A drive to give developing countries more say in running the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, two agencies accused of drowning poor nations in poverty and debt, threatens to produce o­nly cosmetic changes and a few token administrative roles for poor nations.

But officials pushing the plan say they have so far succeeded in keeping the matter o­n the agenda and have "hopes" of positive decisions by September.

Civil society groups and some developing nations have long complained that the policies of the two institutions have a sweeping impact o­n southern nations, yet they lack legitimacy in those countries and often produce negative results.

Make way

Activists complain that seats and votes in the Bank and the Fund are allocated according to countries' economic size, and have demanded that rich lender nations make way at their tables for poorer nations.

The 46 sub-Saharan African countries, for example, have o­nly two executive directors representing them o­n the Bank and Fund, while eight rich nations have a single executive director each.

Directors from rich countries now control over 60 per cent of the votes at the World Bank and IMF while the US administration has veto power over any extraordinary vote requiring a super-majority.

The Bank and the Fund each have 184 members from developed and developing countries and 24 board members representing countries or groups of nations.

It is also wrong that leaders of the two institutions are selected in a non-transparent manner based o­n nationality, with European countries nominating the IMF managing director and Washington proposing the resident of the Bank and the IMF deputy director, says Ann Kathrin Schneider, an activist with Germany's World Economy, Ecology and Development (WEED).

Schneider says the positions should be open to qualified nominees from any member country, while geographic diversity should be promoted at the top levels of the institutions.

The idea of creating a larger profile for poor nations first came to light in September 2002, when the development committee, the highest decision making body at the institutions, requested that its staff prepare a document outlining ways to amplify the voice of developing countries, which would be considered at the spring 2003 meetings here this weekend.

In mid-February, high-level meetings were held to study proposals and draft the paper.

But while the IMF/Bank document o­n the proposals defends past achievements, it appears lukewarm o­n further concessions.

Upgrading local capacity

The paper, distributed to the press here, implies that better representation might not be a priority now because the poverty reduction strategy papers, policy documents that must be prepared by borrowing countries before they can qualify for loans, already give borrowers "a voice in Bank-Fund assistance programmes in their countries".

The current distribution of quotas, shares and voting rights, which favour rich nations, must be maintained to reflect the relative importance of member countries in the global economy, the document adds - a view that has given countries like the United States and Germany greater clout than nations like India and China.

The paper also contends that the financial bodies are already "upgrading local capacity", referring to programmes in Africa that train local officials o­n managing their economies according to the institutions' guidelines.

Development campaigners condemn these programmes as tools to transfer the neo-liberal policies of the Bank and IMF to the local level.

The 18-page paper also says that the two institutions are promoting "diversity in staffing" as a way to gain a better understanding of developing countries' concerns, but it disregards that most of those posts are low level clerical or even security positions.

But the Fund and the Bank are not the o­nly sides dragging their feet to make changes. Hesitation comes from unexpected quarters.

Adding value

Some African ministers say that their countries need more training and capacity building before they can positively wield more voting power, echoing the staff paper.

"It is not o­nly a matter of the number of votes that we have," Charles Konan Banny, governor of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) told reporters Friday. "We have to add some value and intellectual value added. There's also a problem of capacity building and of training."

To further cloud the proposal's fate, the Group of 24 developing nations, which operates as an association of minority shareholders in the IMF and Bank, gave lukewarm backing to the plan o­n Friday but called for a "substantial increase in basic votes to restore their (developing countries') role in relation to total voting power".

A source familiar with the progress of the proposal told IPS that there is "a sense at the meetings that there's no need to rush the initiative".

The source, whose country was among few pushing changes, said that he does not expect concrete results when the meetings end Sunday and that the most that advocates of the plan could accomplish this weekend is to keep the item o­n the agenda for the IMF/Bank annual meetings in Dubai in September.

"Africa has been given six more staff positions," at the institutions' offices here, said the official who wished to remain anonymous. "That's a positive step. The success is not to get a short-term victory but to keep the issue alive. At a meeting like this, you plant the idea, make o­ne or two changes and between meetings a lot of work happens."

The official confirmed that at least five countries - Italy, Canada, India, South Africa and Argentina - were still lobbying behind the scenes to push for more rigorous reform, against opposition from heavyweights like the United States and Britain, both preoccupied with other issues, primarily Iraq and reviving the world economy.

In February, several civil society groups and activists recommended a redistribution of board seats and votes to guarantee that all member countries are equitably represented.

They also demanded that no more than 10 countries be represented by a single director, that board membership be rotated among countries in a single constituency and that no o­ne country have a veto o­n any decisions. - IPS