The IMF Reform Program Will Have A Major Global Impact.

In December 18th, the US Congress passed the IMF reform plan.

The late reform brought IMF and the international community boundless reverie.

It is learnt that in accordance with the reform plan, IMF share will shift to 6% in emerging market economies and developing countries.

After the share adjustment, although the United States is still in the first place and enjoys the veto power of one vote, China has surpassed the European countries after the US and Japan.

India will also rise from eleventh to eighth, and Brazil will rise 4 to tenth.

The debate on the share of IMF reform and the change of voting power are the reasons why the US Congress has been reluctant to approve the reform plan.

In 2008 ~2010, the financial crisis made the global market scrambling.

Not only is the emerging market, but European countries also believe that the United States has caused inadequate financial and financial governance and lax supervision.

The group of seven (G7) saved the economy and then expanded to the 20 group of G20 with emerging economies.

This means that the post-war global economic order and governance are facing further readjustment.

The United States wants to pfer part of the voting rights to emerging markets, which the United States does not want to see.

But Europe is sovereign.

Under the circumstances, we hope to use China's capital to crack the crisis and hope that China and India, Brazil and other countries will shoulder more responsibility for global economic and financial governance.

Under the circumstances, the US government has to accept this reform plan.

But because of the dispute between the US House of government, the IMF reform plan lasted for 5 years.

This has typical American characteristics: first, because of the change of international political and economic order, the United States is unwilling to make adjustments with the situation on the basis of its own interests; two, the adjustment of the economic relations between the United States and other countries must be based on the premise of being beneficial to the United States.

From IMF reform program to Asia Investment Bank (AIIB), the United States has become an obstacle to China's participation in global economic governance.

From the standpoint of the United States, there is no fault in maintaining our country's absolute right to speak in the global economic governance.

But whether it is IMF reform or AIIB, China's role in global economic governance institutions must keep pace with the times.

China's leading global economic governance institutions may not have the response of the United States and Japan, but they will get the support and participation of European countries. This is not the warm embrace of developing countries.

An example of co - operation with the world bank shows that it is better to integrate China into the existing global economic governance institutions rather than allow China to start a new business.

IMF is sober.

IMF President Lagarde and her team have very clear logic for the future of IMF and its position in global economic governance.

That is to say, only by giving the share and voting rights of the emerging market members, including China, to their national strength, can they activate their global responsibilities and obligations.

No right to give, no obligation to release and responsibility to undertake.

So, although Congress is right

The reform plan is too slow, but Lagarde welcomed the belated approval.

After all, about the IMF reform program, we finally gained the most win results.

IMF and China have been doing well this year.

China has become the "third largest shareholder of IMF" and the "basket" of the renminbi, symbolizing China's influence in global economic governance.

But the greater the power and the more power, the greater the responsibility and the more obligations.

For developed countries, the share of emerging markets such as China has increased their financial burden, and emerging markets have gained more voice in international economic governance.

For the United States, because the economy has been fully recovered, the IMF reform plan will not constitute a big financial burden on the United States, and the recovery of the United States can afford so much money.

More importantly, if the US Congress does not approve this reform plan, it will not only undermine its position in IMF, but also lose its leadership and credibility in its allies and global markets.

After all, 144 countries, including Japan, Britain and France, have approved the plan.

IMF governance institutions have changed, and the integration of new forces has made them more dynamic and global.

The world economy is still not coming out of the new mediocrity. From Ukraine to Greece to other developing countries, more financial assistance may be needed.

The implementation of the IMF reform program has enabled it to have a more abundant pool of funds to cope with the global economic situation.