Bretton Woods Committee  | Wed, May 17, 2023

Ajay Banga takes the helm of the World Bank at a singularly important time in determining the institution’s contributions to economic development. 

This is a time of severe economic/international debt distress for many developing countries, with higher levels of absolute poverty than have been seen in many years; a time of mounting public concern about climate change; and a time when authoritarian governments control nations that account for more than one-half of the world’s population.

Never before have so many leading foreign aid experts, notably including Samantha Power, the current Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, been so ready to acknowledge that the success of aid agencies critically depends on their skills in partnering with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  

At the international level, for example, Banga’s Bank needs organizations like the Bretton Woods Committee to publicly advocate for far more resources for loans and grants to enable the World Bank group to substantially scale-up its operations – as it must, for example, if it is to provide vital leadership in protecting the world’s environment. 

Further, only with far deeper partnerships with such global NGOs as those at the forefront of confronting refugee, environmental, human rights, and corruption challenges, can the Bank build the partnerships and alliances that are crucial at this time. After all, for example, failures of governance including rampant corruption, enormous violence, environmental degradation, and failures of development assistance, have combined to produce a situation where we now have more than 100 million refugees in the world. This is a record. The outlook could be even worse.

At national levels, civil society organizations in many countries, including the poorest, have developed professional skills and deep local knowledge in areas of development, delivery of social services and anti-corruption that can provide vital qualitative inputs for World Bank project operations. Inputs both in terms of project design and project monitoring. While the Bank has notionally embraced the idea of working with in-country civil society, its consultations are for the most part superficial and unlike a number of leading bilateral aid agencies, the Bank has failed to directly provide significant funding to these organizations.

The World Bank needs to revive a commitment to partnering with NGOs that was evident in the distant past. For example, the Bretton Woods Committee was created in the early 1980s when then World Bank President A.W. Clausen called on the private sector to advocate for strong support by the U.S. Congress to fund the International Development Association (IDA) at a time when then President Reagan’s Director of the Officer of Management and Budget David Stockman announced more than a 50 percent cut in U.S. funding for IDA. Support from NGOs helped the Bank at that time to establish a special grant facility for sub-Saharan Africa that partially offset the sharp U.S. Administration reduction in IDA funding.

In 1995/’96, then World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, engaged in substantive discussions with Transparency International that led to the formulation, for the first time, of a World Bank anti-corruption strategy. This in turn influenced the development of anti-corruption mandates for major bilateral aid agencies and other multilateral institutions, including the International Monetary Fund.

And it was largely under Wolfensohn that the World Bank sought to engage on a regular basis with a rising number of civil society organizations across the globe – inviting representatives to meetings, promoting forums to publicize their views, and encouraging consultations between them and Bank staff.

While World Bank leaders since Wolfensohn have all spoken publicly in support of partnering with civil society, the reality is that there has been scant senior management support for Bank staff to work with civil society in Bank projects.  When concrete proposals for projects have been made, then approvals can take far longer than the timeframes that are meaningful for most in-country civil society organizations. And Bank staff often seek full project control.

Ajay Banga’s success in his position will demand a far greater level of Bank-NGO partnership – if he fails to make this a priority, then he may find that the Bank will fall short in meeting the crucial goals economic, development and environmental goals that it has the potential to attain.  

1  For Example, major speech by Samantha Power in December 2022 

Frank Vogl is the former World Bank Director of Information and Public Affairs (1981-1990), is a co-founder of Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund. He is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University.
 

To continue reading at Bretton Woods Committee , click here.

Towards a New Era of World Bank-Civil Society Partnership

Now that Biden-nominated World Bank presidential candidate Ajay Banga has been confirmed, the chatter around Washington (apart from the debt ceiling debacle and the King Charles coronation) is all about whether he will be able to navigate the enormous challenges facing the institution. Banga certainly has a herculean task ahead of him when he takes the reins on June 2. While most of the current conversation is focused on whether Banga’s resume and skill set can deliver on an ambitious World Bank reform agenda, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on outgoing President Malpass’s tenure and the state of the institution he leaves to his successor. 

When Malpass took office in April 2019, many wondered whether the Trump-appointed nominee would shed hawkish rhetoric on China and climate skepticism to be an effective leader of a global, multilateral institution. Plenty of detractors argue he did not. He certainly didn’t do himself any favors with his avoidance of pointed questions on whether he was a climate denier at last year’s Climate Week NYC which he later walked back. But on balance, Malpass leaves the World Bank in a stronger position than when he arrived and shepherded it through one of the toughest macro environments in its history. 

