The Contestation of the IMF

Alexandros Tokhi
{"title":"The Contestation of the IMF","authors":"Alexandros Tokhi","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198843047.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":346828,"journal":{"name":"Contested World Orders","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contested World Orders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843047.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际货币基金组织的争论
很少有国际组织像国际货币基金组织(IMF)那样对民族国家行使如此大的政治权威,并引发实质性的政治争议。本章探讨了全球经济中的新兴大国,特别是巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非(金砖国家)对IMF政策和规则的质疑程度。他们是对该机构的经济政策范式表达了普遍的不满,还是寻求提高自己在该机构中的地位,并扩大自己对该机构的影响力?在对国际货币与金融委员会(International Monetary and Financial Committee)历次会议期间的发言进行定量分析后,本章发现,新兴大国和老牌大国对IMF的竞争程度相当。然而,金砖国家的争议行为与主要发达经济体在性质上有所不同。后者要求制度改革,而前者则强烈批评制度程序和制度规则。金砖国家对其在国际货币基金组织基于份额的决策体系中的机构代表权问题提出了最强烈的异议,而国际货币基金组织的(新)自由主义政策范式似乎并未在这一行为中发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contestation Overshoot Rising Powers, NGOs, and Demands for New World Orders The Contestation of the IMF Cleavages in World Politics Conclusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1