A very interesting discussion, in particular the latter point regarding the perverse outcome whereby the IMF - despite its dismal record of forecasting global and country-level growth - has not had a dent to its credibility, quite the opposite.
I have today published a blog making this very point in the Financial Times' BeyondBrics blog, examining how the IMF has sought to make itself indispensable and is increasingly central to global economic governance without sufficient scrutiny of this ramped-up role.
Forgive the title, it was not of my choosing: Original on FT website (free but requires registration) or find on our BWP website (free access)
Given the little space afforded me, I sought to focus on the fact of the Fund's resurgence and mission creep, and the unresolved contradiction of its unreformed governance. Rather than emphasising criticism, I hope to foster a debate about just what the IMF is for, and whether it can ever hope, given its legitimacy and governance shortfall, to play the role it is mandated for evenhandedly and constructively. I have been making the argument for a little time that the IMF's resurgence in influence has not been accompanied by a concomitant level of scrutiny and that the focus on China's rise, via the New Development Bank and AIIB, has served to obscure the scale and extent of the IMF's impact - needless to say, and thanks to Isabel's research on fiscal policy/space over several years - the Fund's claims to have changed its stance on fiscal and many other policy matters do not stand up to the scrutiny that does exist.
IMF Programme Manager
The Bretton Woods Project
33-39 Bowling Green Lane, London UK EC1R 0BJ
Tel: +44 (0)20 3122 0644