Malpass took over a World Bank in the midst of an organizational culture crisis with a visibly and vocally disillusioned staff. His first order of business was to get the Bank back to basics by streamlining its operations and footprint and reinvigorating staff around its core mission of poverty alleviation. When the pandemic hit, the Bank moved with speed and scale to provide assistance to developing countries. It did the same in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  

Throughout the economic fallout from these twin crises, Malpass tirelessly promoted debt transparency and sustainability initiatives to help developing countries break the cycle of unstainable debt. Under his leadership, the Bank Group more than doubled its climate finance to developing countries, reaching a record $32 billion last year. He also led successful and expedited IDA replenishments, re-upping the funding window for the world’s poorest countries.   

Is it fair to say the Bank could have lent more under his leadership over the past few years to facilitate the net-zero transition or been more ambitious in its pandemic response? Sure, if you think the core mission of the World Bank is to address global challenges and you measure success by lending volume. But, if like Malpass, you believe in a World Bank whose core mission is economic growth and a country-driven approach to development, then it’s fair to say he effectively implemented that vision.  

This poverty reduction vs. global public goods crossroads is exactly where his successor, Ajay Banga, inherits the Bank. As the largest shareholder of the World Bank, the United States has been pushing for a reform agenda that seeks to reorient the institution to better address global challenges such as pandemics, education, and climate change. But borrowing countries, particularly African countries, have been noisy about their interests in ensuring that poverty reduction remains a core priority for the World Bank, which is the largest provider of concessional finance for these countries. With donor countries so far unwilling to consider a capital increase for the Bank to lend more, their concerns over how the pie will be sliced are valid (especially with the IDA financing cliff they’re facing). 

Banga will need to use every bit of his impressive resume to sow divisions among advanced economies, emerging markets, and low-income countries to build a shared agenda for all. And he will need to build on his extensive private sector experience to find ways to unlock the highly cited, and thus far unrealized, private finance. Expectations for him are sky- high. Based on what we’ve seen of him during his candidacy, he looks poised to be a transformational leader. He appears to possess the same charisma, ambition, and willingness to challenge orthodoxy, that the late Jim Wolfensohn brought to the job – arguably, the most revered World Bank President in its history.  

Banga has an unenviable task ahead of him. No less is at stake than the existential relevance of the World Bank. While he looks like the man for the job, he deserves time (more than 100 days) and a fair shot at success before we start pulling out the scorecard.  

Any leader’s job is to leave an institution in a better place than you found it. Wolfensohn did. Malpass did. Banga likely will too. But at the Bank’s current crossroads, leaving it a better place is a greater task than ever before. I’m certainly rooting for him. 

Emily Slater is the Executive Director of the Bretton Woods Committee

World Bank Presidents: Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown

In October 2002, IFC and ABN AMRO Bank convened in London the 12 largest project finance banks (including Citibank, Barclays, others) to discuss social and environmental issues in our lending practices with local communities, trade unions, NGO’s. We had 12 different cases in the morning and 1 common cause at the end of the afternoon, resulting in June 2003 into the Equator Principles, based on the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social. A landmark achievement: it was the first voluntary sector agreement among sector industry leaders to raise the values’ bar.

The convening role of IFC and the ability to have its Performance Standards as reference, was crucial for the success of this private financial sector accord.

This year, 20 years later, a similar landmark initiative should be initiated, addressing the urgent issue how the financial sector can be a steward for a better world, with ethical standards, environmental sustainability and social justice worldwide, by fundamentally improving our practice of risk & impact management in the entire financial and non-financial private sector, with a clear focus on values’ based true value creation for all stakeholders with true prices for products and true profits for companies.

ROLE OF FINANCE: MOVING BEYOND ESG, IN SEARCH OF A NEW PURPOSE

The private financial sector is in search of a new purpose and its role in society, considering its own long-term interest, as well as its duty of care to serve the real economy and the public interest towards a peaceful, fair and thriving society “for generations to come”. It is uniquely placed to credibly offer perspectives and solutions using its knowledge, networks, financial capital mobilization ability, within its regulatory environment.

