages of votes, so it looks like the "remaining countries" row is probably in error. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely so. You do an add up of the top 10 and subtract from 100 for the remaining countries. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudan

The information about Sudan is clearly wrong. The second president mentioned (actually prime minister) al-Mahdi is not a dictator. He was a democratically elected prime minister in a democracy that started in Sudan at the time (1985) after overthrowing Nimeiry, leading the biggest party in parliament while depending on coalitions of one sort or another because his party didn't command a majority there. Moreover, he lost power after democracy was overthrown in Sudan through a coup in 1989, so the information about the dictator continuing to present is clearly invalid. That is unless it meant the current dictator who lead that coup. This is especially relevant here because the table could be wrongly understood as the IMF supporting a dictator in Sudan in years 1985-89, when clearly there was no dictator at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.78.13 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

history discussion

Some suggestions for expanding the article's history section: The IMF gave Great Britain a financial bailout in 1956. The IMF played a a role in reversing Ghana's centralized economic management in the 1960s. The IMF implemented "structural adjustment programs" in countries throughout the world starting in the early 1980s, in the aftermath of the Third World debt crisis brought on by rising oil prices. The IMF played an important role in managing the crisis of the so-called "Asian Tigers" in the late 1990s.

This is all from memory; I'm not near a good research library right now. I'll work on this later if nobody else gets around to it.--Other Choices (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

The sentence "Vatican City, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) are the non-UN member entities not participating in the IMF" in "Organization and Purpose" needs to be re-written. It does not make sense and I am unable to make out how it should read so I can personally re-write it.

General Arrangements to Borrow

Some day, when someone have time we need to explicitly include a couple of paragraphs of how the fund operates. ie use of General Arrangements to Borrow, Gold Reserve and Special Drawing Rights. A mention of the fact that members are represented by the country's finance minister would help.

• I would be interested in working with wiki editors on clarifying how IMF operates on these discussion pages. Personally, I find the wiki method of trial/error, edit/delete cumbersome & tiring. Would be interested in hearing from administrators willing to help. Thnx nobs

Initial MassFunction

Although the Initial Mass Function is still a stub, there is a ambiguity between that article and this one... Both canbe referred to as IMF.

Cleanup

This article needs cleanup and removal of bias.

I don't know enough about the subject to do so myself.

Liberlisation of 'reform'?

The ecomomic policies of the IMF in recent history have all been to liberalise the economies of those seeking aid. This should be clearly stated. Not hidden under the blanket term of 'reform orientated economic policies'. To liberalise is not the only possible reform, and is a POV statement. PLease discuss here before reverting to 'reform oritentated'. ValenShephard 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New page

I've just created a page on sovereign default, to which sovereign debt crisis redirects. Please contribute material to those pages if you can! Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Top

I removed the reference to leveraged loans. The World Bank does not issue any leveraged loans. Someone uses these words to make the reader associate the World Bank with the private financial sector and the negative connotations of leveraged buyouts and highly leveraged institutions. One can say that the World Bank is leveraged as an institution, but this is because it makes loans (on terms beneficial to the borrowing country) while borrowing itself on the capital markets, with a small amount of capital (provided by mainly high-income countries) Globalwikireader (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The other thing that needs to be changed is the following. The top paragraph says "It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international exchange rates and facilitating development through the enforcement of liberalising economic policies[1][2] on other countries as a condition for loans, restructuring or aid.[3]". If you keep the word "stated", then you should quote the IMF's mission, not three articles that do not originate from the IMF. You can still quote these sources as other viewpoints of what the IMF is doing. Globalwikireader (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality source

One of the sources are very dubious (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html). It has a strong (if not extremist (the guy petitioned for death penalty for the rich in 2002)) political stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.135.189 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Membership qualifications

Jean Claude Trichet is mentioned as the Managing Director. As I gathered this to be wrong; I changed it to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.Prudentia (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships

