制研价贸号卡考 金融英语阅读 at a little over 17 percent.Nevertheless,the EU's influence in IMF decision making lags well behind that of the United States because the EU has not been as effective in developing common positions. Reforming the way the EU's aggregate quota is calculated would take care of some problems but not all.Some progress has been made toward a new and more transparent quota formula (which would include measures of GDP,economic openness,vulnerability to external shocks,and financial strength),but more work is required to reach consensus.One change that would increase the quotas of developing countries as a group would be to use GDP data converted on the basis of purchasing power parities (PPP),rather than market exchange rates,as is currently done.(PPP data use international market prices,which tend to be higher for developing countries than their own domestic market prices converted at market exchange rates.)The industrial countries resist the use of PPP data partly because of the central role of market exchange rates in the IMF's work.Further consideration of this complex issue will be required. In the view of IMF staff,it will be difficult to develop a quota formula that is sensible in terms of both financial burden sharing and equity.Political decisions will be required to ensure very broad support within the membership for the promotion of reasonable equity in voting power while ensuring that the industrial countries remain majority shareholders to reflect their role as the predominant creditors of the IMF. The required changes in the distribution of voting shares can best be achieved through a package of reforms implemented in the context of a general quota review that,according to the IMF's Articles of Agreement,must take place at a maximum frequency of every five years.This package could include a general increase in quotas involving a selective element distributed according to a new quota formula, supplemented by ad hoc adjustments for countries whose quotas are most out of line, and an increase in basic votes.Because the United States and the EU have comparable GDP levels,the future U.S.and EU quotas should be similar.In fact,it would make eminent sense for the United States and the EU to have identical quotas.Such a package would require the support of countries holding at least 85 percent of the voting power.Therefore,the support of the United States is essential. In addition,the size of the Board should be significantly reduced.The present size of the Board-expanded from its original 12 members to 20 by 1964,and to 24 members in 1992 when Switzerland and the countries of the former Soviet Union joined the IMF-is too large for the institution to be fully effective.The unification of the 25 EU member countries into a single chair would represent a major step toward this objective.Currently,the EU is represented by seven chairs:France,Germany,and the United Kingdom each represent themselves,while Belgium,Italy,the Netherlands, and the Nordic group chair constituencies that include 19 EU members and 17 non-EU members.In addition,Spain holds the Executive Director position on a rotating basis in a constituency that includes a number of Latin American countries. Ireland is a member of the Canadian constituency,and Poland is a member of the group headed by Switzerland.A single EU chair in the Executive Board would. accordingly,reduce the size of the Board by 6 chairs-assuming that the 17 non-EU 第2页共3页金融英语阅读 at a little over 17 percent. Nevertheless, the EU's influence in IMF decision making lags well behind that of the United States because the EU has not been as effective in developing common positions. Reforming the way the EU's aggregate quota is calculated would take care of some problems but not all. Some progress has been made toward a new and more transparent quota formula (which would include measures of GDP, economic openness, vulnerability to external shocks, and financial strength), but more work is required to reach consensus. One change that would increase the quotas of developing countries as a group would be to use GDP data converted on the basis of purchasing power parities (PPP), rather than market exchange rates, as is currently done. (PPP data use international market prices, which tend to be higher for developing countries than their own domestic market prices converted at market exchange rates.) The industrial countries resist the use of PPP data partly because of the central role of market exchange rates in the IMF's work. Further consideration of this complex issue will be required. In the view of IMF staff, it will be difficult to develop a quota formula that is sensible in terms of both financial burden sharing and equity. Political decisions will be required to ensure very broad support within the membership for the promotion of reasonable equity in voting power while ensuring that the industrial countries remain majority shareholders to reflect their role as the predominant creditors of the IMF. The required changes in the distribution of voting shares can best be achieved through a package of reforms implemented in the context of a general quota review that, according to the IMF's Articles of Agreement, must take place at a maximum frequency of every five years. This package could include a general increase in quotas involving a selective element distributed according to a new quota formula, supplemented by ad hoc adjustments for countries whose quotas are most out of line, and an increase in basic votes. Because the United States and the EU have comparable GDP levels, the future U.S. and EU quotas should be similar. In fact, it would make eminent sense for the United States and the EU to have identical quotas. Such a package would require the support of countries holding at least 85 percent of the voting power. Therefore, the support of the United States is essential. In addition, the size of the Board should be significantly reduced. The present size of the Board—expanded from its original 12 members to 20 by 1964, and to 24 members in 1992 when Switzerland and the countries of the former Soviet Union joined the IMF—is too large for the institution to be fully effective. The unification of the 25 EU member countries into a single chair would represent a major step toward this objective. Currently, the EU is represented by seven chairs: France, Germany, and the United Kingdom each represent themselves, while Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and the Nordic group chair constituencies that include 19 EU members and 17 non-EU members. In addition, Spain holds the Executive Director position on a rotating basis in a constituency that includes a number of Latin American countries. Ireland is a member of the Canadian constituency, and Poland is a member of the group headed by Switzerland. A single EU chair in the Executive Board would, accordingly, reduce the size of the Board by 6 chairs—assuming that the 17 non-EU 第 2 页 共 3 页