With the world’s financial markets mercifully quiescent for now, the International Monetary Fund is usefully examining its future rather than fighting financial fires. The debate has been unusually rich. Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, recently warned that without reform the IMF “could slip into obscurity”. Rodrigo Rato, the fund’s managing director, has issued one thoughtful document after another, calling for a rethink of voting rights, global surveillance and the IMF’s relationship with the poorest countries. These issues will come together at the fund’s spring meetings later this week.

There is general consensus on several issues, even if little agreement on specifics. The allocation of voting power within the IMF must be reformed to preserve the legitimacy of the institution. In particular, the voting power of Asian countries needs to be raised, mainly at the expense of Europe. More generally, developing countries need more say. More attention should be paid to surveillance of global financial markets and much less to micromanaging the poorest countries. The fund’s ability to manage global financial crises must be enhanced.