I am not sure all of the leaders listed in this section can be deemed dictators. For example Moi from Kenya, was a very popular leader. At the time Kenya only had one party, so it couldn't be deemed a democracy by Robert Dahl's criteria, but Moi was NOT a dictator. A dictator has absolute power and Moi didn't have that, he had a parliament. The IMF did not lend Kenya under Kenyatta who was a brutal dictator money, but only when Moi took power. Moi did a lot to improve Kenya. I think this section is unfairly discriminatory against the IMF and needs to be cleaned up. xtc (sig) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.222.220 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - South Africa was not a military dictatorship. 'Apartheid' was a set of unjust laws that defied human rights, but it was a parliamentary fake democracy under (minority) civilian rule. Not all military dictatorships are dictatorships - in my book, at any rate, that's when the already recognised military seizes power (as has happened in Greece, Brazil, Pakistan, Burma, etc.), but not necessarily any dictatorship (so Nazi Germany would be a civilian dictatorship) - either way, South Africa was not even a dictatorship - it was not ruled by one or a tiny group of iron-fisted people with absolute power, but WITHIN the privileged minority it was quasi-democratic and parliamentary, even though less than a fifth could vote. By the same standard, the US in 1792 (when one in six was enslaved, and only relatively wealthy landowning males could vote) would have definitely been a 'military dictatorship', especially with a general getting 100% of the electoral votes to remain president! And I agree about Daniel Arap Moi - he and the Apartheid prime ministers may have been morally and politically suspect in the extreme, but they weren't dictators. Anyway, I've changed it to include 'governments perpetrating human rights abuses' which sounds a bit twee but seems to cover it.

Looks like a combination of POV and coatrack to me.

Any list of developing countries which need economic help is bound to include a large proportion of undemocratic governments, human rights abusers, and so on. For the IMF to refuse to deal with any but the cleanest would have deprived economic assistance from the millions who needed it most. Listing the "bad" countries (actually bad leaders) without context looks like a careful attempt at cherrypicking and framing in order to show the IMF as evil. You could do just the same to any other organisation which tries to help people in developing countries - looking at this map, Oxfam is even more evil... bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and language

This article is ridden with NPOV

The top paragraph says "It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international exchange rates and facilitating development through the enforcement of liberalising economic policies[1][2] on other countries as a condition for loans, restructuring or aid.[3]". If you keep the word "stated", then you should quote the IMF's mission, not three articles that do not originate from the IMF.

And

One of the sources are very dubious (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html). It has a strong (if not extremist (the guy petitioned for death penalty for the rich in 2002)) political stance.

It needs rapid attention by an expert''

--129.11.77.197 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EU

How about a European Union section in the table of members ? the european union does in general vote in common. --78.43.39.208 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• From an IMF viewpoint, this voting behavior is not much more than a coincidence. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

TAG IMF

1. DSK SCANDAL 20.1.1 MAY I >>> INSERT PEP.TXT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.209.199 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Update quota numbers?

The IMF has a paper dated June this year - the Updated IMF Quota Formula Variables - with new quota numbers for country members. Should the quota numbers in this article be updated on the basis of that paper? Or should we keep it on the basis of the link referenced in the article? Guinsberg (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the new quota table. Evenfiel (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The table isn't OK. I put a note on it because it is really wrong and needs to be updated. If I have time I'll do this later. Zimbres (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour of employees

