Read on Twitter
Imagine how the IMF would manage a global financial crisis if it didn& #39;t have its own pot of money to disburse to countries in trouble. That& #39;s kind of how the WHO has to operate in a crisis like Corona. (1/n)
Like the WHO, the IMF& #39;s functions include gathering information, coordinating state policies, and offering expertise. Like the WHO, the IMF depends on states to provide truthful information, implement policies, and use the expertise.
Unlike the WHO, the IMF has a lot of leverage over countries in trouble: it controls a large pot of money that a government in a balance of payments crisis so desperately (and quickly) needs.
Who gets this money (and at what conditions) is highly political: the IMF just approved emergency loans to a bunch of countries but the U.S. vetoed a loan to Iran. We have known that IMF loans favor US allies for along time: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/high-politics-of-imf-lending/8E80EF6D1F68FF5462D863C5AA63BDC3">https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...
Yet, control over these resources allows the IMF to impose conditions on countries and demand compliance with its rules. We may debate whether the IMF uses this authority wisely but there is little question that it has leverage over countries https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/scope-of-imf-conditionality/C4E0165DB7ACC9302366C95FBF46B8FF">https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...
By contrast, the WHO has to play its role of coordinator and informer without much leverage. It depends on the voluntary compliance of states, even for core rules like the International Health Regulations: https://www.who.int/ihr/about/en/ ">https://www.who.int/ihr/about...
The WHO can name and shame countries. But it is not so clear that this is a very effective strategy to get cooperation. So, the WHO leadership is often very cautious, especially over China& #39;s 3 Ts (Tibet, Taiwan, and Tiananmen Square) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/taiwan-must-join-who-global-health-is-too-important-play-politics/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...
This is not meant to excuse the WHO& #39;s mistakes. Rather the point is that there are some structural reasons why the WHO is not set up to succeed in a crisis like this, although the organization will be vitally important in developing countries.
We can imagine a global governance focused on global health rather than economics, as @rodrikdani does here, but it is not the system we have. https://twitter.com/rodrikdani/status/1240685335585021953">https://twitter.com/rodrikdan...
The aftermath of a crisis is a good time to reform the system of global governance. During a crisis is a terrible time to cut funding to the institutions we have, even if these are not perfect.
