IFIwatchnet

The statement by Tosovsky to the IMF executive board was remarkable - it actually made EU candidate Strauss-Kahn look like a breath of fresh air.

We might have thought that the 'alternative' candidate nominated by Russia would challenge some of the pre-conceived notions at the IMF and pitch for change at the institution. Instead Tosovsky's board statement is dull reading doing little more than praising the Fund and parroting the lines of every country about the issues facing the Fund. It starts with effusive praise for the institution:

This institution is where potential problems and opportunities are diagnosed, ideas tested in discussion and debate, experiences shared, and policies formulated. It would be an immense privilege to be part of this process.

In my own career, I have come to be a great fan of the Fund. For many years I sat across from Fund missions—in both program negotiations and Article IV Surveillance discussions, in easy times and in crises. I have always been impressed.

Were these just diplomatic niceties? It seems not. No where in the statement is their criticism of the Fund's past work or its current practice. It nods to the need for a new income model and governance reform, but so has everyone from the US down to the smallest shareholder. And even on the emotive topic of voting rights and quota reform, Tosovsky only manages a weak: "The Fund needs to find a formula that is better representative of the facts on the ground and that, at the same time, reassures all countries that their voice will be heard."

That is a far cry from the statements of Strauss-Kahn in support of more radical reforms like double majority decision making. If we were to imagine that Tosovsky and DSK represent the breadth of opinion on the IMF, then DSK really is the "candidate of reform" that he has touted himself as.

The bigger question is what has happened to developing country demands for reforms of the institution. Despite fiery rhetoric on the need to change the Fund, not a single developing country stepped forward to nominate a candidate for MD that would do just that - spitfire leaders in Ecuador and Venezuela included. If, as Russia repeatedly claims, Tosovsky has support from a wide range of developing countries, this is a sad indication of how demoralized developing countries have become in pressing demands for change at the IFIs.

Granted there was little chance of any developing country candidate who espoused heterodox economic views being selected, a nomination would have at least given the developing countries a platform from which to publicly lambaste the Fund for its continued intransigence in reform. Clearly the leaders of the developing world are still cowed by the power of the US and Europe.