This is an article regarding the IMF. It is not relevant to the article to cover the personal lives of the employees. That can be covered under that person's article. Wallie (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree. If no more objections, I'll move or erase that section.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that whole section about DSK's accused actions--they aren't even verified unless he is proven guility. I repeat again, that whole section has NOTHING to do with the IMF.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree; although we shouldn't have salacious details here, the media have repeatedly and extensively discussed the IMF on the same page as discussing this incident, so there should be a mention; to omit it would be to ignore what sources are saying. It should be a neutral mention, and a brief one - just add a few words to the sentence about DSK's resignation. How does that sound? bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No it has no relevance to the work on the IMF. Are you saying the IMF supposedly rapes people? The media ia always sensationalising the story. It has no siginificance on the IMF's role--yes theIMF has implemented strict conditionality but thathas nothing to do with sexual assault or the actions of one man. This page shoudl be for the IMF's activities, its criticisms only. if you you add stuff, you are sensationalising the story.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that the IMF rapes people; that is absurd. What I'm saying is that many reliable sources have tied the IMF to this story. You won't get a neutral, balanced article by pretending that the vast majority of recent coverage doesn't exist, and simply saying that DSK "resigned" is deeply misleading. I have no appetite for tabloids, but when the resignation of the IMF's head - not just an individual suspected of rape, but the resignation of the IMF's head - is front-page news on the FT and the Economist, then a wikipedia article about the IMF should surely reflect that. We just need a few words of neutral coverage, rather than sullen silence on a high-profile issue affecting the IMF. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One COULD make the argument that the IMF rapes people based on it's Structural Adjustment policies, but that wouldn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. A reference to DSK's behavior or any other individual employee at the Fund is not useful to understanding the nature of the IMF. A reference to studies and/or quotes that indicate that the IMF encourages a CULTURE of sexism and sexual harassment, like a discussion of Walmart's behavior towards it's own employees (which wikipedia has actually branched off into a whole page on criticisms of Walmart) is also relevant to a discussion of that company. Morgainari (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The IMF does not "rape" countries, even if you make that analogy. i has been a bastion of neoliberal promotion, but even DSK has shifted the organisation's focus. Just because he's charged with rape (innocent till proven guilty), the last few users have been editing this page and his as if it's a tabloid.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(Previous snarky commentary redacted.) What I said was, one COULD make the argument, however, whether the analogy is accurate or not it would be irrelevant because what I also said is that it doesn't serve the purpose of wikipedia. DSK's trial is not relevant to the IMF page at all, guilty or not guilty. What IS potentially relevant: whether the IMF as an organization fosters a work environment that is hostile to women and supportive of workplace harassment. It may be, I have heard rumblings that it does, but I don't at the moment have useful sources to support that claim. Morgainari (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Calm down i was expanding on my previous points above. Clearly there are many primary and secondary soucres on the negative impact of IMF actions--even on the IMF website itself.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

How can free-market advocates criticise the Fund? It isafter all the beacon of neoliberalism.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Putting an organisation beyond all criticism, even evidence-based criticism, is a religious rather than an economic decision. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that free-market advocates (as the section states) are said to crticises the fund. How is free-market a religious decision?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you've answered your own rhetorical question. "Free market" is an economic rather than a religious concept. Some people who understand the economics might feel, after looking at the evidence, that some of the IMF's decisions have been bad; no complex organisation in a complex evironment can have a perfect record - some make better decisions than others. If there are other people who have more black-and-white dogmatic stances, they may give the IMF unquestioning support or unwavering opposition, but you have ruled those out. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the criticism of the IMF's policies are not from free market advocates, but from supply-side economists (and human rights activists). The limited information under "Criticism from Free-Market advocates" might more realistically be called "some vague defenses that the IMF uses to justify against criticism of it's free-market policies." Recommend removing section unless someone can write a summary of criticisms of the fund that actually speak from a free-market economics perspective. The linked citation from aynrand.org may be useful, as free market ideology is founded on the idea that all government intervention is bad for the economy, and therefore the concept of the IMF in general is principally flawed. Morgainari (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought most of the criticisms come from people of various backgrounds--Stiglitiz (asysmmetric information in economics), H-J Chang (political economy) and even non-economists.Cibwins2885 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true in as much as there is plenty of criticism for the IMF from various fields (as demonstrated by the Criticism section) but I think the point still stands that I don't think the section "Criticism - From Free-Market Advocates" conveys what it intends to convey.Morgainari (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping a note that the second paragraph of the Criticisms section is written in a very unencyclopedic manner, especially the part about restructuring. I don't usually edit so I'll leave it up to someone who can. Yangez (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IMF/World Bank consensus

"Historically the IMF’s managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned".

There is a weasel word tag for this claim, a good citation would be from the article 'The IMF' in the latest Economist, if anyone would want to put it in.

le Dan (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan.

I couldn't find anything really suitable from The Economist (it would have been helpful if you had give the URL) but I did source with the BRIC nations statement earlier in the competition, citing The Financial Times. If you would like to put a URL here to the article you're thinking of and let me know, I'd be glad to cite it. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

see Woods, Ngaire, 2003, “The US, the World Bank and the IMF” in Foot, Rosemary, MacFarlene, S.Neil, and Mastanduno, Michael (ed.)., US Hegemony and International Organizations, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.92-114 and others on this.Cibwins2885 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cibwins. Thanks for this. I've cited this in the article thus "Woods, Ngaire (2003). "The United States and the International Financial Institutions: Power and Influence Within the World Bank and the IMF". In Foot, Rosemary, MacFarlene, S.Neil, and Mastanduno, Michael (ed.). US Hegemony and International Organizations. U.S.A.: OUP. pp. 92–114. ISBN 9780199261437. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)" FightingMac (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. some times refs go beyond links.Cibwins2885 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Organizational structure

