IMF–World Bank Meetings are Important
A Letter to the Editor
By Thomas C. Dawson
Director, External Relations Department
International Monetary Fund

Financial Times
September 25, 2001

Sir, I must take exception to Professor Jagdish Bhagwati's claim ("A virtual meeting of minds", September 20) that "nothing of great importance" was due to be discussed at the aborted World Bank– International Monetary Fund meetings at the end of this month.

It is true that the meetings seldom result in high-profile international agreements, but neither are they ceremonial events. In addition to setting the agenda for the work of the Bretton Woods institutions and holding them accountable for recent work, this year's meetings were to take up the issues of restoring global growth, fighting world poverty and strengthening the international financial system. If these issues are not of great importance, what is?

While it is true that the scope and attendance of the meetings grew over time, the World Bank and the IMF had already begun a process of streamlining before the recent terrorist attacks. This is a process that will continue.

It might even be true that formal plenary sessions could be done by video-conference, as Prof Bhagwati suggests. But this would sacrifice a unique venue for international dialogue and co-operation. As at many conferences, committee sessions and informal contacts among delegates are an important part of our annual meetings. The meetings bring together policymakers from 183 countries, giving ministers from countries large and small a chance to discuss important issues with their peers and the private sector — and, it is hoped, to return home better equipped to manage their national economies in a changing world. That's a tall order for a conference call.