Playing ESG-defense is just the beginning:

Active embracing of the values-based, “do no harm” ESG-agenda (notably GHG emissions, loss of biodiversity, human rights, illicit money flows) by advising, supporting, even conditioning its customers and investees how to become more resilient and have no undue negative impacts, is an essential, already on-going first step by the financial sector.

Transformation towards a new income model:

However, there is an urgent need for much better by actively creating new “true” value: a fundamental rethink on how to drive a positive transformation by way of a “doing good and well”-opportunity-agenda with a clear mission towards “better business, clients and investees for a better world”. A more macro-prudential risk & impact approach, addressing systemic risks, should prevail over the traditional short term micro-prudential orientation. The 1st Line of Defense (the business line in the banking sector) should be reframed as the business force to contribute to serve, on a profitable basis, the public interest through its customers and investees.

This transformation should be seen in the context that our traditional beliefs, mindsets, tools and screens on investing, the economy and our society have become fundamentally flawed in our “age of consequences” (natural resources’ depletion, pollution, climate change, social divides) in which we face a massive markets’ failure: Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” needs brains and a heart.

MAKING THE ECONOMY, CAPITALISM AND MARKETS FIT FOR PURPOSE                                                                

GDP as key indicator of economic success is mis-measuring our real economy and, hence, misdirecting our policies and lives, as the sole focus is on economic performance by financial flows, without recognition of “external” factors:  issues such as dependency of and/or access to increasingly scarce natural resources, social cohesion, human dignity & skills, any negative impacts we cause, contribute to or incur, such as climate change, pollution, loss of biodiversity.

We are living and doing business well beyond our planetary boundaries, which is unsustainable: “net zero” is only stabilizing the patient, we need to move to “net positive”: to repair and regenerate. We are leveraging our financial, natural, and social balance sheets. We are mortgaging the future of next generations.

Our market economy is dysfunctional, with markets not being efficient, not only because of too much and too long monetary and fiscal stimuli during the last couple of years, but, even more, because of lack the right performance and valuation information, disciplines, and disclosures. We are mis-pricing long term risks, and our asset valuations are misleading as the costs and returns of increasingly scarce types of other than financial capital (i.e. Natural, Social, Human) are not considered, let alone reported and verified.

Business’ long-term self-interest and the expectation, even imperative of responsible business conduct (by international agreements and many national jurisdictions) implies much stronger due diligence and duty of care in its entire value chain (“Scope 1, 2, and 3”), addressing the traditional, material “outside-in” financial risks as well as, equally, material “inside-out” impacts on stakeholders and wider society. Active stakeholder engagement (“what matters to whom”) is important, including in governance. “Impact Weighted Accounts” should be a key feature of investment analysis and corporate reporting (www.impacteconomyfoundation.org).

Green transformation scaling and accelerating:

The Net Zero GHG emission targets and other green policies and initiatives are only the beginning of a much needed, more systemic transformation in our economies and societies, all related to sustainability. The big challenge hereby is to address global issues (climate, biodiversity, public health) in a fragmenting world on a global basis, effectively and fairly.

We are offloading many social and environmental costs in the value chain of a product on others than the end-user of such products: true pricing (www.trueprice.org) should become a generally accepted, principles’ -based approach by internalizing such externalities and reflecting these in end-prices (without necessarily being higher).

The COVID-related monetary and fiscal stimuli were initially justified as rescue-funds to maintain relative economic and social stability, but prolonged too long and by too much, it may have seriously destabilizing effects, exacerbating the markets’ failure.

UN-SG has called in his 2021 Report “Our Common Agenda” for renewed solidarity between peoples and future generations and proposes a 2023 “Summit of the Future”, including drafting a follow-up of the Sustainable Development Goals post 2030. The IFI’s can make a very important and tangible contribution by rethinking, redrafting, and recommending the outlines for a new economy, together with leading actors of the financial sector.

IFI’s as Game Changers for a new Economy

Afghanistan was a signature security as well as economic failure as the historical retrospectives pile in 6 months after the Taliban’s return to power, with the banking sector’s quick seize-up becoming the culmination of a decade of incomplete international lender-backed cleanups. The U.S. freeze on $7 billion in foreign exchange reserves created an overarching bottleneck highlighting the accumulation of bad loans and fraud scandals over time despite donors throwing comparable billions at these issues. Afghanistan, despite the lack of progress in standing up a self-sustaining economy, was an exception in conflict countries when it comes to bilateral and multilateral aid priorities. The United Nations typically has the lead role, in coordinating complex emergency response, with humanitarian relief being the overriding imperative. The IMF, World Bank and other agencies tend to focus on general economic policy and specific social spending support, with the core financial system pillar as a linchpin of post-war viability is relegated to an afterthought.

