By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, November 18 -- After the International Monetary Fund's board agreed on November 5 to move six percent of powers to developing countries, the IMF says that “most commentary was positive.”
But when Inner City Press asked UN Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Affairs Jomo Kwame Sundaram about it on November 16, he said that two thirds of the six percent comes from “other developing countries,” and that the quota system should be further reformed. Video here, from Minute 21:30.
At the IMF's biweekly briefing on November 18, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson about this criticism. She said she wasn't aware of it (since “most commentary was positive”) and argued that 80% came from “advanced economies” and the rest from “a small number of oil producing” countries which she said are technically classified as developing.
Ms. Atkinson then said that of the 187 members, 110 countries saw their quotas increase, 102 of them emerging and dynamic countries -- another euphemism for developing?
These two very different views of the changes turn on how one defines developing. While the UN often mis-classifies these, to rely entirely on the IMF to assess the seriousness of IMF reforms also seems unwise.
Inner City Press also submitted two country specific question, the first of which on Sudan Ms. Atkinson read out and acknowledged, promising a later answer:
On Sudan, both Hillary Clinton and the UK's William Hague on Nov 16 said they are in talks about reducing the national debt as an incentive for the Southern Sudan secession referendum scheduled for January 9. Is the IMF involved in any such talks? Can the IMF play any role in reducing Sudan's debt? [We will publish the IMF's answer - watch this site.]
On Democratic Republic of Congo, what is the IMF's reaction to the shortfall in Paris Club debt reduction (“82.4 percent reduction of Congo's debt stock, short of the 90 percent target”) and to the pace of reforms in the DRC?
Watch this site.
