(MD) of the International Monetary Fund hold considerable power and prestige, having a
certain national in these positions is in itself an indicator of influence.
But, saying (correctly) that a) decisions in the IFIs are majority-based, b) majorities are
variable in their Executive Boards, c) coalitions behind the various decisions are
impossible to identify with precision, given the way majority rule is exercised inside
them, and d) United States or US-European coalitions can dominate the institutions, one
begs the question of what are the most common or regular patterns of influence that are at
least implicit in their decision making. A key issue is how these patterns can be
identified and analyzed.
Patterns of Influence in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
In this paper we look at two IFIs --the World Bank and the IMF-- not only because they
are by far the most important among the existing ones, but also because they are the most
homogenous in structure and decision making. They have the same origins (the Bretton
Woods Agreements of 1944), they have the same members (to become part of the WB,
countries must first be admitted to the IMF), they have largely similar Charters, and are
both global in membership (184 members in July 2002)8. They are also complementary
institutions in many respects. Thus, patterns of influence can be analyzed in both,
separately and jointly.9
Some indicators of influence inside the World Bank and the IMF can be found in the
national composition of their staffs and managements. The staff is in fact influential in
both of them. It has high skills and often deeply held beliefs. Functionally, staff passes
key technical judgments on country problems, programs, needs, goals and means. It
advises management on issues that need to be brought to the attention of the Boards of
Directors of their organizations, and prepares the documentation on which the Executive
Directors in turn base their decisions. Both institutions follow a technocratic modus
operandi, using documents and analysis quite intensively. The supply of this
documentation and analysis is thus critical to the quality and speed of decision making.
The overall staff of the IMF is 25% US, 24% European, 7% from other industrial
countries such as Canada, Japan and Australia-New Zealand.10 The staff of the World
Bank is 22% US, 13% European and 3% from other industrial countries (Table 1).
Developing country staff would seem to dominate numerically here, but the reported
shares could be biased by the presence of much support staff from developing countries
8 See Bakker (1996) for a competent description of the origins, structure and rules governing the IFIs,
including the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. This book also covers salient aspects of
their histories and evolution.
9 The most important of which was the General Agreement to Borrow from 10 industrial countries (which
became the G-10) signed in 1962.
10 It would be preferable to look at distributions of professional and managerial staff by nationality,
especially because the support staff does not weigh as much as the professional/managerial staff in
influencing judgments and decisions. WE were not able so far to obtain this data.