Imagine how the IMF would manage a global financial crisis if it didn't have its own pot of money to disburse to countries in trouble. That's kind of how the WHO has to operate in a crisis like Corona. (1/n)
Like the WHO, the IMF'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.
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/ 
This is not meant to excuse the WHO'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
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.
You can follow @ErikVoeten.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: