The United States has enjoyed the privileged position of largest shareholder and donor at the World Bank and IMF since the institutions’ founding 70 years ago.
CGD Policy Blogs
Will the US Supreme Court Argentina Decision Make It More Expensive for the World Bank to Do Business?
There are no doubt a number of new realities created by the US Supreme Court’s decision this week to let stand a lower court ruling supporting hedge fund bond holders who refused to accept reduced payments after Argentina’s 2001 default.
In the world of sovereign debt workouts, the relationship between Argentina and the Paris Club has tended to look like Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. Time and again, Argentina (Lucy) would earnestly declare interest in striking a deal to repay its debt to club creditors only to pull back at the last minute. So imagine everyone’s surprise at this week’s announcement that Charlie Brown finally got to kick the football.
Clare Walsh, a senior official in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the chair of the Development Working Group of the G-20, recently visited CGD for a round-table discussion with CGD senior staff. Afterwards I hosted her and CGD senior associate, Scott Morris, a former senior US Treasury official, on the Wonkcast.
It’s Spring Meeting Time in Washington, and the World Bank’s Finances Have Never Looked Better. Time for a Bank Resource Review.
The World Bank’s governors will meet this weekend to check in on president Jim Kim’s ambitious reform agenda. Anticipating the weekend’s meetings, the bank has rolled out a series of measures through press releases and speeches over the past two weeks, including the announcement of new global practice leaders, a set of financing measures to boost the bank’s lending capacity, and a completed IDA-17 replenishment agreement.
Developing countries are not the only ones that are “capacity” and “governance” challenged when it comes to doing major infrastructure projects.
Carrots for Ukraine, Sticks for Russia: What the International Financial Institutions Can Do in Response to Crimea
The IMF, World Bank, EBRD, and the European Investment Bank have all emerged as significant players in the dramatic events in Ukraine in recent weeks. The Obama administration has very visibly sought to educate Congress on the central role of the IMF in helping to shore up the country’s shaky economy. And the three development banks have figured prominently in press releases coming from the European Union and the United States as a demonstration of the international community’s support for Ukraine’s interim government.
Benn Steil and Dinah Walker have a baffling post up on the Council on Foreign Relations website, calling out Treasury Secretary Lew for making the factual statement that congressional passage of IMF quota reform “would support the fund’s capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine.”
The EBRD has a charter mandate to work in countries “committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism, and market economics.” And what could be more compelling than Ukraine today?
My guest on the Wonkcast this week is Scott Morris, a senior associate here at CGD and former deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury, where he oversaw US ties with the multilateral development banks.
Scott recently led a study group of CGD colleagues and outside experts that reviewed G-20 efforts to increase financing for infrastructure in developing countries. The group produced a short note proposing five new deliverables for the G-20 on infrastructure finance. (See Scott’s blog post with Madeleine Gleave for an even shorter version.)