During the just concluded World War II, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were created by the US and British governments in 1944. They are twin intergovernmental institutions that are powerful in shape the structure of global development, financial arrangements and ensure peace. The twin institution was essential to renew the stability of the monetary system internationally and to find effective means to deconstruct the war economies of European countries. The institutions are also known as Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI's), the fundamental decisions that led to the creation of both the IMF and the World Bank were largely managed and guided by the State of America and, to a lesser extent, the Kingdom United, and during the post In the war period, the IMF and the World Bank were greatly influenced by the geopolitical strength of the United States. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Even so, the mandates, attention, boldness and programs of the United States vis-à-vis the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF and World Bank) have produced notable overtimes, as observed, for example, by the transposition of their role crucial as the originators of the fixed exchange rate regime created by the Bretton Woods system, to their active promotion of a floating exchange rate system after its collapse in 1973. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are found under the institutions of Bretton Woods but do not perform the same function, have similar functions and aspirations and contribute mainly to the development of member countries and the world. Thus, the International Monetary Fund stands out as one of the Bretton Woods institutions, conceived in July 1944 at the United Nations Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire, United States, whose main objective is to promote international financial soundness and monetary cooperation . its member countries who are prepared, in a spirit of heightened self-interest, to give up a certain measure of national sovereignty by resuming practices harmful to the economic well-being of their member countries. The rules of the institution, contained in the International Monetary Fund. The articles of the agreement signed by all members constitute a code of conduct. The code is simple: it requires members to allow their currency to be exchanged for foreign currencies freely and without restriction, to keep the IMF informed of changes they contemplate in financial and monetary policies that will affect the economies of other members and, to the extent Where possible, modify these policies on the advice of the IMF to meet the needs of all members. The institution is governed by and accountable to its 190 member countries and to facilitate international trade, sustainable economic growth, and to eradicate the competitive currency devaluations that contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s. The mission and objective of the International Monetary Fund is to help work with member countries to eradicate poverty and financial hardship and to provide advice to member countries and policies designed to foster economic stability, reduce vulnerability to economic crises and financial and raise living standards. The IMF has three main functions and activities which are; surveillance of financial and monetary conditions in member countries and the world economy, financial aid to help countries combat major balance of payments problems, and technical assistance and advisory services to member countries. They also function as an institution with countriesmembers to modernize their economic policies and institutions. Therefore, the World Bank is also a twin sister of the International Monetary Fund whose historical evolution can be traced back to July 1944 at the Bretton Woods Monetary Conference in Bretton. Woods, New Hampshire USA, whose initial goal was to provide assistance to revitalize European countries devastated by World War II. The World Bank generally acts as an organization that attempts to combat poverty by offering development assistance to low- and middle-income countries. The Bank pays attention to projects that can directly benefit the poorest populations in developing countries. The direct involvement of the poorest in economic activities is promoted through loans to agriculture and rural development, small businesses and urban development. The Bank helps the poor to be more productive and have access to basic necessities such as clean water and waste disposal facilities, healthcare, family planning assistance, nutrition, education and housing. Even within infrastructure projects there have been changes. In transportation projects, more attention is given to building roads from farm to market. Instead of focusing exclusively on cities, energy projects are increasingly providing lighting and energy to villages and small farms. Currently, there are two key goals that the World Bank plans to achieve by 2030, the first and most important of this goal is to end extreme poverty by decreasing the number of people living on less than $1.90 a day per below 3%. of the world's population, the second goal is to increase overall prosperity by increasing income growth in the poorest 40% of all countries in the world. The organisation's core functions are to provide financing, advice and research to developing countries to assist their economic progress and continue to offer a multitude of proprietary financial assistance products and solutions for international governments, as well as a range of thought leadership based on research for the global economy in general. The World Bank helps fight poverty and financial hardship globally by providing qualifying governments with low-interest loans, zero-interest credits and grants, all to help develop individual economies. According to Suharto, former president of Indonesia, to understand how and why this was possible it is necessary to go back to the beginning. Although numerous countries were involved at the Bretton Woods conference, the United States played an unquestionably dominant role in creating the IMF and dictating its operation. A crucial factor in its composition, and in the United States' continuing influence within the organization, was the distribution of voting power among member states. Instead of distributing votes based on the size of a member's population, which would be the most democratic approach to take, the United States instead pushed for voting power to match the volume of contributions made. Not surprisingly, the contributions made by the United States, the world's largest economy, have been far greater than those of any other member state. Nonetheless, the United States of America (USA) dominates the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in many ways. There are many notable factors, statements and practical examples that, in my opinion, cause the United States to surpass and tend to have control over the IMF and the World Bank. From the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to the present, the United States is the only country to have theright of veto or not on the World