The idea of a permanent G20 secretariat to provide professional support to the member states has been advanced repeatedly, especially by former French President Nicholas Sarkozy. The rationale was to give states a better chance to prepare for summits and thus play a more active role in debates. Moreover, a secretariat could enhance the continuity of the agenda. Yet most of the G20 states, Germany in particular, have to date opposed stronger institutionalization. From the point of view of these countries, member states should remain the driving force in the G20 process.
The organization deals with macroeconomic issues, such as international monetary policy and exchange rate stability, and helps member states facing difficulties in their balance of payments. However, this is not done on equal terms: Decisions are made on the basis of a quota system in which larger economies have a greater financial obligation but also more voting power than smaller states. As a result, the United States and the EU member states are seen as too dominant, while developing nations and emerging economies, on the other hand, have too little influence. This unequal influence is manifest in several aspects of the institutional framework: 1.
voting power or quotas,
the composition of the Executive Board, and
the appointment of IMF leadership.
Unlike the United Nations or the WTO, where every member has one vote, the weighting of votes in the IMF is designed to reflect each member’s relative strength in the global economy. Emerging market economies such as China, India, or Brazil were particularly underrepresented relative to their economic output. Moreover, the calculation of the quota formula was seen as unbalanced and non-transparent, and its application was inconsistent. Ratified amendments to a more transparent, clear quota system formula along with other member states. The IMF is often accused of working in secrecy and refusing to release reports and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document