When the financial sector base is in focus, small-scale micro-finance is the popular tool with the conventional banking industry, capital markets, credible central banks, and monetary policies in mind. This pattern has been repeated constantly in the headline fragile state crises of recent years beyond Afghanistan, including Libya, Yemen and Haiti. The UN understandably shies away from these topics without the expertise or mandate in its basic needs and peacekeeping functions. The international financial institutions have delayed more sophisticated analysis and technical assistance until later development stages, but in light of the glaring lapses in these locations, they should offer guidance and grants at the outset to establish solid financial sector foundations.

The deposed Ghani government in Kabul had run down currency reserves regularly flown in from the U.S. before the pullout, and  the Afghani depreciated to 80/$. It has since breached 100/$, and   loans were half dollarized, rendering them un-payable as depositors are now unable to access their accounts beyond a weekly several hundred dollar limit. Government workers have not received salaries since the 75% aid lifeline to the budget was severed, and local banknotes are also scarce as the German printer with the previous contract has no replacement. The Taliban administration has no money on hand to cover the $90 million electricity bill from neighboring Tajikistan, nor large scale borrowing means other than turning to informal hawala networks. Both the main state banks and nascent private banks are presumed technically insolvent. It is not the first time the system faced collapse, as a major institution insider scandal previously required multilateral lender rescue.

Libya during the Qaddafi era had a single central bank, startup stock exchange to woo Western investors, and the continent’s biggest sovereign wealth fund  with $70 billion in assets. Over the decade-long civil war, the monetary authority split along east-west lines, the securities market was abandoned, and the UN froze SWF holdings so combatants could not grab them. In the past year, with a cease-fire in effect, an interim government, and an election timetable in place, the dual central banks agreed on a currency depreciation at 4/$.  In theory, they agreed to unify branches and operations, but they are on their own without outside technical or policy advice. Officials failed to pass a budget and have pressed the UN to release billions of dollars from the sovereign pool, without a way to raise funds through banks already owed from past borrowing or bond markets.

Yemen is another case with dueling monetary bodies in the Houthi and recognized government-controlled areas, and the rupture extends to non-acceptance of the other side’s banknotes. With the rebel advance and already in charge of more territory, the exchange rate in Sanaa is at 600/$ compared to over 1,000/$ in Aden. The US is again considering a terrorist designation after missile attacks on the residual administration’s military ally the UAE. This move would isolate the financial system already on its back from years of destruction and neglect. Washington has already cited the main currency dealer and bank for money laundering, and at the same time a special envoy was dispatched to attempt diplomatic compromise. The new UN representative has signaled a shift to economic issues to find common ground, without the technical capacity in hand.

In these instances the international financial institutions must fill the breach from the earliest days of deployment while maintaining their broad economic monitoring and social welfare mandates. They can act with their own knowledge and resources and draw in private sector bankers and fund managers willing to contribute time and expertise. Conflict zone work should aim for financial sectors to eventually flourish in the fullest sense instead of inviting balance sheet alongside physical blowups. 

War-Torn Country Banking Systems Beg Repair

It is no secret that the West is exceedingly uncomfortable with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (the BRI) and its role in building infrastructure in developing countries, and for good reasons. The terms of these investments by China’s parastatal banks are opaque and recent research reveals that contracts include non-disclosure covenants to keep them so. That said, it is China that is pouring the most money into infrastructure investments into Sub-Saharan Africa in particular in a way that no one else can match. A recent volume from the Council on Foreign Relations on the BRI argues that institutions like the World Bank need to step up and counter Chinese actions; however, this is easier said than done. 

What is really limiting the West’s investments in infrastructure in the developing world? Looking at multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, one can in the first instance point to a shift in mandates, with shareholders wanting the Bank to operate more in fragile states, focusing on social sectors, and to eschew projects like roads and dams. This shift has come largely to placate development lobbies at home in Europe, and it is mirrored in similar ideological shifts in bilateral programs.  

