Monday, 27 April 2026
In the wake IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings 2026, Gerry Rice joins Emily Slater to unpack a week shaped by geopolitical tension, fragile economic sentiment, and record attendance in Washington. They assess the mood of the meetings, key takeaways from the IMF and World Bank—including expanded financing commitments—and what recent outcomes from the WTO Ministerial signal for the future of global trade. As multilateral governance adapts to a more fragmented and shock-prone world, Rice offers perspectives on where institutions are still delivering pragmatic cooperation and where deeper reform is needed.
Gerry Rice has served as the Director of Communications for both the IMF and the World Bank. He now serves on the Advisory Council of the Bretton Woods Committee.
Stream Macro Matters on all major podcast streaming platforms
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music / Audible | iHeartRadio | Youtube
Transcript:
Slater: Welcome today. Welcome Gerry. Really excited to have you on this episode of the Macro Matters podcast. We are recording this just at the conclusion of the IMF and World Bank spring meetings last week. We’re going to dive in and talk about everything that happened during this week here in Washington, what that means for the IMF, the World Bank, what some of the deliverables and takeaways were from the week. We’re also going to look back a little bit about a month ago at the WTO ministerial that convened in Cameroon as well, and we’re going to talk about some of the outcomes from that meeting. And then we’re going to talk about what all of this means for multilateralism and the IFIs going forward.
I’m really pleased to have Mr. Gerry Rice join me today. He is of course no stranger to our Bretton Woods Committee community. Gerry has had a long and distinguished career at the International Monetary Fund and also at the World Bank. No one knows these institutions better than you, Gerry. I’m really excited to have you on the podcast today to share a little bit about your takeaways from the week. And I’m even more excited that Gerry has just recently joined the Bretton Woods Committee’s advisory council after having served as a strategic adviser to BWC for many years now. So, welcome to the podcast, Gerry, and welcome to BWC’s advisory council as well.
Rice: Well, thank you, Emily. I’m of course delighted to be here and honored to do it with you. As you say, I’m a bit of a veteran of these spring and annual meetings. So, hopefully I can shed a little bit of light on what happened in quite a many ways dramatic week.
Slater: Yeah. So, let’s just talk about the overall backdrop and mood of the spring meetings last week. I mean, we entered the week with a lot of uncertainty about what was going on in the Middle East, what was going on with the conflict. A lot of uncertainty about what that means economically. A record number of people showed up in Washington for these spring meetings to try to figure out what was going on. I think with the conflict maybe the week started in a different place than where we ended the week or maybe we ended the week where we started but there was a little period of encouragement in the middle of the week. So, I just want to hear from you sort of what you thought the overall mood, tone, tenor was around the spring meetings in Washington last week.
Rice: Well, it’s interesting you say, Emily, that you noted the attendance and I did too. It seemed that everybody wanted to come to the meetings and have a discussion of what was happening which is interesting because, the conventional wisdom is multilateralism isn’t what it used to be and it doesn’t have the same mojo it used to have and yet so many people came along. I felt there was a real energy to the meetings. If I had to put a headline on the mood of the week, it would probably be something like not crisis, but fragile, anxious, maybe risk heavy would be some of the words I would use. And I think they permeated the meetings from beginning to end. I think people came in that way. I think they left that way too. But as you say with some zigzag in between depending on the news relating to the Middle East conflict which again as you rightly say dominated the meetings. We expected that it would and it did.
I think the derivative of that is what we’re looking at now is a global economy where geopolitics is the dominant factor. So that contrasts in many ways with previous years, decades, where it was the business cycle which drove the discussions and the tenor of the meetings. Now it’s really geopolitics as the central driver of risk. So, that’s shaping the macroeconomic outlook and the discussion around inflation, trade, financial stability is being driven by this geoeconomic fragmentation that we’ve all talked about. Of course, always a feature of these meetings is the outlook. And the IMF plays a big role with its world economic outlook. Of course, there was the downgrade of the global outlook to 3.1% on growth. And with a couple of other adverse scenarios that the IMF threw into the mix as well. The economists would like to say tilted to the downside the risks. But there were, I would say, grave concerns for the impact of the ongoing conflict with the knock-on effects for energy and oil supply, particular concern for the low income countries and for some emerging markets. So the risks are a bit one word you heard a lot was asymmetric.
Another word which we heard a lot was stagflation and the risk of that, that there’s going to be lower growth, higher inflation, tighter labor markets and there was even some mention of the “R” word with nobody saying we’re in a recession but depending on how long the conflict goes on and the effects that we could be looking at an even more serious economic situation.
