Legitimacy Gaps in the World Economy: Explaining the Sources of the IMF's Legitimacy Crisis
Legitimacy Gaps in the World Economy: Explaining the Sources of the IMF's Legitimacy Crisis
复制标题
世界经济的合法性差距：解释国际货币基金组织合法性危机的根源
DOI：
10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800187
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Leonard Seabrooke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leonard Seabrooke
自1997-1998年亚洲金融危机以来，国际货币基金组织（基金组织）陷入了一场国际合法性危机。危机的断言是基于这样的概念，即基金组织的投票制度是不公平的，基金组织对借款成员国实施同质化政策，贷款计划往往会失败。从这个角度看，糟糕的体制和政策设计导致了合法性的丧失。但制度化的不平等或政策失败本身并不足以构成国际合法性危机。本文提供了一个概念驱动的讨论基金组织的合法性的国际危机的来源，通过调查其正式的“前台”的机构与成员国的关系已经变得紧张，以及如何非正式的“后台”的政治和经济关系正在扩大的方式，基金组织将发现难以重新合法化。IMF的合法性主张与其成员国（尤其是借款国）的行为之间的差异导致了难以弥合的“合法性差距”。然而，确定基金组织国际合法性危机的根源使我们能够探索解决危机的途径。
Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998, the International Monetary Fund (the Fund) has been embroiled in an international crisis of legitimacy. Assertions of a crisis are premised on the notions that the Fund's voting system is unfair, that the Fund enforces homogeneous policies onto borrowing member states and that loan programmes tend to fail. Seen this way, poor institutional and policy design has led to a loss of legitimacy. But institutionalised inequalities or policy failure is not in itself sufficient to constitute an international crisis of legitimacy. This article provides a conceptually-driven discussion of the sources of the Fund's international crisis of legitimacy by investigating how its formal ‘foreground’ institutional relations with its member states have become strained, and how informal ‘background’ political and economic relationships are expanding in a way that the Fund will find difficult to re-legitimate. The difference between the Fund's claims to legitimacy and how its member states, especially borrowers, act has led to the creation of a ‘legitimacy gap’ that is difficult to close. However, identifying the sources of the Fund's international crisis of legitimacy allows us to explore what avenues are available to resolve the crisis.