How does the IMF operate? What are the roles of the Managing Director? How many deputies does she have? What is the hierarchy? These are questions the article should answer in a separate clear section. Ratibgreat (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

indeedCibwins2885 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

International Privatisation Fund

The IMF should be renamed thus. And privatisation is anything but a neutral policy. It is only favoured by Reaganites and Thatcherites. Keynes must be spinning in his grave. SmokeyTheCat 19:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for article improvement which are based on evidence rather than ideology? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote about China leaving

I don't understand why the leaving of China from IMF is quoted by the article marked number 11. This article deals with Kosovo, not China. Perma link Erendar (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says:

Other would-be nations have found the going tough as they sought membership in international bodies. Taiwan was booted out of the IMF in 1980 when China was admitted, and it hasn't applied to return since. Unlike Kosovo, Taiwan isn't recognized by the U.S. and most other major nations as a fully independent state, and an IMF application would be unlikely to succeed.

bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

After reading through the current International Monetary Fund, I feel that the page portrays the IMF too narrowly and omits many of the main controversies. Not all of the perspectives on the IMF are included or even touched upon. The IMF is a very large, well-known, and powerful international organization. Understanding the IMF’s lending in terms of the conditions of the loan and policy implications is crucial for developing awareness and education about this organization. I plan to expand on a few new sections while also adding more information to existing sections. I am adding a section on Lending including the benefits and consequences of loan conditionality, and sections on Leadership, Reforms, and Decision making. The new Leadership section will include a brief history of the past Managing Directors and some of the criticisms they’ve received. The existing criticisms section needs to be edited in order to include more credible sources. The Member States and Membership sections can be combined with a subsection about quotas. Basically the current article is dominated by criticisms of the IMF and there is not enough information on the IMF’s function. Please let me know your thoughts! QuincyC (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review 1

This article has a lot of great information. My main suggestions would be to reorganize the page and add a bit more information for clarification, to mention specific sources for non-factual information instead of using passive voice or citing what "some" say, and to make the tone of the article much more neutral.

With regards to the organization, I would rename the 'List of Managing Directors' section 'Managing Director' and make it more about the duties of the position (what you currently have under 'Leadership'). I would also suggest that you move the explanation of the quota system (including SDR and the benefits and consequences) to a subsection under History instead of under Voting power because you mention the quota system several times before you explain what it is. Also, I would rename the 'Benefits and consequences' section 'Effects' because it doesn't really describe benefits or costs. Under 'Proposed reforms,' the 'U.S. influence' and 'Debtor/Creditor divide' subsections don't actually detail proposed reforms, so they belong in the Criticisms section. I would make the Data Dissemination and Assistance and Reforms sections into subsections of an 'Activities' section and put them before the 'Leadership' section because the voting setup and proposed reforms make more sense given that context. In the 'Criticisms' section, the ODI critique should have its own subsection because it's huge. The Argentina paragraph should be in a 'Results' subsection under 'History' or 'Activities' because it's not a criticism in and of itself. The discussion of the Medium Term Strategy and Decision on Bilateral Surveillance also fit the 'History' section better.

In terms of information, you might want to add a sentence about how the Nixon Shock killed the Bretton Woods system in History. More detail about the relationship between the Managing Director and the Board of Governors and about the official duties of the Executive Board would be good. In the Board of Governors section you said that the Board chooses the executive directors- does that mean the Managing Director, members of the Executive Board or both? Also, does the Voting Power section refer to voting power in both the Board of Governors and the Executive Board or just the Executive Board? If you have time a table showing the directors, countries, shares of votes on the Executive Board would be great, although that's not vital. Under 'Data Dissemination,' you need to explain the difference between the GDDS and the SDDS and get rid of the redundant information.

In a lot of places you use the passive voice or say "some" or unnamed "economists" espouse certain viewpoints. If it's not a concrete fact, you need to name the source (e.g. Economist John Doe states that....).

The article's content and tone seem disproportionately critical of the IMF. Wikipedia's neutral point of view means that articles should use neutral language and present both sides of a controversial subject. You used a lot of language like 'the IMF's interventions supposedly help the recipient's economy' which implied that the IMF didn't do what it said it was doing. Unless you're detailing criticisms or results, try to use more neutral phrasing like "The IMF program aimed to boost the recipient's economy," which does not evaluate the program results. A results section showing some successful IMF interventions alongside the unsuccessful ones (and ideally with a study evaluating its results across the board) would make the article much more neutral. You could put a section detailing why people/governments support the IMF or with responses to criticisms also.

