????目前，IMF的問題在于它很容易受到西方國家的操縱，特別是歐洲國家。由此產(chǎn)生的負面影響眾所周知。

????三年來，IMF一再被迫參與各項計劃，目的都是為了陷入困境的歐洲經(jīng)濟體。這些計劃設(shè)計不周，監(jiān)管不嚴而且資金不足。

????因此，不出意料，它們的效果總是達不到向民眾做出的承諾。許多人都已不再把IMF視為解決方案的一部分，而是把它看作問題的一部分，這一點同樣也可以理解。

????最近在塞浦路斯問題上的慘敗凸顯了這個可悲的局面。

????為了解決塞浦路斯問題，IMF簽署了一份初步協(xié)議。但這份協(xié)議設(shè)計得如此糟糕，以至于國際社會及多個國家立即予以批評。它迫使所有簽約方從根本上推翻了這項協(xié)議，而僅僅幾個小時前，它們不光在協(xié)議上簽了字，還得意洋洋地發(fā)表了聯(lián)合聲明。

????隨后，IMF再次削弱了自身的公信力。它又對修改后的協(xié)議表示認可，而后者對于塞浦路斯問題的復雜性既未充分理解，也沒有進行透徹分析。而且時至今日，這項協(xié)議也沒有獲得足夠的資金。

????這兩件事情上以及歐洲的其他類似事務(wù)中（包括希臘問題），我懷疑IMF都認為自己別無選擇，只能屈服于歐洲政界的壓力。但這樣的做法可能損害的不僅是IMF的公信力和地位，它還可能削弱IMF影響私人資本流動的能力。而私人資本對增長和就業(yè)來說是如此的關(guān)鍵，它們的突然轉(zhuǎn)向會讓國家局勢不穩(wěn)，讓社會陷入困境。

????要變得更有效力，IMF要做的就遠不止于阻止那些政治主宰者改變自身的管理和行為方式。目前，就調(diào)整投票權(quán)和代表權(quán)提出的溫和建議力度不足，而且已經(jīng)陷入僵局。應(yīng)當通過更重大的改革來強化這些建議。此外，IMF成立以來，領(lǐng)導人的位置實際上總是留給歐洲人。因此，應(yīng)當大舉改革IMF的領(lǐng)導人選舉方法，以免國籍掩蓋了個人的優(yōu)點。

????有些人覺得雖然早就應(yīng)該進行這樣的改革，但實際上它們不可能付諸實施。他們認為，歐洲人不會愿意削弱自己的傳統(tǒng)權(quán)利，即便這些權(quán)利已經(jīng)過時。

????他們說的有道理，但讓IMF的眾多人才及其巨大潛力進一步付諸東流并不是解決問題的途徑。相反，這些人的深刻認識體現(xiàn)出了坦誠地開展大范圍討論的重要性，而且這樣的討論最好由IMF自己來主持。

????現(xiàn)在，IMF的管理層和工作者應(yīng)該告訴全世界，哪些東西能讓IMF在目前高度相互依賴的全球經(jīng)濟中按照后者的根本要求和殷切期望來發(fā)揮作用。以此為藍圖，人們就能想象到全球?qū)υ捲谛畔⒏浞侄腋薪ㄔO(shè)性的基礎(chǔ)上進行，從而取得實質(zhì)性進展。沒有這樣的藍圖，全球經(jīng)濟就會成為一個缺乏協(xié)調(diào)的交響樂團，雖然亮點很多，但所奏曲目混亂不堪，有時甚至令人感到痛苦。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????The problem with today's IMF is that it is easily manipulated by western countries in general, and Europe in particular. And the detrimental consequences have been clear for all to see.

????Repeatedly over the last three years, the IMF has been pressured to participate in programs for struggling European economies that are inadequately designed, poorly monitored, and insufficiently financed.

????Unsurprisingly, outcomes have consistently fallen short of what was promised to citizens. Understandably, many have started to see the IMF not as part of the solution but, rather, as part of the problem.

????This sad phenomenon was highlighted recently by the debacles in Cyprus.

????To the stunned amazement of virtually everyone I know, the IMF signed on to an initial agreement that was so poorly designed that it immediately attracted widespread international and national condemnation. As a result, the agreement was essentially disowned by all those that, just hours earlier, had signed on and participated in a triumphant announcement.

????In the follow-up, the IMF again undermined its credibility. It agreed to a revised program that showed insufficient understanding and analysis of the complexities of the country's problems; and one that, even today, is yet to be fully financed.

????In both cases, and in other similar circumstances elsewhere in Europe (including Greece), I suspect that the IMF felt it had no choice but to succumb to pressure by European politicians. But in doing so, it is has risked more than its credibility and standing. It has also undermined its ability to influence the flow of private capital that is so critical to growth and employment, and whose sudden reversal can destabilize countries and impose social hardships.

????To be more effective, the IMF needs to do much more to press its political masters to revamp the institution's governance and practices. The current modest proposals to tweak voting power and representation are insufficient and already stalling. They should be enhanced with more meaningful reforms. Moreover, the selection process for the institution's leader, which de facto reserves the position for a European (and has done so since the Fund's inception), should be dramatically changed to avoid nationality trumping merit.

????Some feel that, while long warranted, such reforms stand no practical chance of implementation. They argue that Europeans will resist an erosion in their historical entitlements, even if these are now blatantly outdated.

????They have a point. Yet the answer is not to allow the Fund's enormous talent and its huge potential to erode further. Rather, their insight speaks to the importance of an honest and broad-based debate. And the anchor for this best comes from the IMF itself.

????Now is the time for Fund's management and staff to tell the world what is needed for the institution to perform a role that is critically required, and sorely missing in today's highly inter-dependent global economy. With this as a blueprint, one can imagine a more informed and constructive global debate and real progress. Lacking that, the global economy will resemble an uncoordinated orchestra that, despite many bright spots, delivers confusing and, at times, painful renditions.