Changes

Accompanying this change in focus was a change in method. Former [[World Bank]] Chief Economist [[Joseph Stiglitz]] notes that originally, “the IMF was based on a recognition that markets often did not work well – that – that they could result in massive unemployment and might fail to make needed funds available to countries” (Stiglitz 2003, p. 12). But in the 1970s and 1980s, “the Keynesian orientation of the IMF, which emphasised market failures and the role for government in job creation, was replaced by the free market mantra of the 1980s, part of a new ‘[[Washington Consensus]]’” (Stiglitz 2003, p. 16).

From its beginning, the IMF was dominated by the rich industrialised countries - and particularly by the USA - which have tightly controlled the Fund’s agenda, both through the IMF’s formal decision-making structure, and through informal influence. Formal decision-making power in the Fund is held by two bodies: the Board of Governors, and the Executive Board. Everyday management of the Fund is the responsibility of the “Managing Director” – selected – selected by and chair of the Executive Board. There is an unwritten agreement that every IMF Managing Director should come from Europe, and every first Deputy Managing Director is American. This has held true for the entire life of the Fund. Stiglitz points out that the managing director of the IMF is chosen “behind closed doors, and it has never even been viewed as a prerequisite that the head should have have any experience in the developing world.” (Stiglitz 2003, p. 19). In contrast to democratic institutions, formal power on the IMF’s boards is distributed according to the economic power of its members. Voting is determined by “quotas”, which are in turn determined by the size of a country’s contribution ot the Fund. The USA – as the world’s largest economy – holds a significant 17 per cent of the total voting power. The [[G8]] – the group of eight powerful industrialised nations – controls a vote of 48% of the votes on the Fund’s board, leaving only 52 per cent for the other 176 IMF members. In stark comparison to the influence of the rich countries, the largest African member of the Fund – South Africa – holds just 0.87 per cent of the total voting power [http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm]. This political structure has allowed rich countries to effectively control the agenda of the IMF, and has denied a real voice to the poor countries which are the recipients of Fund policies.  ==The IMF's PR Problems== In 2000 the IMF's Managing Director, [[Michel Camdessus]], stated that "We are not seen to be accountable, and some of our member governments from time to time find it convenient not to express their public support." At the time ''PR Week'' noted that "The McLean, VA-based [[Wirthlin Group]] conducted a global image survey for the IMF’s external affairs department, while [[Edelman]]'s DC outpost presented suggestions to the organization's executive board on ways to upgrade PR. The results of the survey and the recommendations, however, have not been revealed to the public."<ref> Steve Lilenthal, [http://www.prweekus.com/IMF-to-embark-on-PR-push-with-naming-of-new-head/article/38122/ "IMF to embark on PR push with naming of new head"], ''PR Week'', February 21, 2000.</ref>