[JUNE 2025] The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are arguably the most important players in the international financial system. The IMF, known as the world’s “lender of last resort,” is tasked with promoting financial stability, while the World Bank works to reduce poverty. Yet, both institutions have long been criticized for their inability to sufficiently meet the needs of their most vulnerable members.
The persistent inequity in the Africa region’s allocation since the IMF’s inception raises concerns about the fairness of the existing quota system. Despite periodic reviews, the current formula perpetuates imbalances, favoring high-income countries. Like the IMF, the World Bank faces a crisis of legitimacy over the distribution of its voting shares, which are key in determining resource allocation. The Bank’s governance and decision-making structures continue to favor wealthier members at the expense of developing countries.
As a result, African countries are stuck in a vicious cycle where they consistently need resources from the Fund and the Bank but are limited in what they can receive and at the same time have limited voice to rectify this situation. This report offers a diagnostic look at both the IMF’s quota system and the World Bank’s voting shares, proposing various scenarios—and projecting their impacts—for reforms that would increase parity and improve outcomes for developing countries.
This report was a collaborative effort between ACET and Development Reimagined, drawing upon a wide range of experts and stakeholders. It is intended to inform next steps on strengthening governance reforms in international financial institutions.
