I'll respond in detail soon to John's very interesting intervention (full disclosure: I have been intimately involved in the design of this institution since 2011).
But one URGENT clarification:
The Bank does NOT have a governance structure in which "money votes with shares". The principle of "one member one vote" has been established. India fought hard for this with South Africa, and I was somewhat surprised at how lukewarm the Brasilians were in supporting this principle. Anyway, to my deep satisfaction, it is now so.
One other piece of information may be of interest. I was tasked to write the design note on the governance structure for the Bank, for India to present for consideration during the negotiations. That note argued forcefully for delinking economic weight/ contribution to capital from governance clout/ voting power. That has now been achieved. The note also proposed that the Principals should contemplate adding between one and four " stakeholder members" to the Board from amongst our Southern development partners, to be chosen by nomination or rotation. But they would have EXACTLY the same voting rights as the capital contributing partners I e one member one vote. And no vetoes.
The exact number of such Board members would clearly be a political decision. One would be gestural. Five would be excessive as then the founder members could be outvoted by a coalition of non founders which would never fly politically in our domestic constituencies .. thus between two and four stakeholder members depending on the leaders appetite for South solidarity and mutuality.
This proposal has not been implemented at this time, indeed my own country bureaucrats were very uncomfortable with it, when I presented it in the design note.
Even so, our (new) political leadership thought the idea worth airing in Fortaleza.
As far as I can see it's not been trashed, either. So I live in hope.
Director and Chief Executive
National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
Ministry of Finance
New Delhi, India