The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In need of a better performance?

Since the Mexican crisis in 1994, international financial markets are characterised by frequent turbulence. The two most important international organisations in that field, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have been unable to provide sufficient stability. Surprisingly, the World Bank is in deeper trouble than the IMF. The decreasing importance of public capital flows has made the World Bank much less important than it used to be. Globalisation has led to increased private flows to the developing world, primarily in the form of foreign direct investment. In the long run, there will not be an important function for the World Bank any more. The opposite assessment has to be made for the IMF. The more globalisation progresses, the greater the need for an IMF. However, this does not mean that the Fund will survive in its current form. International financial markets have gained in importance, but they still lack many of the features that characterise the national financial sector. If globalisation shall be continued, we need those governance structures, e.g. a lender of last resort, at the international level. Markets need rules and regulations, and today these are often not existent at the international level. The need for an IMF will even rise, but it will have to be a different one.