2012 saw continued crisis in Europe, but also a turning point in the leadership selection of the World Bank.

The choice of Dr Jim Yong Kim as new president, who brings a background in public health in developing countries, marked the first ever selection of a development practitioner to lead the institution. However, large bureaucracies are slow to change, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found out with its inability to extricate itself from the morass developing in the eurozone. The Bank's leadership selection process, despite being launched too late to signal a real desire for an open, merit-based and transparent selection, ended up being more promising than anticipated because of developing countries' attempts to inject some competition into the process. But the tradition of the US nominee securing the presidency of the Bank was not in doubt since it relies on a quid pro quo with the Europeans assuming leadership of the IMF, as evidenced by former French finance minister Christine Lagarde's 2011 appointment. Dr Kim beat Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and former UN under secretary-general for economic affairs Jos Antonio Ocampo to seal another round of this international 'gentleman's agreement'. Many hoped that Dr Kim would completely reorient the Bank's operations upon taking the helm in July, but some viewed his first six months more as a public relations exercise, including the Bank's public campaigns on Twitter asking how it can contribute to "bending the arc of history" to "end poverty". By year end Dr Kim seemed to have won over staff and shareholders to his stewardship without yet launching any new initiatives. Only in the final weeks of 2012 did he begin to shake things up at the Bank by reorganising management. In January, the Bank board approved the new Program-for-Results lending instrument, but curtailed criticism by limiting its use to 5 per cent of total funding commitments per year for the first two years. The long anticipated review of the Bank'ssocial and environmental safeguards was finally launched in October. However, civil society groups criticised the Bank's decision to push through a separate investment lending reform, which consolidates policies, before the safeguards review was launched. The safeguards review is expected to last for two years and advocates are pushing for issues such as indigenous rights, resettlement, disability and human rights to receive particular attention. On environmental issues, feeding into UN's Rio+20 'Earth Summit' in June and as a precursor to the Mexico G20 summit, the Bank launched a report on 'inclusive green growth'. During

the summit it pushed for natural capital accounting, but critics saw this as an attempt at privatisation of nature. The Bank also formally assumed its trusteeship of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Green Climate Fund and continued to champion the Climate Investment Funds. A review of its strategic framework on climate change identified "increasing demand" for the Bank "to join, help forge or lead new climate action coalitions". However, its own Independent Evaluation Group's assessment of the Bank's track record on climate change adaptation concluded that it lacks "a reliable compass to guide future adaptation efforts". Furthermore, the Bank's proposed energy strategy disappeared completely from the agenda in 2012. When Kim launched a new, but externally authored, Bank report on the latest climate science in November, he failed to rule out its involvement in fossil fuels, calling the Bank "the group of last resort in finding needed energy in countries that are desperately in search of it". Controversy also remained around proposed coal power projects, such as in Kosovo. The Bank also continued to push other controversial energy options, such as large scale hydro. The International Finance Corporation (IFC, the Bank's arm that lends to the private sector), was also given new leadership in 2012. The October appointment of Chinese national and former investment banker Jin-yong Cai broke a string of European appointments and demonstrated the Bank's attempts to keep new global powers like China engaged. Cai's financial sector background is unlikely to end to the IFC's increasingly controversial use of financial intermediaries, particularly private equity funds, as a means of channelling money. On the policy front, internal opposition seems to have scuppered an attempt within the IFC for development outcomes to replace financial returns as the main metric on which staff incentives are based. Poverty reduction seemed further than ever from the IFC's intentions as it funded scores of controversial projects, such as a massive iron ore mine in Guinea andmine in an indigenous area of the Philippines. Its investments in extractive industries garnered specific attention because of the police killings that ended large protests against IFCinvestees Lonmin in South Africa and Yanacocha in Peru. The IFC also faced international criticism for its involvement in controversial coal projects, such as the Tata Mundra power plant in India.