Sorry that was incredibly long! Your article has a ton of great information and I'm looking forward to reading the end result. Nadhika99 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! I really struggled with using neutral language. Also, I added in a sentence about the Nixon Shock. I never came across this through my research but it is very relevant. QuincyC (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Extensive edits

I have added the following sections: History, Member countries, Leadership, Functions, Use, IMF and Globalization. I added these in order to better define the International Monetary Fund and its global impact. This international organization has evolved since 1944 and there are many academic articles that seek to either criticize or praise the IMF's role. The IMF's description needs to include the controversary so the reader's of this page can gain a better understanding of the different viewpoints. QuincyC (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

You may want to go through and simplify your references. It is not necessary, it would just make it easier to see where the majority of your information comes from and for someone who is editing your changes later to reorganize the article. I made a couple of grammar edits to make sentences flow better, but overall your edits are excellent. This page is very comprehensive and easy to understand. You should make sure you add a citation where another user placed the citation needed marker. Nadhika covered my other criticisms about the critical view of the IMF, but I do find it interesting that you managed to have such an even balance of positve and negative because the majority of articles minimize the criticisms section. Overall, I feel that this entry is very encyclopediac although Nadhika's points bout neutrality are spot on.Kristianedosomwan5 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

More Suggestions

This page for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is very extensive. At times, however, I do think it goes into too much detail. For example, the section "Surveillance of the Global Economy" seems very specific and somewhat unnecessary, especially when it discusses all of the specifics of GDDS and SDDS. I would suggest cutting down some of the details and making this section much more precise and concise. In the introduction, I would use another word for "conceived" and cut the word "including" in the second to last sentence. I have some other basic grammar edits that I would like to show you. In the "Leadership" section, make sure to have a citation for the sentence, "The Executive Director representing the largest constituency of 22 countries accounts for 1.55% of the vote." I also would suggest cutting down the details about the Carstens and Lagarde election. In the "United States Influence" section, work on the syntax because the wording is not very sophisticated and very confusing. Finally, in the "Reforms" section, make sure to properly link Sachs' "The End of Poverty." Overall, I think you need to work on the wording and grammar above all things. The content is perfectly fine; I especially like how there is a "Criticisms" section. However, you need to decide what content to include and what content to get rid of. Best of luck with your project! Stnicks007 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Stnicks007

Change in IMF policies towards Europe?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief economist Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh in a special report enumerated their earlier errors in predicting the effects of austerity measures in European countries, according to EUobserver. "Predictions are significantly underestimated the increase in unemployment and a fall in domestic demand associated with fiscal consolidation," said a document released last week. Blanchard and Leigh through mathematical formulas to explain how wrong they were about fierce austerity measures in countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal. Although the document states that "does not represent the official views of the IMF", however, shows a change in attitude towards the IMF austerity measures in Europe.78.3.208.186 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Llinks

[4](Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)).

Criticisms cleanup

There are two main sections labeled "criticisms"

In addition, language such as "Moreover, it was sometimes claimed that the burden of the deflationary effects was borne disproportionately by the poor." How are things getting cheaper bad? Especially for the poor?

The second criticisms section lacks many citations for things it alleges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Criticisms" bias

The "Criticisms" and "Reform" sections seem horrendously biased. They make statements such as "The IMF’s role as a generalist institution specializing in macroeconomic issues needs reform," and both make reliance on a single source. I would propose that some of the material be retained, but couched in terms such as "According to Jeffrey Sachs", as stating that an institution needs reform is completely unencyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazok (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section underneath "Conditionality of Loans" is blatantly biased and has no verifiability- for example, the sentence "The Fund knows very little about what public spending on programs like public health and education actually means, especially in African countries; they have no feel for the impact that their proposed national budget will have on people." has no citation, and is clearly in violation of NPOV. I suggest that the more egregious material either be deleted, or reworded and cited as its respective owner's opinion. 99.20.58.13 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Something missing

It has been reported today that Ukraine is getting $ 18 billion from the IMF. With the IMF obviously not printing money, it needs to be said where IMF billions are actually coming from.