This shift in development thinking goes beyond legitimate concerns for poverty reduction and greater economic opportunity, and it has led groups like the World Bank to become risk-averse on infrastructure projects, leaving the field open to competitors like China, often involving harsher terms, lower standards, and minimal local job creation.  

The second reason for inadequate lending for power, roads, water and sewage is the Bank’s conservative approach to its own capitalization and leverage. Its loans are backed both by repayments as well as donor capital. Relaxation on lending levels would mean more for infrastructure and more for middle-income countries where most of world’s poor now live. 

The risks of so doing are eminently manageable. 

The third limitation on offering countries alternatives to the BRI rests on the mistaken notion inside multilateral lenders that the private sector will undertake these investments. This is largely incorrect and not supported by the facts. Public spending in fact crowds in private investment rather than supplanting it. Except for airport management and a few other projects, governments need to do the dirty work of investing in water and sewage and most roads and rails, and they need multilateral support to do so. 

The fourth reason for limited infrastructure activity in many aid recipient countries lies with the governments themselves. Poor regulation, corruption, implementation issues, and weak institutional environments mean that Chinese package deliveries of projects have some appeal. 

Lack of transparency may suit some governments very well. 

Finally, the additional political constraints imposed by donors who fail to see the very clear linkage between infrastructure and the achievement of the SDGs is to blame. The reality is that health gains will not happen without clean water and basic sanitation; educational attainment requires transport of students and electricity; and private entrepreneurship to create jobs requires better logistics and more reliable power. But these efforts don’t carry the political merits associated with feel good projects. 

To effectively compete with the BRI, the West and its institutions need to hold all lenders and borrowers accountable for the terms of loans; they need to increase the leverage of development banks; they need to pivot, not back to bricks and mortar, but to a healthy balance in their lending portfolios; they need to focus lending on places where positive results are more likely, using available metrics to gauge this; and finally, they need to undertake more joint projects with bilateral donors, including China, using best practices. 

Infrastructure investments are at the core of development success, as seen by the Growth Commission and other studies, provided that they are well designed and implemented and transparently financed for the benefit of the recipient countries. And, most importantly, infrastructure is a key element of any climate-compatible growth agenda. Focusing serious attention on the quality of investments and implications for the achievement of global climate goals is indispensable. For these reasons, leaving the field to others is not the answer. 

Dr. Leipziger, Professor at George Washington University and Managing Director of the Growth Dialogue, was an Infrastructure Director and Vice President at the World Bank and Vice Chair of the Spence Commission on Growth and Development. 

Amidst an historic global crisis, the Biden Administration’s first budget request reflects its commitment to U.S. global leadership and multilateralism. According to the World Bank, the coronavirus crisis, which shows no signs of abating in the developing world, threatens to push 150 million people into extreme poverty by the end of 2021 and reverse decades of developmental progress. For many developing economies, International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are a critical lifeline, providing invaluable resources and support. The Administration’s ambitious budget request constitutes a vital commitment to these institutions and their essential role in rebuilding the world economy.

The budget request includes $63.7 billion for the International Affairs Budget, an 11% increase compared to the FY21 enacted level. Of that, $3.3 billion is requested for Treasury International Programs, a $1.4 billion or 73% increase from the FY21 enacted level. Much of the requested increase in Treasury International Programs is to support the International Financial Institutions. Below, we outline what has been requested for the IFIs and related multilateral initiatives and describe how the money would be spent if appropriated.

The Biden Administration requested $102 million to support the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) or another IMF lending facility.

As much as $100 million would be used as a grant to the PRGT, the first direct contribution to the Trust in U.S. history, or another IMF facility. By offering subsidized loans to the world’s poorest countries, the PRGT has helped countries respond to the pandemic and prevent deep economic depressions. 

$2 million or more would be used to cover the subsidy cost of loans of up to 15 billion (roughly $22 billion) Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund to the PRGT or other IMF trust funds. The details of this loan have not yet been defined. The U.S. currently holds approximately 36.8 billion SDRs, an IMF reserve asset that can be exchanged for usable currency.

The Administration has requested $1.634 billion to support the World Bank.

