by Tunde Adelakun

Created on: July 24, 2007   Last Updated: July 25, 2007

The world bank has long proclaimed his dream of "a world free from poverty",the International monetary fund may arguably desire "a world free from financial crisis." These are crucial and daunting objectives,but they are not too narrow for the twenty-first century.To remain relevant,the Bretton Woods institutions must fully adapt to the needs of the world's rapidly emerging countries,and they can begin that process at this spring's IMF-World bank meetings in Washington.

As many now acknowledge,the IMF should should look beyond managing financial crises and start addressing non-coperative economic behaviours-notably in the monetary field..The international community will gain from the IMF's becoming a center of joint-monitoring and permanent dialogue among the world's rich,poor and emerging nations.But for that to happen,the latter two need a greater say.
As for the world bank,it does not need to reposition' itself so much as to root itself in emerging countries,as does the development aid industry in general.The international community must resist short -sighted calls to withdraw from middle-income nations on the ground that they could now "go it alone"
When it comes to global governance,communicable diseases,climate change,or threats to biodiversity,these countries importance speaks for itself.They account for 44 % of people living with HIV/AIDS ,47% of global CO2 emmisions,and 52% of the planet's projected natural areas.The international community simply cannot leave them to their own devices on such crucial issues without jeopardizing its own future.
Fighting poverty is a non negotiable objective.But it cannot be the sole purpose of international aid,nor of the World bank.In fact, a genuine commitment to poverty reduction implies working with these countries.They are home to 70% of the population that lives on less than $2 a day,facing massive unemployment,gross inequalities,lack of infrastructure,regional imbalances,and a litany of other challenges.
Some critics argue that lending public money to middle-income countries is no longer necessary,due to their access to financial markets.True,private capital flows have have surged in the wake of global liberalization and these countries' privatization schemes.But private capital flows have proven to be volatile and prone to sudden interruptions,as exemplified by Asian and Russian financial crises of the late 1990's,or more recently by investors pulling out from infrastructure sectors.
Another line of suspicion

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>