The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Clinton Administration, and many domestic interests have pressured Congress to provide $17.9 billion in additional funds for the IMF for nearly two years. Despite this pressure, Congress refused to hastily appropriate such a large amount. Instead, Congressional policymakers demanded a debate on a variety of issues, including: the lack of IMF transparency, the social and economic consequences of its loan conditions, the organization's failure to promote economic growth and stability, and the proper role, if any, for the IMF in the new global economy.
Congressional reticence greatly aided efforts to reform the IMF. During the 20 months of hearings, studies, and debate on the IMF and its polices, Congress succeeded in identifying problems with the IMF and its actions and rallying international support for reforming the IMF. Near universal support exists for increasing the transparency of IMF operations and most economists and political leaders understand and acknowledge the potential moral hazard of IMF bailouts. Indeed, some international leaders, such as the Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, recognize that the global economy is radically different than that of 1944 when the IMF and the World Bank were founded and have called for an international conference to discuss what role, if any, these institutions should have in a modern economy. Toward that end, the U.S. Congress just wrapped up its 105th session by passing a sweeping appropriations bill for many of the government's programs. Included in the so-called Omnibus Appropriations bill passed on October 20, 1998, was $17.9 billion in new funds for the IMF. The bill also required a number of reforms to IMF policy and practice. While many IMF experts consider these reforms to be insufficient in solving the problems that nearly everyone acknowledges bedevil IMF actions and practices, they are, nonetheless, the first substantial reforms of the IMF in over five decades.