$1.428 billion has been requested to support the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank’s concessional lending window for low-income countries. Consistent with FY21 enacted levels, $1.01 billion of this covers the second of three contributions the U.S. committed under IDA’s last triennial replenishment exercise. The remaining $426.6 million would eliminate U.S. arrears – unmet contribution commitments that the U.S. government has made during IDA replenishments. (U.S. arrears to IDA’s Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative would remain $1.504 billion.) Throughout the coronavirus crisis, IDA has helped the world’s 74 poorest countries access vaccines, protect the poor and vulnerable, create new jobs, and strengthen policies and institutions to enable sustainable growth.

The Biden Administration’s budget request also supports the World Bank by waiving Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements for IDA. Registration requirements increase the cost to IDA of issuing securities in U.S. capital markets and have been waived for all other multilateral development banks. Waiving registration puts IDA on a par with other IFIs and lowers IDA’s borrowing costs, increasing the resources available to the world’s poorest countries.

$206.5 million would go to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the World Bank’s vehicle for lending to middle-income and creditworthy low-income countries. This is consistent with FY21 enacted levels and represents the third of six payments committed by the U.S. during the IBRD’s last capital increase. IBRD funding has helped countries like Colombia, Indonesia, Jordan, and Ukraine reduce poverty, achieve sustainable development, and respond to crises like the coronavirus pandemic.

Other International Financial Institutions

The Administration has requested $361.9 million for other International Financial Institutions, including the African Development Bank, African Development Fund, Asian Development Fund, and International Fund for Agricultural Development.

The Administration requested $54.6 million for the African Development Bank (AfDB), the second of eight payments for the AfDB’s seventh capital increase. This is consistent with FY21 enacted level. The AfDB provides loans to the public and private sectors in Africa, a majority of which have supported pandemic response initiatives.  

$211 million would support the African Development Fund (ADF), the AfDB’s concessional lending window. Consistent with the FY21 enacted level, the U.S. would deliver a payment of $171 million per its commitment under the ADF’s recent replenishment. $40 million would be used to reduce arrears to the ADF. The ADF provides grants and low-cost loans to least developed countries in Africa, many of which are fragile states in need of inexpensive financing to achieve stability and sustainable growth.

$53.3 million would support the Asian Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank’s lending vehicle for low-income countries. This represents a $5.9 million increase over FY21. $43.6 million would cover current U.S. commitments and $9.7 million would reduce U.S. arrears. The Asian Development Fund provides grants to the poorest countries in Asia and the Pacific to support water, energy, financial sector development, agriculture, and health projects.

$43 million would constitute the first of three installments towards the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)replenishment. This represents a $10 million increase over FY21 enacted levels. IFAD supports rural economic development, including in conflict-afflicted and fragile environments, by boosting farmers’ agricultural productivity, incomes, and access to markets.

Along with the International Financial Institutions, the Biden Administration’s budget request includes support for a range of other multilateral initiatives, particularly related to climate change, environmental conservation, and sovereign debt relief.  

The Administration has requested $1.699 billion to support international climate and environment funds, including the Green Climate Fund, Clean Technology Fund, and Global Environment Facility. The Administration has also requested $67 million for bilateral debt restructuring and relief.

$1.25 billion (of which half was requested by Treasury and half by State) would be contributed to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The U.S. has not contributed to the GCF since 2017. The GCF works through the IFIs and other channels to support initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions and promote climate resilience in low-income countries.

$300 million would be contributed to the Clean Technology Fund (CTF). The U.S. has not contributed to the CTF since 2017. The U.S. would provide the CTF with a $30 million grant, and the remaining $270 million would be used to subsidize a loan to the CTF's Accelerating Coal Transitions Investment Program. The CTF catalyzes private and public investment in low-income countries to cover the cost difference between clean-energy technologies and dirtier ones. 

$149.3 million would be contributed to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a $9.7 million increase over the FY21 enacted level. $12.7 million of this would be used to reduce U.S. arrears to the GEF. The GEF is one the largest global funders dedicated to environmental issues like land degradation, biodiversity, chemicals and waste, and more.

$67 million would be used to provide poor countries with debt restructuring and relief. Of that, $52 million would provide poor bilateral borrowers with debt relief consistent with two G20 initiatives, the Debt Service Suspension Initiative and the Common Framework for Debt Treatments, that were designed to ensure that all G20 members offer debtor countries comparable relief. $15 million would be used to support debt-for-nature swaps in which developing countries with outstanding debts to the U.S. redirect payments to support forest and coral reef conservation efforts.


