Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers
It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilateral organizations navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The art...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International affairs (London) 2017-09, Vol.93 (5), p.1149-1166 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1166 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1149 |
container_title | International affairs (London) |
container_volume | 93 |
creator | GÜVEN, ALI BURAK |
description | It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilateral organizations navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The article tackles this question by examining recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank practice. It argues that, resistant though the Bretton Woods twins are to comprehensive reform, they nonetheless employ mechanisms to cope with the new realities on the ground. However, this adaptation lacks a cohesive strategy, and on balance remains insufficient. The analysis launches from a discussion of the normative, operational and competitive challenges the Fund and Bank face. It then discusses three coping mechanisms the organizations have employed over the past decade: 1) bolstering operations in low-income countries (LICs) and small middle-income countries (MICs); 2) adopting a flexible approach towards large MICs and in particular emerging powers to retain them in the organizations’ client portfolio; and 3) reinforcing and refining non-lending activity to preserve normative authority. The effectiveness of these adaptive efforts in addressing the challenges of multipolarity is variable, comprising a mix of modest gain, abject failure and untested promise. Implications for the organizations’ efficacy also remain uncertain. Even then, these initiatives highlight the twins’ willingness to defend their institutional supremacy in a fast-changing global system. Crucially, they also harbour important signs of change in how ‘development’ is perceived and practised in the strongholds of western multilateralism. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ia/iix167 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ia_iix167</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48571589</jstor_id><oup_id>10.1093/ia/iix167</oup_id><sourcerecordid>48571589</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cf08082336fef5ba71f2329a32d0381b01c2d32347f160f3dc1a88340c06e6b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9z79LAzEcBfBQFHpWB3EWHFw6xH6_-V5yuVHqjxYKLjqHXC6RFNs7khbsf2_lxLHTWz68x2PsGuEBoaZZtLMYv1FVI1ZgqTQXVKozVgAI4FJLGLOLnNcAgER1wW6efPDbNm4_7_K-T35j3eGSnQf7lf3VX07Yx8vz-3zBV2-vy_njijtCueMugAYtiFTwQTa2wiBI1JZEC6SxAXSipeN-FVBBoNah1ZpKcKC8agRN2HTodanLOflg-hQ3Nh0Mgvl9Y6I1w5ujvR9st-9PstuBrfOuS_-w1LJCqWv6AQ12UT8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</creator><creatorcontrib>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</creatorcontrib><description>It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilateral organizations navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The article tackles this question by examining recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank practice. It argues that, resistant though the Bretton Woods twins are to comprehensive reform, they nonetheless employ mechanisms to cope with the new realities on the ground. However, this adaptation lacks a cohesive strategy, and on balance remains insufficient. The analysis launches from a discussion of the normative, operational and competitive challenges the Fund and Bank face. It then discusses three coping mechanisms the organizations have employed over the past decade: 1) bolstering operations in low-income countries (LICs) and small middle-income countries (MICs); 2) adopting a flexible approach towards large MICs and in particular emerging powers to retain them in the organizations’ client portfolio; and 3) reinforcing and refining non-lending activity to preserve normative authority. The effectiveness of these adaptive efforts in addressing the challenges of multipolarity is variable, comprising a mix of modest gain, abject failure and untested promise. Implications for the organizations’ efficacy also remain uncertain. Even then, these initiatives highlight the twins’ willingness to defend their institutional supremacy in a fast-changing global system. Crucially, they also harbour important signs of change in how ‘development’ is perceived and practised in the strongholds of western multilateralism.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-5850</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2346</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ia/iix167</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>International affairs (London), 2017-09, Vol.93 (5), p.1149-1166</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of International Affairs. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com . 