Why not use this loan to Ukraine as an example to make us understand where IMF money comes from, and if all funds come from the same sources. Without knowing anything, the IMF looks like a money tree.

Is the money taxpayer funds from IMF member states?

Does it come from private banks in member countries, and in which ratios? In this case it is even important to know who carries the risks of these loans as I am not optimistic that the Ukraine is stable (or honest) enough to pay back the loans this time. If we are members in the IMF, should we not know if or when they engage in risky business and to what extent? 121.209.56.80 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

US dollar, being printed in the USA and will flow into private pockets of corrupt Ukrainian politicians. That's the simple trick of US empirialism and how they will dictate their future policies to the Ukraine (that's actually the US trick since the Marshall plan). Anyhow, it doesn't matter because foreign loans don't make sense whatsoever. Ukraine should print their own money and subsequently put it into their own economy (investments, infrastructure projects, better schools, cleaner water, power plants, subvention of environmental technologies, aso). Actually, they should do anything what the USA fails to do in its homeland. That's the only way out. --178.197.225.24 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Section cleanup

The section titled Exceptional Access Framework - Sovereign Debt seems like a personal opinion and could be a copyvio. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'International Monetary Fund' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Romanian criticism

@TrainSimFan:Regarding the addition of criticism from the Romanian government; diff.

The speech in youtube clip does not seem to mention IMF (FMI) directly?

A better reference would be preferable, and put in the article at chronologically correct position - speech was in 1989.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well for him, he thinks that the rich countries are IMF/FMI TrainSimFan (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be classed as synthesis (WP:SYN), ie. A - He states rich countries are making the country poorer, B - He thinks rich countries are the IMF, therefore A + B He thinks IMF are making the country poorer.

Is there no source where Romania criticises the IMF directly? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find one. IDK How to explaine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainSimFan (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Official language is English

Someone keeps trying to insert the French name of the Fund into the lead and the infobox. There is no reason for privileging French in this way—that is, over Spanish, Russian, etc.—since the only official language is English (see footnote 42 here, an IMF history by James Boughton). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

<no subject>

PROTOCULTURE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.13 (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by 84.187.203.192

User IP 84.187.203.192 - the content you added was removed because it was inadequately sourced (see WP:CITE) and presented a one-sided point-of-view (POV; see WP:NPOV). It also read like a statement from an essay rather than an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOTESSAY). The material is acceptable if it can be fully cited and stated objectively without being a specific statement of a single POV. You may wish to study the WP Manual of Style (WP:MOS). Thank you for making a contribution to Wikipedia. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Colombia and Venezuela

Any confirmation of Colombia's and Venezuela's withdrawal from the IMF? Its official webpage still considers them as members, and in the last couple of weeks the institution has approved a credit line for Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojowasaman (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Claessens's comment on this article

Dr. Claessens has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is generally a good and fair article. There is some updating to be done, like on the size of the institution's balance sheet. but there is also a need for more balance by having other views reflected. For example, the article makes it seems that the Fund adheres to the Washington Consensus, but it has moved quite a bit away from that One area where the write-up is particularly weak is on the role of the IMF in financial surveillance, including through the Financial Sector Assessment Program. Related is its view on capital account liberalization, which has evolved much in the last two decades, I also found the structure not the easiest as it went back and forth between descriptive of what the IMF does and how it operates and what people's views are. Importance recent reviews were by Carmen Reinhart and Barry Eichengreen in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2016, which should not only be referenced but also reflected in the write-up.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Claessens has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Eugenio Cerutti & Stijn Claessens & Lev Ratnovski, 2014. "Global Liquidity and Drivers of Cross-Border Bank Flows," IMF Working Papers 14/69, International Monetary Fund.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Monetary Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019030859/http://www.thepressproject.net/article/55653/IMF-leak-European-banks-had-committed-to-maintain-exposure-in-Greek-bonds-after-first-bailout---but-didnt to http://www.thepressproject.net/article/55653/IMF-leak-European-banks-had-committed-to-maintain-exposure-in-Greek-bonds-after-first-bailout---but-didnt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107124156/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5379&title=imf-ldcs to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5379&title=imf-ldcs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Three primary functions

In the section "Functions", there is a line "its three primary functions were"; however, only two functions are listed. What is the third function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmrmaxwell (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you! seems that they have forgot to put the number 3!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)