Bibliographic record
Abstract
The governance challenges facing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are not simply limited to representation and voice, and the associated question of quota allocation. The author identifies governance issues that hitherto remained largely ignored by the literature and policy-makers alike. Specifically, he examines the governance issues that arise when (i) one or more shareholders hold controlling voting blocks, and (ii) principal-agent problems exist between the Executive Board and the Managing Director. Furthermore, these typical governance issues are compounded by the specific characteristics of IMF governance, such as consensus decision making, the lack of clear fiduciary duty on the part of the Executive Board, and the lack of separation between the Executive Board and the Managing Director. The author then attempts to quantify the extent to which the IMF's governance structure deviates from corporate best practice. Unsurprisingly, he finds that the IMF does not follow best practice. The author offers several proposals for governance reforms, including that the IMF should implement a form of "constrained discretion." Under this framework, the Executive Board would set the objectives and rules for the IMF on an annual basis. The Managing Director and the staff would be free to pursue these objectives, conditional on the rules. These respective reforms would improve accountability and hence the legitimacy of the IMF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".