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cf08082336fef5ba71f2329a32d0381b01c2d32347f160f3dc1a88340c06e6b23</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48571589$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48571589$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1584,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</creatorcontrib><title>Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers</title><title>International affairs (London)</title><description>It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilateral organizations navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The article tackles this question by examining recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank practice. It argues that, resistant though the Bretton Woods twins are to comprehensive reform, they nonetheless employ mechanisms to cope with the new realities on the ground. However, this adaptation lacks a cohesive strategy, and on balance remains insufficient. The analysis launches from a discussion of the normative, operational and competitive challenges the Fund and Bank face. It then discusses three coping mechanisms the organizations have employed over the past decade: 1) bolstering operations in low-income countries (LICs) and small middle-income countries (MICs); 2) adopting a flexible approach towards large MICs and in particular emerging powers to retain them in the organizations’ client portfolio; and 3) reinforcing and refining non-lending activity to preserve normative authority. The effectiveness of these adaptive efforts in addressing the challenges of multipolarity is variable, comprising a mix of modest gain, abject failure and untested promise. Implications for the organizations’ efficacy also remain uncertain. Even then, these initiatives highlight the twins’ willingness to defend their institutional supremacy in a fast-changing global system. Crucially, they also harbour important signs of change in how ‘development’ is perceived and practised in the strongholds of western multilateralism.</description><issn>0020-5850</issn><issn>1468-2346</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9z79LAzEcBfBQFHpWB3EWHFw6xH6_-V5yuVHqjxYKLjqHXC6RFNs7khbsf2_lxLHTWz68x2PsGuEBoaZZtLMYv1FVI1ZgqTQXVKozVgAI4FJLGLOLnNcAgER1wW6efPDbNm4_7_K-T35j3eGSnQf7lf3VX07Yx8vz-3zBV2-vy_njijtCueMugAYtiFTwQTa2wiBI1JZEC6SxAXSipeN-FVBBoNah1ZpKcKC8agRN2HTodanLOflg-hQ3Nh0Mgvl9Y6I1w5ujvR9st-9PstuBrfOuS_-w1LJCqWv6AQ12UT8</recordid><startdate>20170901</startdate><enddate>20170901</enddate><creator>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170901</creationdate><title>Defending supremacy</title><author>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cf08082336fef5ba71f2329a32d0381b01c2d32347f160f3dc1a88340c06e6b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>International affairs (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GÜVEN, ALI BURAK</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers</atitle><jtitle>International affairs (London)</jtitle><date>2017-09-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1149</spage><epage>1166</epage><pages>1149-1166</pages><issn>0020-5850</issn><eissn>1468-2346</eissn><abstract>It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilateral organizations navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The article tackles this question by examining recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank practice. It argues that, resistant though the Bretton Woods twins are to comprehensive reform, they nonetheless employ mechanisms to cope with the new realities on the ground. However, this adaptation lacks a cohesive strategy, and on balance remains insufficient. The analysis launches from a discussion of the normative, operational and competitive challenges the Fund and Bank face. It then discusses three coping mechanisms the organizations have employed over the past decade: 1) bolstering operations in low-income countries (LICs) and small middle-income countries (MICs); 2) adopting a flexible approach towards large MICs and in particular emerging powers to retain them in the organizations’ client portfolio; and 3) reinforcing and refining non-lending activity to preserve normative authority. The effectiveness of these adaptive efforts in addressing the challenges of multipolarity is variable, comprising a mix of modest gain, abject failure and untested promise. Implications for the organizations’ efficacy also remain uncertain. Even then, these initiatives highlight the twins’ willingness to defend their institutional supremacy in a fast-changing global system. Crucially, they also harbour important signs of change in how ‘development’ is perceived and practised in the strongholds of western multilateralism.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/ia/iix167</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0020-5850 |
ispartof | International affairs (London), 2017-09, Vol.93 (5), p.1149-1166 |
issn | 0020-5850 1468-2346 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ia_iix167 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
title | Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T10%3A43%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Defending%20supremacy:%20how%20the%20IMF%20and%20the%20World%20Bank%20navigate%20the%20challenge%20of%20rising%20powers&rft.jtitle=International%20affairs%20(London)&rft.au=G%C3%9CVEN,%20ALI%20BURAK&rft.date=2017-09-01&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1149&rft.epage=1166&rft.pages=1149-1166&rft.issn=0020-5850&rft.eissn=1468-2346&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ia/iix167&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48571589%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48571589&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ia/iix167&rfr_iscdi=true |