Analyzing the Biden Administration's FY22 Budget Request

On April 5, 2021, the Bretton Woods Committee launched its Sovereign Debt Working Group and is proud to release the Working Group’s first publication, titled Sovereign Debt: A Critical Challenge. This introductory paper is the first in a series in which the Working Group will present specific, actionable recommendations to improve the global debt resolution architecture. With a wave of sovereign debt restructurings looming, a more effective restructuring process would be a critical systemic improvement.  

“With the diversification of financing sources and creditors, many of the assumptions that formed the basis of sovereign debt restructurings in the past have changed. We must think creatively to improve current practices, particularly in light of the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, and add new tools better suited for the current context,” said Working Group co-chair William R. Rhodes, who also serves on BWC’s Executive Committee. 

The four subsequent papers—previewed in the introductory paper released today—will focus on enhancing debt transparency, promoting equitable burden sharing among all creditors, achieving full and constructive private sector participation, and exploring the prospects for state-contingent financing. The Working Group will release these papers over the next 18 months, reflecting a sustained effort that will permit real-time analysis and policy recommendations as the context evolves.  

“The prospective wave of developing country sovereign debt restructurings threatens their economic recovery from Covid-19, while creating risks of financial market strains. Significant reforms are needed to improve the efficiency, inclusiveness, and effectiveness of globally-applicable debt resolution procedures if we are to avoid future debt crises and promote sustainable economic growth”, said Working Group Co-Chair John Lipsky, a member of the BWC Executive Committee. 

BWC’s Sovereign Debt Working Group comprises multidisciplinary experts with deep experience in sovereign debt restructuring and international finance. The group is co-chaired by William R. Rhodes, former Chairman and CEO of Citibank, and John Lipsky, former First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. They are joined by Terrence Checki, Richard J. Cooper, William C. Dudley, Gail Kelly, Joaquim Levy, Maria Ramos, Susan Segal, José Viñals, and Mark Walker.  

The Bretton Woods Committee plans to launch similar initiatives that will convene experts and contribute timely intellectual leadership on critical international economic and financial issues. “The BWC aspires to be the global authority on multilateral economic cooperation. We view the Sovereign Debt Working Group as a first example of our efforts to have greater impact through practical policy analysis and recommendations,” said BWC Chairman William C. Dudley.  

About the Bretton Woods Committee 
The Bretton Woods Committee is the preeminent non-profit organization dedicated to effective international economic and financial cooperation. www.brettonwoods.org   

Media Contact 
Greg Brownstein, Deputy Director, gbrownstein@brettonwoods.org, +1 630-370-3809 

Leading Experts Launch Initiative to Address Weaknesses in Sovereign Debt Restructuring

Executive Director

Deputy Director

The Bretton Woods Committee is a nonpartisan network of global citizens that works to demonstrate the value of international economic cooperation and to foster strong, effective Bretton Woods institutions as forces for global well-being.

Amidst a historic global crisis, the Biden Administration’s first budget request reflects its commitment to U.S. global leadership and multilateralism. According to the World Bank, the coronavirus crisis, which shows no signs of abating in the developing world, threatens to push 150 million people into extreme poverty by the end of 2021 and reverse decades of developmental progress. For many developing economies, International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are a critical lifeline, providing invaluable resources and support. The Administration’s ambitious budget request constitutes a vital commitment to these institutions and their essential role in rebuilding the world economy.

$67 million would be used to provide poor countries with debt restructuring and relief. Of that, $52 million would provide poor bilateral borrowers with debt relief consistent with two G20 initiatives, the Debt Service Suspension Initiative and the Common Framework for Debt Treatments, that were designed to ensure that all G20 members offer debtor countries comparable relief. $15 million would be used to support debt-for-nature swaps in which developing countries with outstanding debts to the U.S. redirect payments to support forest and coral reef conservation efforts.

Amidst a historic global crisis, the Biden Administration’s first budget request reflects its commitment to U.S. global leadership and multilateralism.

The Biden Administration's FY22 Budget Request for the IFIs

Contains updates from BWC over the last year of work. Includes the sections: letters from leadership, outlook for the rest of 2023 and 2024, events, working groups, blogs, financials, and engagement by the numbers.