The Bank Group's involvement in 'land grabs' received increased attention, as the IFC's accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman, started investigating a complaint about activities in Uganda. Later in the year, NGO Oxfam launched a campaign for a moratorium of the Bank's large scale land acquisition, but while the Bank accepted that its "practices need to ensure more transparent and inclusive participation in cases of land transfers", it rejected the demand. Campaigners finally cheered some success on jobs and labour. The Bank's World Development Report on jobs marked a real departure from past Bank practice as it focussed on good jobs and the ways to promote them. This included research which undermined the IFC's Doing Business Report message that labour deregulation is always beneficial. The resultant criticism of Doing Business grew to such intensity that Dr. Kim ordered an independent review of the report which will return its findings in 2013. The IMF ended 2012 much as it began, lending more money to European countries, downgrading its expectations for their economic performance, and looking to the Middle East and North African region as the most significant opportunity for future growth and influence. By year-end, the mooted $1 billion loan for Egypt had grown to $4.8 billion while street protests challenged both constitutional changes and economic reforms contained to the proposed agreement. The IMF's role in the Troika of eurozone lenders, with the European Central Bank and European Commission, hascontinued to generate controversy. In March, the IMF signed a new agreement with Greece, worth an extra $36 billion. One long-time staff member resigned in disgust at the Fund's "incompetence" and "failures", accusing it of "European bias". A mea culpa of sorts did follow as the October World Economic Outlook sought to explain why the IMF has consistently over-estimated the benefits of its medicine, triggering a debate about whether austerity and cuts imposed as conditions of lending have been counter-productive, something civil society has contended for decades. Applying its new enlightened attitude to Greece meant the Fund fell out with key Troika and European partners in December as it came to insist upon a degree of write-downs for Greece's unsustainable debts. While the challenges to the IMF's role and legitimacy grew, the Fund determined that its record on lending and conditionality was overall rather good - notably excluding all of the controversial European lending which represent the bulk of its current loans. Furthermore, the

October deadline for reforms to the quota determining countries' representation in Fund governance, agreed with developing countries in 2010, passed without action leading to vehement developing country criticism and disappointment. More irritation followed the IMF's long-awaited institutional view oncapital flow management, which purported to end the bias to capital account liberalisation which critics have long blamed for exacerbating developing country crises. Instead of a U-turn, it was described as only a "baby-step". As the year ended, the IMF's independent auditor, the Independent Evaluation Office, concluded that the Fund's advice to countries with large reserves, notably China, betrayed what press commentators interpreted as outright "bias" in favour of US policy preferences for its developing country rival. A vigorous response from staff and management duly followed.

Roles of the IMF and World Bank

The IMF and World Bank were both created at the end of World War II in a political climate that is very different from that of today. Nevertheless, their roles and modalities have been suitably updated to serve the interests of those that benefit from neoliberalism. The institutional structures of the IMF and World Bank were framed at an international conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Initially, the primary focus of the IMF was to regulate currency exchange rates to facilitate orderly international trade and to be a lender of last resort when a member country experiences balance of payments difficulties and is unable to borrow money from other sources. The original purpose of the World Bank was to lend money to Western European governments to help them rebuild their countries after the war. In later years, the World Bank shifted its attention towards development loans to third world countries. Immediately after World War II, most western countries, including the US, had New Deal style social contracts with sufficient welfare provisions to ensure stability between labor and capital. It was understood that restrictions on international capital flow were necessary to protect these social contracts. The postwar Bretton Woods economic system which lasted until the early seventies, was based on the right and obligation of governments to regulate capital flow and was characterized by rapid economic growth. In the early seventies, the Nixon administration unilaterally abandoned the Bretton Woods system by dropping the gold standard and lifting restrictions on capital flows. The ensuing period has been marked by dramatically increased financial speculation and low growth rates. Although seemingly neutral institutions, in practice, the IMF and World Bank end up serving powerful interests of western countries. At both institutions, the voting power of a given country is not measured by, for example, population, but by how much capital that country contributes to the institutions and by other political factors reflecting the power the country wields in the world. The G7 plays a dominant role in determining policy, with the US, France, Germany, Japan and Great Britain each having their own director on the institutions executive board while 19 other directors are elected by the rest of the approximately 150 member countries. The president of the World Bank is traditionally an American citizen and is chosen with US congressional involvement. The managing director of the IMF is

