The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsResetting the World Bank-IMF’s relationship with the world
In the decades of their work, various challenges have arisen in relation to negative impact on human rights, and social and environmental issues.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva (left) speaks as Singapore's President Tharman Shanmugaratnam (center) and World Bank Group President Ajay Banga look on during the IMF-World Bank 2026 Annual Meetings in Bangkok on Oct. 12, 2026. (Reuters/Athit Perawongmetha)
A
fter World War II, two key international institutions were set up to help revive and stabilize the global economy: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, affiliated with the name “Bretton Woods” as their foundational origins, while their current location is in Washington. Although they are under the broader United Nations umbrella, they are distanced from it, since they retain a degree of independence in their operations.
Substantively, the IMF acts as a kind of regulator for the international monetary system, dealing with macro-economic issues and providing loans for structural adjustments linked with countries in need and shaped by various special drawing rights enabling the latter to access funding. The World Bank is the other arm, providing loans and grants to countries with special provisioning for poorer countries and with outreach to the private sector in generating resources and investing in countries, bolstered by safety insurance for their commitments.
In composition, the World Bank is more correctly known as the World Bank Group to reflect the diversity of its portfolios. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) is the general banking arm dealing with countries. Its International Development Association (IDA) helps low income countries with interest free loans and grants. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) interlinks with the private sector for operations, while the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) provides the back-up guarantees for investors as a kind of institutional insurance.
In the decades of their work, various challenges have arisen in relation to negative impact on human rights, and social and environmental issues which have pressed, in particular, the World Bank to set up various accountability mechanisms to receive complaints from affected communities, such as on “damned dams”, invasive transmigration and predatory micro-finance. This has led to various oversight procedures for redress. There is an Inspection Panel which is the channel for complaints related to the IDA. There is the Compliance Adviser Ombudsman (CAO) who enjoys the assurance of independence to address communications in regard to the IFC and MIGA.
These entities press for a management plan for the World Bank managers to address the harm, and they then make proposals to the Board at the top for leverage. This can then lead to dialogue and negotiation to mitigate the damage and provide remedies, such as compensation. However, onlookers have commented that the IMF should aim for more transparency and accountability along these lines.
There is a parallel dispute settlement service, and to the side, there is an arbitration court known as International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to handle disputes between a contracting state and the private sector of another member State.
Two recent developments are of note. The IMF and World Bank adopted their Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries in 2026 to invigorate analysis of domestic debt, bearing in mind new demands such as climate adaptation which necessitate a long-term response, exemplified by the multiple flooding and drought visible worldwide. For the World Bank, the three accountability mechanisms, the Inspection Panel, the CAO and the dispute settlement service, are now to be merged. The outer aim is to simplify the accountability mechanisms into a single stream for the sake of efficiency. Yet, civil society is watching cautiously, asserting the need for independence of action by the streamlined set up, preferably with more participation by civil society and developing countries in the whole system.
On scrutiny, additional transformation should be considered for some of the components noted. The World Bank is still supported by Superpower money. A key Power is now regressing on its commitment to promote ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI), and this may also exert influence on the programming of the World Bank. The Bank should be astute to avoid the excesses of such regression, especially at the field level. It can euphemize its commitments by opting for policies based on “empathy”,“plurality” and “accessibility“ to enable and accelerate progress.
The IDA in its outreach should assist civil society in a more robust manner. It has at its disposal various trust funds and links with philanthropy which can open doors to cooperate with civil society. For example, in view of the wrenching cut-backs of aid affecting the work of many non-governmental organizations (NGO), it should explore capacity-building to help them generate funds rather than continue the old habit of asking for donations. Some good examples can be shared from local practices.
In Thailand for example, a key civil society organization which helps with sexual health, epitomized by its creative and colourful use of condoms, runs a restaurant to generate funding. An NGO supporting girls to help with community development in the heart of Bangkok, runs a public kitchen linked with its farm, and it has residence for rent to create its own resources, without having to ask for foreign funding. Both the World Bank and IMF should innovate to promote savings rather than debt and dependency!
The IFC’s relationship with the business sector has now to be viewed from the angle of impact on human rights, society, governance and the environment. The global framework for transparency and accountability is based on the UN Guiding Principles (UNGP) on Business and Human Rights. This advocates three fold obligations tied with both the state and the business arm; the state has the duty to protect, such as to adopt laws to protect labor rights and the environment; the business sector has the duty to respect, such as to undertake due diligence measures to assess potential and actual harm and aim for mitigation; and there is the combined duty of the State and the business sector to remedy the harm.
The latter opens up to many forms of redress, formal and informal, such as via the courts, mediation and other channels. The IFC’s policy under the title “IFC Sustainability Framework” is similar to the UNGP, although not completely in relation to protection of human rights defenders.
Concretely, as seen in Thailand’ s experience on this front, the major thorn in the works is the range of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) resorted to by the business sector and sometimes the State itself to undermine claims for redress from civil society. A major issue is thus how to enable anti-SLAPP measures to be adopted. In this regard, Thailand has undertaken some constructive steps, such as to reform the Criminal Procedure Code to enable the judiciary to screen out bad faith (mala fides) prosecutions which are tantamount to SLAPP.
Currently, there are proposals to amend the Civil Procedure Code to include similar provisions to counter civil suits with exorbitant claims of damages. These are developments inviting both the World Bank and IMF to pluralize their relationships and reset the global-local rhythm.
In retrospect, the public may remember poignantly that decades ago, there was a call for the Bretton Woods institutions to adopt measures “with a human face”. The caption still rings true, but with an additional tagline: “in the face of climate change, Artificial Intelligence and beyond”.
---
The writer is a professor at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. He has also helped the United Nations as a UN Special Rapporteur, UN Independent Expert and member of UN Commissions of Inquiry on Human Rights.
