Does this merger reflect the new situation world-around?

Question

Merge the World Bank (10,000 employees) and the International Monetary Fund (5000 employees) in order to reflect the new balance of power in the world; China, Russia, India, South Africa, and Brazil are the new “partners” on a stage that is world-around?

This is about the sovereign wealth or investment funds - look it up on Wikipedia - and how we respond and/or react to the news reports (or spin) about them.

Before anyone gets all worked up over Wikipedia, take note of the fact that I am including Yahoo!Answers in my search for the "truth" if it can be found.

Highlights; don't know, corrupt, unlikely, interesting, cannot be made, unwritten rule, disagree, precedent exists... lots of variety here in the responses.

Answer 1

A merger would not be revolutionary. The 184 members of the organizations are identical, the annual meetings are joint events, both organizations are located in proximity from each other in Washington, and country strategies are being discussed in both directorates within the same weeks. One could, for instance, imagine some kind of fusion that would initially maintain the different responsibilities of the organizations, but put these under a joint administration. A precedent exists with the joint administration of the three European institutions (the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community).*

Answer 2

Yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/3670465.stm The IMF and the world bank have, due to an unwritten rule, leaders one from the EU, the other from the USA.

The functions do overlap in some areas, but by making sure that the head of both does not come from two areas, it makes sure that one administration has too much power and influence over developing nations. The problem is that this excludes other people from becoming the leader of either organistation, no matter how good they are, just based on where they were born.

Answer 3

This scenario is very unlikely to happen. The IMF and WB, although very similar organizations, still serve differing purposes and have different agendas. Of course, states like China, Russia, etc. would benefit as they would see an increase in their political sway among this hybrid organization. Of course, the United States would hate this the most, as their majority hold of votes in the WB would go down rapidly. It would be interesting to see how the new organization would work, but would never happen.

Answer 4

I have to disagree with you on several counts. The two bodies are completely different and serve different roles. Also, I do not think that Wikipedia is a reliable source. It is written by people with agenda and there is no one to edit or to judge the "facts" they write.

Answer 5

The World Bank and IMF are practically different bodies and serves different purposes. The superpowers had different roles on these financial bodies and influence with hardly different positions. Thus, a merger cannot be made for WB and IMF.

Answer 6

The IMF is a corrupt organization, that uses loans as a means of extortion, to force poor countries to do its' bidding.

:-(

Answer 7

Russia is NEVER going to be a superpower again, it's pretty much lost any chance of that.

Answer 8

I don't know what you are talking about