{"title":"WHEN WILL ECONOMICS GUIDE IMF AND WORLD BANK REFORMS","authors":"Charles W. Calomiris","doi":"10.7916/D8CC1961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The “Report of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission” (IFIAC 2000), released in March, is a blueprint for reforming the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other multilateral development banks. That report, known as the “Meltzer Commission Report” (Allan H. Meltzer was chairman of the IFIAC), was signed by a bipartisan majority of 8 to 3. It has generated its share of criticism from opponents in the commission minority, the Clinton administration, labor unions, and Congress. 1 Since our report was published, it has become clear to me that two separate debates are being waged over the new “global financial architecture.” One is the narrow (visible) debate over the technical aspects of specific proposals for designing mechanisms to achieve well-defined economic objectives. The other is a broader (less visible) debate over whether the IMF, the World Bank, and the other development banks should have narrowly defined economic objectives or alternatively, be used as tools of ad hoc diplomacy. Until we settle that second, broader political debate, we cannot seriously even begin the constructive dialogue over how best to achieve economic objectives. That dialogue is important; our proposals are a starting point for","PeriodicalId":38832,"journal":{"name":"Cato Journal","volume":"171 1","pages":"85-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cato Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8CC1961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28
Abstract
The “Report of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission” (IFIAC 2000), released in March, is a blueprint for reforming the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other multilateral development banks. That report, known as the “Meltzer Commission Report” (Allan H. Meltzer was chairman of the IFIAC), was signed by a bipartisan majority of 8 to 3. It has generated its share of criticism from opponents in the commission minority, the Clinton administration, labor unions, and Congress. 1 Since our report was published, it has become clear to me that two separate debates are being waged over the new “global financial architecture.” One is the narrow (visible) debate over the technical aspects of specific proposals for designing mechanisms to achieve well-defined economic objectives. The other is a broader (less visible) debate over whether the IMF, the World Bank, and the other development banks should have narrowly defined economic objectives or alternatively, be used as tools of ad hoc diplomacy. Until we settle that second, broader political debate, we cannot seriously even begin the constructive dialogue over how best to achieve economic objectives. That dialogue is important; our proposals are a starting point for
今年3月发表的《国际金融机构咨询委员会报告》(IFIAC 2000)是改革国际货币基金组织(imf)、世界银行(World Bank)和其他多边开发银行的蓝图。这份报告被称为“梅尔泽委员会报告”(Allan H. Meltzer是IFIAC的主席),两党以8比3的多数通过。它也招致了来自委员会少数派、克林顿政府、工会和国会的批评。1自从我们的报告发表以来,我已经清楚地看到,围绕新的“全球金融架构”正在进行两场独立的辩论。一个是关于设计机制以实现明确的经济目标的具体建议的技术方面的狭隘(可见)辩论。另一个是更广泛的(不太引人注目的)辩论,即国际货币基金组织、世界银行和其他开发银行是否应该狭隘地定义经济目标,或者作为临时外交的工具。在我们解决第二场更广泛的政治辩论之前,我们甚至无法认真地就如何最好地实现经济目标展开建设性对话。这种对话很重要;我们的建议是一个起点