traditionally a European. On the IMF board of governors, comprised of treasury secretaries, the G7 have a combined voting power of 46%. The power of the IMF becomes clear when a country gets into financial trouble and needs funds to make payments on private loans. Before the IMF grants a loan, it imposes conditions on that country, requiring it to make structural changes in its economy. These conditions are called Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and are designed to increase money flow into the country by promoting exports so that the country can pay off its debts. Not surprisingly, in view of the dominance of the G7 in IMF policy making, the SAPs are highly neoliberal. The effective power of the IMF is often larger than that associated with the size of its loans because private lenders often deem a country creditworthy based on actions of the IMF. The World Bank plays a qualitatively different role than the IMF, but works tightly within the stringent SAP framework imposed by the IMF. It focuses on development loans for specific projects, such as the building of dams, roads, harbors etc that are considered necessary for economic growth in a developing country. Since it is a multilateral institution, the World Bank is less likely than unilateral lending institutions such as the Export Import Bank of the US to offer loans for the purpose of promoting and subsidizing particular corporations. Nevertheless, the conceptions of growth and Economic well being within the World Bank are very much molded by western corporate values and rarely take account of local cultural concerns. This is clearly exhibited by the modalities of its projects, such as the Green Revolution in agriculture, heavily promoted in the third world by the World Bank in the sixties and seventies. The Green Revolution refers to the massive industrialization of agriculture, involving the replacement of a multitude of indigenous crops with a few highyielding varieties that require expensive investments of chemicals, fertilizers and machinery. In the third world, the Green Revolution was often imposed on indigenous populations with reasonably sustainable and self sufficient traditions of rural agriculture. The mechanization of food production in third world countries, which have a large surplus labor pool, has led to the marginalization of many people, disconnecting them from the economy and exacerbating wealth disparity in these countries. Furthermore, excessive chemical agriculture has led to soil desertification and erosion, increasing the occurrence of famines. While the Green Revolution was a catastrophe for the poor in third world countries, western chemical corporations such as Monsanto, Dow and Dupont fared very well, cashing in high profits and increasing their control over food production in third world countries. Today, the World Bank is at it again. This time it is promoting the use of genetically modified seeds in the third world

and works with governments to solidify patent laws which would grant biotech corporations like Monsanto unprecedented control over food production. The pattern is clear, whether deliberate or nor, the World Bank serves to set the stage for large trans-national corporations to enter third world countries, extract large profits and then leave with carnage in their wake. While the World Bank publicly emphasizes that it aims to alleviate poverty in the world, imperialistic attitudes occasionally emerge from its leading figures. In 1991, then chief economist Lawrence Summers (now US Secretary of the Treasury) wrote in an internal memo that was leaked: Just between you and me, shouldnt the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]? ... The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that ... Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a-million chance in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand. And thistle thought that the World Bank tried to extend lives in developing countries, not take advantage of low life expectancy. How do countries get into financial troubles, the Debt Crisis. The most devastating program imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on third world countries are the Structural Adjustment Programs. The widespread use of SAPs started in the early eighties after a major debt crisis. The debt crisis arose from a combination of (i) reckless lending by western commercial banks to third world countries, (ii) mismanagement within third world countries and (iii) changes in the international economy. During the seventies, rising oil prices generated enormous profits for petrochemical corporations. These profits ended up in large commercial banks which then sought to reinvest the capital. Much of this capital was invested in the form of high risk loans to third world countries, many of which were run by corrupt dictators. Instead of investing the capital in productive projects that would benefit the general population, dictators often diverted the funds to personal Swiss bank accounts or used them to purchase military equipment for domestic repression. This state of affairs persisted for a while, since commodity prices remained stable and interest rates were relatively low enabling third world countries to adequately service their debts. In 1979, the situation

