Congress Deals IMF Major Setback


© Bryan Johnson

[ Editor's Note: Last week's article addressed the growing skepticism among policymakers in the U.S. Congress over providing some $18 billion in new funds for the International Monetary Fund. Shortly after publication, the U.S. House of Representatives provided the IMF with a major legislative defeat. This article analyzes that defeat. Also, see my earlier article on the Bretton Woods system and the International Monetary Fund.

The U.S. Congress stripped the $18 billion Clinton Administration request for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from an emergency spending bill on April 23, marking the first major legislative defeat since Congress began considering the funding last year. Called a "supplemental" spending bill, the legislation would have provided some $18 billion in new funding for the IMF, something the Clinton Administration has called a "high priority" for this legislative session.

The U.S. reaction to funding the IMF is important because much of the IMF's future is riding on America's reaction to this funding issue. For example, the IMF is not just requesting $18 billion from the U.S., but is asking for a 45 percent increase in donations from all 182 members of the IMF. Many countries are watching the U.S. to see how much the IMF's largest donor is dedicated to the 50 year old institution. Some IMF watchers already are claiming that if the U.S. votes down the funding request, other countries will follow suit - leading eventually to diminishing IMF influence and membership.

Indeed, the IMF has its critics in the U.S. (see: Bretton Woods Revisited: The IMF which details criticism from the right and the left). Recent attempts to pass legislation funding the IMF bear this out:

The U.S. Senate recently passed a supplemental spending bill that includes funding for the U.S. peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and the Middle East, disaster relief for storm victims here in the U.S., and the IMF. However, the House broke these funding requests into two separate supplemental bills. The first including funding for Bosnia, the Middle East, and disaster relief. The second includes funding for the IMF and $500 million to help pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations (U.N.). In order for any bill to reach the President for signature, it must pass both houses of Congress in identical form (any differences are worked out in a conference committee between House and Senate members, before returning to the floor for final passage in both houses).

Go To Page: 1 2 3


The copyright of the article Congress Deals IMF Major Setback in Political Economy is owned by . Permission to republish Congress Deals IMF Major Setback in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

19.   May 8, 1998 11:10 PM
Brian Carpenter I appreciate the tip, and I will check it out! In answer to your other point, we need not apply insults, aren't you just a little bit more classy than that? I want to see others ...

-- posted by not_him_again


18.   May 8, 1998 8:58 PM
Brian Carpenter

• Disagreement is healthy. So what?

• Scheel is ignorant, at least about anything to do with economics.

As for the arguments against free trade, I doubt you hav ...


-- posted by pseudoerasmus


17.   May 8, 1998 2:02 AM
Brian Carpenter Alex, to call Gerald ignorant is to do him an injustice. I have corresponded with this man several times now, and I have seen nothing in his letters to indicate ignorance. Disagreem ...

-- posted by not_him_again


16.   May 7, 1998 8:54 AM
...in the trade thread over at the liberalism site....

-- posted by pseudoerasmus


15.   May 7, 1998 8:53 AM
I have never heard anyone or read anything which even begins to offer a rational case for the present trade policy. You folks always say, "It is just inevitable because of improved communications ( ...

-- posted by pseudoerasmus





For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Bryan Johnson's Political Economy topic, please visit the Discussions page.