The role of the IMF in the global financial crisis has been discussed in the media. In a recent article, The Washington Post says that the Fund is been taking aside by the wealthiest countries, in which its “opinions” have less and less value. For the WP, IMF should only help small countries.
In another article, Forbes says that IMF is out, regarding the financial crises an it is not an important “actor” in the global stage.
The IMF has been an important support for developing countries, especially during the 1990’s and 2000’s.
In this current turmoil, the Fund is helping small nations such as Iceland to get over the financial crisis. Other nations, such as Romania and Bulgaria, are probably going to have the support of the Fund.
What is more interesting in these information is to see how unseriously the rich countries are taken the Fund. If they are not good for them, how come they were good for the other nations?
I remember to read about interventions of IMF in Brazil, for example, since I was a teenager.
If the rich nations do not accept IMF opinions seriously it is because there is something wrong with the Fund and it is totally related to the discussion in the article Time for a Change in the IMF.
As said in the beggining of the article, “the strenght of any institution lies in its ability to adapt and serve changing economic and political forces”.
The problem is that, if the nations that controls the Fund do not want its help, a question is evident: Was the Fund really helpful at any time?
Accordingly to The Washington Post, IMF increasingly “shifted from banker to fi ...