changed, however, when Paul Volker, the new Federal Reserve Chairman, raised interest rates. This dramatically increased the cost of debtor countries loans. At the same time, the US was heading into a recession and world commodity prices dropped, tightening cash flows necessary for debt payment. The possibility that many third world countries would default on their debt payments threatened a major financial crisis that would result in large commercial bank failures. To prevent this, powerful countries from the G7 stepped in and actively used the IMF and World Bank to bail out third world countries. Yet the bail-out packages were contingent upon the third world countries introducing major neoliberal policies (i.e. SAPs) to promote exports. Examples of SAP prescriptions include: - an increase in labor flexibility which means caps on minimum wages, and policies to weaken trade unions and workers bargaining power. - tax increases combined with cuts in social spending such as education and health care, to free up funds for debt repayment. - privatization of public sector enterprises, such as utility companies and public transport - financial liberalization designed to remove restrictions on the flow of international capital in and out of the country coupled with the removal of restrictions on what foreign corporations and banks can buy. Despite almost two decades of Structural Adjustment Programs, many third world countries have not been able to pull themselves out of massive debt. The SAPs have, however, served corporations superbly, offering them new opportunities to exploit workers and natural resources. As Prof. Chomsky often says, the debt crisis is an ideological construct. In a true capitalist society, the third world debt would be wiped out. The Banks who made the risky loans would have to accept the losses, and the dictators and their entourage would have to repay the money they embezzled. The power structure in society however, prevents this from happening. In the west tax payers end up assuming the risk while the large banks run off with the high profits often derived from high risk loans. In the third world, the people end up paying the costs while their elites retire in the French Riviera. It is important to realize that the IMF and World Bank are tools for powerful entities in society such as trans-national

corporations and wealthy investors. The Thistle believes that massive world poverty and environmental destruction is the result of the appalling concentration of power in the hands of a small minority whose sights are blinded by dollar signs and whose passions are the aggrandizement of ever more power. The Thistle holds that an equitable and democratic world centered around cooperation and solidarity would be more able to deal with environmental and human crises.

Modest Growth Pickup in 2013, Projects IMF

Global growth to reach 3.5 percent in 2013, from 3.2 percent in 2012 Crisis risks abating, although downside risks remain significant Emerging markets, developing countries, United States, main sources of growth

Global growth will strengthen gradually in 2013, says the IMF in an update to its World Economic Outlook (WEO), as the constraints on economic activity start to ease this year. But the recovery is slow, and the report stressed that policies must address downside risks to bolster growth. Policy actions have lowered acute crisis risks in the euro area and the United States, the report noted. Japans stimulus plans will help boost growth in the near term, pulling the country out of a short-lived recession. Effective policies have also helped support a modest growth pickup in some emerging market and developing economies. And recovery in the United States remains broadly on track. Global growth is projected to strengthen to 3.5 percent this year, from 3.2 percent in 2012a downward revision of just 0.1 percentage point compared with the October 2012 WEO. If crisis risks do not materialize and financial conditions continue to improve, global growth could even be stronger than forecast, the report said. But downside risks remain significant, including prolonged stagnation in the euro area and excessive short-term fiscal tightening in the United States. Modest improvement in conditions The report observed that economic conditions improved slightly in the third quarter of 2012, driven by performance in emerging market economies and the United States. Financial conditions also improved, as borrowing costs for countries in the euro area periphery fell, and many stock markets around the world rose. But activity in the euro area periphery was even softer than expected, with some of that weakness spilling over to the euro area core. And Japan moved into recession in the second half of last year. Forecasts broadly unchanged, except for euro area

The IMF downgraded its near-term forecast for the euro area, with the region now expected to contract slightly in 2013. The report observed that even though policy actions have reduced risks and improved financial conditions for governments and banks in the periphery economies, those had not yet translated into improved borrowing conditions for the private sector. Continuing uncertainty about the ultimate resolution of the global financial crisis, despite continued progress in policy reforms, could also dampen the regions prospects. The IMF forecasts growth of 2 percent in the United States this year, broadly unchanged from the October 2012 WEO. A supportive financial market environment and the turnaround in the housing market will support consumption growth. The near-term outlook for Japan is also unchanged despite that countrys slipping into recession, because the stimulus package and further monetary easing will boost growth. Emerging market and developing economies are expected to grow by 5.5 percent this year, broadly as predicted in the October 2012 WEO. Policies must urgently address risks The report noted that the euro area continues to pose a large downside risk to the global outlook. While a sharp crisis has become less likely, the risk of prolonged stagnation in the euro area would rise if the momentum for reform is not maintained, the IMF said. To head off this risk, the report stressed, adjustment programs by the periphery countries need to continue, and must be supported by the deployment of firewalls to prevent contagion as well as further steps toward banking union and fiscal integration. For the United States, the IMF stressed that the priority is to avoid excessive fiscal consolidation in the short term, promptly raise the debt ceiling, and agree on a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, focused on entitlement and tax reform. The report also emphasized the importance of a credible medium-term fiscal strategy in Japan. Without it, the IMF cautioned that the stimulus package carries important risks. Specifically, the stimulus-induced recovery could prove short lived, and the debt outlook significantly worse. For emerging market and developing economies, the report underscored the need to rebuild policy room for maneuver. It noted that the appropriate pace of rebuilding must balance external downside risks against risks of rising domestic imbalances.

