The International Monetary Fund, which works to ensure fiscal stability around the globe has adopted systemic reforms, which grant increased influence and voting shares to emergency economies and poorer nations.

The IMF (along with the World Bank Group) was formed in the aftermath of WWII as a means of forestalling a global economic collapse, like that which preceded the last world war.

Since its inception the US has had twice the voting strength of any other nation. Considering the IMF was largely funded by the US taxpayer this voting structure was entirely appropriate. Now the IMF has kowtowed to nations like China and other 3rd world members who call for a more equitable voting structure.

While the US will remain the most influential member that influence has been diluted by these IMF reforms. Proponents argue the changes were necessary in order to maintain the future viability of the IMF as well as ensure the IMF’s continued legitimacy. In reality the reforms were instituted solely to undermine US influence on the global stage.

As the largest contributor to the IMF it is perfectly within reason to expect the US to maintain a sizeable voting share. In fact the US contributes 3x more than the next largest donor Germany, accounting for 18% of the IMF’s total funding. With this subsequent dilution of US influence at the IMF can we expect that the US will reduce its contributions to the organization?

Critics charge that nations like China had a smaller voting share than nations like Belgium, though its economy far outpaces that of tiny Belgium, and thus reforms were imperative. Such a comparison is like comparing Apples and Oranges, it is of no consequence the size of a member country, what matters is a nation’s financial contribution to the organization. In the business world decisions made by a firm are determined by its shareholders, and the number of votes a shareholder has is determined by the number of shares he or she has. Voting power is not based on shareholder’s net worth. This is the structure that should be maintained by the IMF and the World bank, rather than allowing other nations to exert disproportionate influence over someone else’s money.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5358520.stm