BWC_AR_2022_Web.pdf

The Administration budget proposal for FY 2022 proposes to exempt securities issued by IDA from Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements by according IDA securities the same exemption that currently applies to the securities of IBRD, IFC and other MDBs in which the United States is a member. If granted, over the next five years, the exemption will permit IDA to provide countries nearly $700 million of additional resources on the existing pledge platform.

The U.S. Congress is at work this week to reach an agreement on an FY22 spending bill to avoid a government shutdown and provide much needed aid to Ukraine. The bill would also include annual funding for the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

One item BWC hopes to see in the bill is an exemption for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) from costly registration requirements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). If granted, this exemption will permit IDA to provide low-income countries nearly $700 million in additional resources. Read this explainer on the issue published by BWC’s Legislative Working Group.

LWG_Securities IDA Explainer_Final_1.pdf

Explainer: Securities Registration Exemption for IDA

Amidst the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis and the ongoing global pandemic, the U.S. Congress has passed an omnibus spending bill for FY22 including annual funding for the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). The good news is that Biden Administration requests for the World Bank (IBRD and IDA) annual appropriations for FY22 were fully funded, and certain IMF support for low-income country funding. The African Development Bank and African Development Fund were also fully funded including paying down some AfDF arrears (unmet contributions). The Asian Development Fund was also fully funded including some arrears. The bad news is that Congress failed to secure key authorizations required to lend SDRs to the IMF, to provide a SEC registration exemption to IDA, and to fund the next replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. It also did not deliver on paying down arrears to IDA. Below we outline what was funded, what was not, and the implications for the IFIs.

Amidst the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis and the ongoing global pandemic, the U.S. Congress has passed an omnibus spending bill for FY22 including annual funding for the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Read analysis from BWC’s Legislative Working Group on what was funded, what was not, and the implications for the IFIs.

BWC FY22 Omnibus Analysis_Final.pdf

Amidst a historic global crisis, the Biden Administration’s first budget request reflects its commitment to U.S. global leadership and multilateralism. According to the World Bank, the coronavirus crisis, which shows no signs of abating in the developing world, threatens to push 150 million people into extreme poverty by the end of 2021 and reverse decades of developmental progress. For many developing economies, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are a critical lifeline, providing invaluable resources and support. The Administration’s budget request constitutes a vital commitment to these institutions and their essential role in rebuilding the world economy.

Analysis-Presidents_FY22_Budget_Request.pdf

Analysis: The President's FY22 Budget Request and the International Financial Institutions

In August 2021, the IMF Board of Governors approved a $650 billion allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) - the largest in the history of the IMF to boost global liquidity and help countries recover from COVID-19 crisis.

SDRs are allocated to IMF member countries in proportion to their existing quotas with US$275 billion going to emerging market and developing countries. Advanced economies have the option to re-allocate or "channel" their SDRs to low-income countries. 

SDR_A_Primer-Website.pdf

The Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented combination of challenges: government-ordered lockdowns, dramatic economic downturns, instability in various markets and industries, and an historic surge in government spending on health and social needs. These events precipitated an urgent need for liquidity among emerging market economies and an increase in their debt burdens. Today, the earlier fear of a dangerous lack of liquidity has been replaced in large part by concerns about the ability of the international financial architecture to support countries with increasing levels of debt and uncertain access to capital. One worrisome aspect seems clear: Many countries will require debt relief in the next few years if they are to maintain or restore access to financial flows. Higher interest rates in advanced economies, and the United States in particular, could compound the difficulties of emerging market countries in servicing existing debt and refinancing maturing debt.

The Bretton Woods Committee

Contacts

Emily Slater

Greg Brownstein

Towards a New Era of World Bank-Civil Society Partnership

World Bank Presidents: Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown

IFI’s as Game Changers for a new Economy

War-Torn Country Banking Systems Beg Repair

Can the West Counter the BRI?

Analyzing the Biden Administration's FY22 Budget Request

Leading Experts Launch Initiative to Address Weaknesses in Sovereign Debt Restructuring

The Biden Administration's FY22 Budget Request for the IFIs

Bretton Woods Committee Annual Report

Explainer: Securities Registration Exemption for IDA

FY22 Omnibus Analysis

Analysis: The President's FY22 Budget Request and the International Financial Institutions

Special Drawing Rights: A Primer

Sovereign Debt: A Critical Challenge