IMFs Response to the Global Economic Crisis

Since the onset of the global economic crisis in 2007, the IMF has mobilized on many fronts to support its 188 member countries. It increased and deployed its lending firepower, used its cross-country experience to offer policy solutions, and introduced reforms that made it better equipped to respond to countries' needs.

Creating a crisis firewall. To meet ever increasing financing needs of countries hit by the global financial crisis and help strengthen global economic and financial stability, the Fund has greatly bolstered its lending capacity since the onset of the global crisis. It has done so both by obtaining commitments to increase quota subscriptions of member countriesthe IMF's main source of financingand securing large temporary borrowing agreements from member countries, including recent pledges of $456 billion. Stepping up crisis lending. The IMF has overhauled its general lending framework to make it better suited to country needs giving greater emphasis on crisis prevention, and has streamlined conditions attached to loans. Since the start of the crisis, it has committed well over $300 billion in loans to its member countries. Helping the worlds poorest. The IMF undertook an unprecedented reform of its policies toward low-income countries and quadrupled its concessional lending. Sharpening IMF analysis and policy advice. The IMFs monitoring, forecasts, and policy advice, informed by a global perspective and by experience from previous crises, have been in high demand. The IMF is also

contributing to the ongoing effort to draw lessons from the crisis for policy, regulation, and reform of the global financial architecture, including through its work with the Group of Twenty (G-20) industrialized and emerging market economies. Reforming the IMFs governance. To strengthen its legitimacy, in November 2010, the IMF agreed on wide-ranging governance reforms to reflect the increasing importance of emerging market countries. The reforms, expected to be effective by October 2012, also ensure that smaller developing countries will retain their influence in the IMF.

Reforming the IMFs lending framework

In an effort to better support countries during the global economic crisis, the IMF beefed up its lending capacity and approved a major overhaul of how it lends money by offering higher amounts and tailoring loan terms to countries varying strengths and circumstances. Credit line for strong performers The Flexible Credit Line (FCL), introduced in April 2009 and further enhanced in August 2010, is a lending tool for countries with very strong fundamentals that provides large and upfront access to IMF resources, as a form of insurance for crisis prevention. There are no policy conditions to be met once a country has been approved for the credit line. Colombia, Mexico, and Poland have been provided combined access of over $100 billion under the FCL (no drawings have been made under these arrangements). FCL use has been found to lead to lower borrowing costs and increased room for policy maneuver. Access to liquidity on flexible terms

Heightened regional or global stress can affect countries that would not likely be at risk of crisis. Providing rapid and adequate short-term liquidity to such crisis bystanders during periods of stress could bolster market confidence, limit contagion, and reduce the overall cost of crises. The Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL) is designed to meet the liquidity needs of member countries with sound economic fundamentals but with some remaining vulnerabilitiesMacedonia and Morocco have used the PLL. Reformed terms for IMF lending Structural performance criteria have been discontinued for all IMF loans, including for programs with low-income countries. Structural reforms will continue to be part of IMF-supported programs, but have become more focused on areas critical to a countrys recovery. Emphasis on social protection The IMF is helping governments to protect and even increase social spending, including social assistance. In particular, the IMF is promoting measures to increase spending on, and improve the targeting of, social safety net programs that can mitigate the impact of the crisis on the most vulnerable in society. Helping the worlds poorest In response to the global financial crisis, the IMF undertook an unprecedented reform of its policies toward low-income countries. As a result, IMF programs are now more flexible and tailored to the individual needs of low-income countries, with streamlined conditionality, higher concessionality and more emphasis on safeguarding social spending. Increase in resources Resources available to low-income countries through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust over the period 20092014 were boosted to $17 billion, consistent with the call by G-20 leaders in April 2009 of doubling the IMFs concessional lending

