IMF亟需解决“双重人格”问题

    目前，IMF的问题在于它很容易受到西方国家的操纵，特别是欧洲国家。由此产生的负面影响众所周知。

    三年来，IMF一再被迫参与各项计划，目的都是为了陷入困境的欧洲经济体。这些计划设计不周，监管不严而且资金不足。

    因此，不出意料，它们的效果总是达不到向民众做出的承诺。许多人都已不再把IMF视为解决方案的一部分，而是把它看作问题的一部分，这一点同样也可以理解。

    最近在塞浦路斯问题上的惨败凸显了这个可悲的局面。

    为了解决塞浦路斯问题，IMF签署了一份初步协议。但这份协议设计得如此糟糕，以至于国际社会及多个国家立即予以批评。它迫使所有签约方从根本上推翻了这项协议，而仅仅几个小时前，它们不光在协议上签了字，还得意洋洋地发表了联合声明。

    随后，IMF再次削弱了自身的公信力。它又对修改后的协议表示认可，而后者对于塞浦路斯问题的复杂性既未充分理解，也没有进行透彻分析。而且时至今日，这项协议也没有获得足够的资金。

    这两件事情上以及欧洲的其他类似事务中（包括希腊问题），我怀疑IMF都认为自己别无选择，只能屈服于欧洲政界的压力。但这样的做法可能损害的不仅是IMF的公信力和地位，它还可能削弱IMF影响私人资本流动的能力。而私人资本对增长和就业来说是如此的关键，它们的突然转向会让国家局势不稳，让社会陷入困境。

    要变得更有效力，IMF要做的就远不止于阻止那些政治主宰者改变自身的管理和行为方式。目前，就调整投票权和代表权提出的温和建议力度不足，而且已经陷入僵局。应当通过更重大的改革来强化这些建议。此外，IMF成立以来，领导人的位置实际上总是留给欧洲人。因此，应当大举改革IMF的领导人选举方法，以免国籍掩盖了个人的优点。

    有些人觉得虽然早就应该进行这样的改革，但实际上它们不可能付诸实施。他们认为，欧洲人不会愿意削弱自己的传统权利，即便这些权利已经过时。

    他们说的有道理，但让IMF的众多人才及其巨大潜力进一步付诸东流并不是解决问题的途径。相反，这些人的深刻认识体现出了坦诚地开展大范围讨论的重要性，而且这样的讨论最好由IMF自己来主持。

    现在，IMF的管理层和工作者应该告诉全世界，哪些东西能让IMF在目前高度相互依赖的全球经济中按照后者的根本要求和殷切期望来发挥作用。以此为蓝图，人们就能想象到全球对话在信息更充分而且更有建设性的基础上进行，从而取得实质性进展。没有这样的蓝图，全球经济就会成为一个缺乏协调的交响乐团，虽然亮点很多，但所奏曲目混乱不堪，有时甚至令人感到痛苦。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    The problem with today's IMF is that it is easily manipulated by western countries in general, and Europe in particular. And the detrimental consequences have been clear for all to see.

    Repeatedly over the last three years, the IMF has been pressured to participate in programs for struggling European economies that are inadequately designed, poorly monitored, and insufficiently financed.

    Unsurprisingly, outcomes have consistently fallen short of what was promised to citizens. Understandably, many have started to see the IMF not as part of the solution but, rather, as part of the problem.

    This sad phenomenon was highlighted recently by the debacles in Cyprus.

    To the stunned amazement of virtually everyone I know, the IMF signed on to an initial agreement that was so poorly designed that it immediately attracted widespread international and national condemnation. As a result, the agreement was essentially disowned by all those that, just hours earlier, had signed on and participated in a triumphant announcement.

    In the follow-up, the IMF again undermined its credibility. It agreed to a revised program that showed insufficient understanding and analysis of the complexities of the country's problems; and one that, even today, is yet to be fully financed.

    In both cases, and in other similar circumstances elsewhere in Europe (including Greece), I suspect that the IMF felt it had no choice but to succumb to pressure by European politicians. But in doing so, it is has risked more than its credibility and standing. It has also undermined its ability to influence the flow of private capital that is so critical to growth and employment, and whose sudden reversal can destabilize countries and impose social hardships.

    To be more effective, the IMF needs to do much more to press its political masters to revamp the institution's governance and practices. The current modest proposals to tweak voting power and representation are insufficient and already stalling. They should be enhanced with more meaningful reforms. Moreover, the selection process for the institution's leader, which de facto reserves the position for a European (and has done so since the Fund's inception), should be dramatically changed to avoid nationality trumping merit.

    Some feel that, while long warranted, such reforms stand no practical chance of implementation. They argue that Europeans will resist an erosion in their historical entitlements, even if these are now blatantly outdated.

    They have a point. Yet the answer is not to allow the Fund's enormous talent and its huge potential to erode further. Rather, their insight speaks to the importance of an honest and broad-based debate. And the anchor for this best comes from the IMF itself.

    Now is the time for Fund's management and staff to tell the world what is needed for the institution to perform a role that is critically required, and sorely missing in today's highly inter-dependent global economy. With this as a blueprint, one can imagine a more informed and constructive global debate and real progress. Lacking that, the global economy will resemble an uncoordinated orchestra that, despite many bright spots, delivers confusing and, at times, painful renditions.