Location of Repository

Voting power in the governance of the International Monetary Fund

By Dennis Leech

Abstract

In general in an organisation whose system of governance involves weighted voting, a member's weight in terms of the number of votes and the formal power it represents differ. Power indices provide a means of analysing this difference. The paper uses new algorithms for computing power indices for large games. Three analyses are carried out: (1) the distribution of Banzhaf voting power among members in 1999; the results show that the United States has considerably more power over ordinary decisions than its weight of 17% but that the use of special supermajorities limits its power; (2) the effect of varying the majority requirement on the power of the IMF to act and the powers of members to prevent and initiate action (Coleman indices); the results show the effect of supermajorities severely limits the power to act and therefore renders the voting system ineffective in democratic terms, also the sovereignty of the United States within the IMF is effectively limited to just the power of veto; (3) the paper proposes the determination of the weights instrumentally by means of an iterative algorithm to give the required power distribution; this would be a useful procedure for determining appropriate changes in weights consequent on changes to individual countries' quotas; this is applied to the 1999 data. Policy recommendations are, first, that the IMF use only simple majority voting, and discontinue using special supermajorities, and, second, allocate voting weight instrumentally using power indices

Topics: HB, JF
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Year: 2002
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1595

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1954). A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a doi
  2. (1998). An Institution's Capacity to Act: What are the Effects of Majority Voting in the Council of the EU and in the European Parliament?," European Institute of Public Administration,
  3. (1996). An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism," International Organization, doi
  4. (1998). and Moshé Machover,The Measurement of Voting Power: Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes, doi
  5. (1971). Control of Collectivities and the Power of a Collectivity to Act,” in Social Choice,
  6. Designing the Voting System for the Council of the European Union”, Public Choice, forthcoming. (Earlier versions as a working paper under the title, “Fair Reweighting of the Votes
  7. (2002). Empirical Comparison of the Performance of Classical Power Indices," doi
  8. (2000). Enlargement of the EU and Weighted Voting in its Council of Ministers,
  9. (1975). Game Theory and Politics, doi
  10. (1995). Game Theory,(3rd Edition), doi
  11. (1981). Hannu "The Problem of the Right Distribution of Voting Power", doi
  12. (1943). in D. Moggridge, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, doi
  13. (1998). Is Allocation of Voting Power among doi
  14. (1979). L.S.Shapley, “The Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Index”, doi
  15. (1983). Measuring Power in Weighted Voting Systems,” doi
  16. (1981). Origins of Weighted Voting Power in the Fund”, Finance and Development,
  17. (1994). Power and Stability doi
  18. (2001). Power Indices for Large Weighted Voting Games," doi
  19. (2000). Power Relations in the International Monetary Fund: A Study of the Political Economy of A Priori Voting Power Using the Theory of Simple Games", Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation,
  20. (1980). Power Relationships in the IMF: doi
  21. (1999). Relevance of Voting Power",
  22. (1999). Resist the Temptation of Power Indices doi
  23. (1989). Shifting Power Relations in Multilateral Development Banks,”
  24. (1943). Speech to House of Lords,
  25. (1993). The Admission of the European Free Trade Association States to the European Economic Community," doi
  26. (1946). The Elementary Statistics of Majority Voting", doi
  27. (1997). The Political Economy of A priori Voting Power in the World Bank and IMF,” mimeo, doi
  28. (1988). The Shapley Value, doi
  29. (1972). Voting and Decision doi
  30. (1980). Voting in doi
  31. (1972). Voting Power: Some Limits and Some Problems,”
  32. (1965). Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis”,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.