capacity and providing $6 billion additional concessional financing over the next two to three years. The IMFs concessional lending to low-income countries amounted to $3.8 billion in 2009, an increase of about four times the historical levels. In 2010 and 2011, concessional lending reached $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion respectively. More flexibility Partly because of the crisis, the IMF has generally factored in higher deficits and spending, and has made financial assistance programs more flexible. On average, for all of sub-Saharan Africa, fiscal deficits widened by about 2 percent of GDP in 2009. Establishment of a Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief (PCDR) Trust This allows the IMF to join international debt relief efforts for very poor countries that are hit by the most catastrophic of natural disasters. PCDR-financed debt relief amounted to $268 million in 2010. Creating a crisis firewall As a key part of efforts to overcome the global financial crisis, the Group of Twenty industrialized and emerging market economies (G-20) agreed in April 2009 to increase borrowed resources available to the IMF (complementing its quota resources) by up to $500 billion (which tripled the total pre-crisis lending resources of about $250 billion) to support growth in emerging market and developing countries. In April 2010, the Executive Board adopted a proposal on an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), by which the NAB was expanded to about SDR 367.5 billion (about $560 billion), with the addition of 13 new participating countries and institutions, including a number of emerging market countries that made significant contributions to this large expansion. On November 15, 2011, the National Bank of Poland joined the NAB as a new participant, bringing the total to about SDR 370 billion (about $570 billion) and the number of new participants to 14 (once all new participants have joined).

In December 2011, euro area member countries committed to providingadditional resources to the IMF of up to 150 billion euro (about $200 billion). Following the request of the IMFs membership last year through the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the general support by the G-20 leaders at the Cannes summit, the IMF Executive Board discussed the adequacy of the Funds resources in January 2012, with a view to increasing them through new bilateral borrowing. Member countries have pledged $456 billion in additional resources to boost the Funds firepower. The 14th General Review of Quotas, approved in December 2010, will double the IMFs permanent resources to SDR 476.8 billion (about $737 billion). It is targeted to become effective by the Annual Meetings in 2012. There will be a rollback in the NAB credit arrangements from SDR 370 billion to SDR 182 billion which will become effective when participants pay for their 14th Review quota increases. In addition to increasing the Funds own lending capacity, in 2009, the membership agreed to make a general allocation of SDRs equivalent to $250 billion, resulting in a near ten-fold increase in SDRs. This represents a significant increase in own reserves for many countries, including low-income countries. Sharpening IMF analysis and policy advice The IMF is working closely with governments and other international institutions to try and prevent future crises. Risk analysis has been enhanced, including by taking a crosscountry perspective, and early warning exercises are being carried out jointly with the Financial Stability Board. Analyses on linkages between the real economy, the financial sector, and external stability are being strengthened. Work has also been done on mapping and understanding the implications of rising financialand trade interconnectedness for surveillance (including spillovers or how economic policies in one country can affect others) and for lending to strengthen the global financial safety net. Reform of IMF governance to better reflect the global economy A top priority for the IMFs legitimacy and effectiveness has been the completion of governance reform. On December 15, 2010, the Board of Governors approved far-

reaching governance reforms under the 14th General Review of Quotas. The package includes a doubling of quotas, which will result in more than a 6 percentage point shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries while protecting the voting shares of the poorest member countries. The reform will also lead to a more representative, fully-elected Executive Board. To become effective, an amendment to the Articles of Agreement will need to be accepted by three-fifths of the member countries, having 85 percent of the total voting power and members having no less than 70 percent of total quotas on November 5, 2010 will need to consent to their quota increases. The agreed package builds on quota and voice reforms agreed in April 2008 and became effective on March 3, 2011. Under these reforms, 54 members received an increase in their quotaswith China, Korea, India, Brazil, and Mexico as the largest beneficiaries. Another 135 members, including low-income countries, saw an increase in their voting power as a result of the increase in basic votes, which will remain a fixed percentage of total votes. Combined with the 14th Review, the shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries will be 9 percentage points.