Bank. With the creation of the Bank, the United States held 35.07% of the voting rights since the last change in voting rights, made in 2013, has enjoyed 15.85% since 1947, the year the Bank began operation , the majority needed to change the statutes was held at 80% by at least 60% of the member countries, which effectively gave the United States a veto. The wave of newly independent countries in the South increased the number of member countries of the World Bank Group, gradually diluting the weight of the US vote. So the United States was concerned with preserving its right of veto: in 1966 it only had 25.50% of the voting rights, but this percentage was still sufficient for the purpose. When the situation was no longer sustainable for the United States in 1987, the definition of qualified majority was changed in its favor. Indeed, that year, Japan negotiated a significant increase in its voting rights with the United States, positioning itself as the second most important country ahead of Germany and Great Britain. To grant this increase to the Japanese allies, the United States agreed to a reduction in their voting rights on the condition that the required majority was raised to 85%. In this way he gave full satisfaction to Japan, while maintaining his right of veto. However, the United States of America is considered economically powerful and sizable in terms of contributions to the IMF and is the only country with enough political power to make many decisions. One of the biggest influences of the United States on the IMF can be traced back to 2008. Financial crisis where the United States of America increased its support to help the IMF, this support from the United States created a huge dominance over the future of the IMF. Throughout the evolution of the World Bank, the United States of America has been the largest shareholder and the most influential member country. U.S. support, pressure, and criticism of the Bank have been critical to its growth and the evolution of its policies, programs, and practices. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF seek and spend far more time meeting, consulting, and responding to the United States than to any other member country. Furthermore, since its origin and up to the present day, the president of the IMF World Bank has been proposed as an American citizen by his government. The members of the Board of Governors simply ratify the candidate presented by the United States. This privilege does not appear in the Bank's statutes. Although the statutes allow it, no governor has so far ventured, or at least, to publicly propose a candidate from another country or even an American candidate other than the one selected by the government. Once the highest form of power is placed in the hands of a bona fide American citizen, he deliberately makes decisions and arranges meetings with the United States government to discuss issues concerning the development of the Bank and the country in which it is located. Therefore, the United States Cohesion and influence on the World Bank to suspend loans and other aid to other member countries. Countries like Vietnam, Chile, Yugoslavia and others. To speak primarily of the U.S.-influenced suspension of lending to Vietnam during the just-concluded Vietnam War in 1975, the United States successfully encouraged the Bank, through its affiliate International Development Association, to lend regularly to the South Vietnamese regime , an ally of the United States. . After the end of the war and the defeat of the United States, the World Bank sent two subsequent fact-finding missions in which it concluded that the Vietnamese authorities, although notpursuing a completely satisfactory economic policy, they satisfied the conditions required to receive subsidized loans. Shahid Husain, mission director of the Bank, said that Vietnam's economic performance was not inferior to that of Bangladesh and Pakistan, which received aid from the Bank. Despite this, the management of the Bank, under pressure from the United States of America, suspended loans to the Bank Vietnam and its president, Robert McNamara. In the case of the suspension of IMF lending to Chile, which occurred after the election of Salvador Allende in 1969 and the government's creation of Popular Unity, the Bank, under pressure from the United States, suspended its lending to Chile from 1970 to 1973. This case demonstrates that there can be a contradiction between the Bank's judgment and the position of the American government, which ultimately convinced the Bank to change its position. Even though the Bank's management believed that Chile met the conditions for receiving loans, the US government ensured that no loans were given to Salvador Allende's government. According to Catherine Gwin, “The United States pressured the Bank not to lend to the Allende government after the nationalization of Chile's copper mines. Despite the pressure, the Bank sent a mission to Santiago (after determining that Chile was following ).Banking regulations require that, in order to resume credit activity after nationalization, a compensation procedure had to be initiated). Robert McNamara subsequently met with Allende to indicate that the Bank was willing to make new loans contingent on government commitments to reform the economy. But the Bank and the Allende regime were unable to agree on the terms of the loan.” Yet, starting in the 1970s, the United States systematically used its influence to persuade the Bank not to make loans that facilitated the production of goods that would compete with US products. Therefore, the United States has regularly opposed the production of palm oil, citrus fruits, and sugar. In 1987, the United States forced the Bank to drastically reduce its loans to the steel industries in India and Pakistan. In 1985, the United States successfully opposed a proposed investment by the International Financial Corporation (IFC) in the Brazilian steel industry and subsequently a loan by the Bank to support the restructuring of Mexico's steel manufacturing sector. In the 1980s he also threatened to use his veto power to block a loan to China's steel industry. The United States also blocked an International Finance Corporation loan to a mining company to extract iron ore in Brazil. He took similar action regarding an International Finance Corporation investment in Chile's copper industry. The management of the World Bank justifies the granting or non-granting of loans for purely economic reasons. But lending policies are determined first and foremost by the intervention of the US government in the Bank's affairs, based on predominantly political objectives. This does not mean that economic objectives are not important, but they are subordinate to or supplementary to political and strategic choices. Catherine Gwin, who defends the generally positive result of US influence on the World Bank, from the point of view of Washington, takes a rigorous approach in which she does not hide the contradictory aspects of the policy of both the US management and the Bank. Therefore, the United States of America has great dominance, influence and control over the Bretton institutions