And a final takeaway if you like Emily in terms of the mood is I think the sort of practical recognition of the limits to economics. Going back to the politics really, economic tools can only take you so far. And you saw the G7 ministers meeting, the G20 ministers meeting didn’t really come up with anything, what I would call, concrete specific. Again, it’s great these groups come together. It’s great we have a place to exchange, but with nothing specific coming out of that. So I’d call it kind of a capability gap in terms of what can be achieved in global governance. That said silver lining I think there were some very practical, achievable, concrete things that came from the bank and the fund. And maybe we can talk about those a little bit too.
Slater: Yeah, we’ll definitely dive into those on your capability gap point. I mean, I don’t think the G20 has come out with an actual communicate in a decade or more. The G7 a little more actual deliverables and communicates, smaller group of countries, a little more like-minded, but completely agree with your point about sort of the political mechanisms and convenings for countries to come together haven’t really delivered real results in a while. So, that’s something that you know I think really needs to be addressed in an era of more geopolitical risk. There has to be convenings where political leaders can get together to have actual dialogue and to make real progress.
Rice: I think it gets back to your first point, Emily, about the attendance. Even though we’re sorry there were not more big global announcements from G20, G7 from the meetings, there is a thirst for people to convene and to talk these things through. So, I agree with you on that. The platform is important.
Slater: Certainly. And something the Bretton Woods Committee obviously believes in and you’ve probably heard John Lipsky say this several times is, the IMF and the World Bank are structured in a way with its quota shares and its voting rights to be able to deliver and make some progress. So, why don’t we dive into that? What were some of the tangible outcomes and deliverables for both the bank and the fund coming out of Springs last week?
Rice: Well, the positive news in terms of the meetings and what came from them because there were some specifics and, actually looking at the media coverage, you really have to dig in to find them. So, it’s good we can talk about it a bit.
Slater: Media coverage is always quite gloomy, isn’t it?
Rice: Yes. So, here we are with the silver lining. The headline I put on Bank and the Fund is a willingness to provide financing. I mean, you can really cut to the chase for the fund. There was the commitment to increase financing by up to $50 billion which Kristalina Georgieva trailed in her curtain raiser speech. This money is coming from ongoing emergency facilities, from acceleration of existing programs, use of the SDRs trust funds and so on… but the headline number one was 50 billion. I call this actionable money. It’s actually money that countries facing balance of payments problems can access quickly. Emphasis on speed. So I thought that was an important, concrete achievable from the fund.
Likewise from the bank, Ajay Banga talked about a range of between $20 to $50 billion in rapid financing. So that’s in the short term. And with up to 150 billion over the medium term. This is additional money. And again, he talked about some fast-track mechanisms for the countries that are going to be hit hardest. It was expanded support in very specific concrete areas: energy security, infrastructure, the bank had water initiative that they talked about as well.
So again, for both institutions the bottom line: immediate, fiscal and investment support aimed at growth, at energy needs with a focus on people. We heard Ajay Banga stress jobs which has been one of his signature themes. We did not hear from the IMF about austerity which again has been a signature theme of the IMF in decades past. But the emphasis from Kristalina Georgieva and the fund was again on helping people and vulnerable countries get through this crisis. So, in terms of the bank and the fund, I thought realistic, not big visionary stuff, but kind of a realistic concrete achievables. What can we do? And, hearkening back to what we just said, if you compare with G7, G20, the bank and the fund actually came up with some resources. And one other footnote to this practical multilateralism, the fund also announced that it was going to be working again with Venezuela, which after seven or eight years or whatever it is, is also quite important. And again, it did not get a great deal of attention, but I think there were some very practical steps.
Slater: Certainly. I mean, this is what the Bank and the Fund are for right. The Fund in particular is crisis response firefighter role. So, it was good to hear them come out with that support and the bank too. As you said, I think a sober, realistic assessment of the moment and how their institutions can serve their member countries in this moment while not losing sight of some of the more foundational and structural reforms or priorities or initiatives at the institutions.
You talked about Ajay Banga, jobs are very much front and center, the energy security, water security… all of the things that are necessary in countries to help them economically develop and grow and move towards prosperity. So we still heard a lot from him on some of the foundational issues that he’s continuing to work on and move forward even in this kind of moment of uncertainty and this shock that the economy is experiencing.
On the fund side, there’s a couple of reviews that are ongoing right now, which I know will be deliverables more for the annual meetings in October. But their comprehensive surveillance review and also the conditionality review I think are ongoing and we’ll be expecting to hear more about that in October. Just wondering if you have any insight into where those two reviews stand and what the process is, but those are a few, foundational issues and reforms I would say that the fund is currently looking at.
Rice: I fully agree that there’s going to be a lot of focus on those when they come out later this year. Surveillance of course is the cornerstone of what the IMF does. So very important to see what the reforms will look like and likewise on conditionality.
I would swing back a bit on this point Emily to what we discussed earlier, kind of the mood of the meetings relative to the bank and the fund. If you think back to a year ago, spring meetings, what was the mood?
Slater: Tariffs.
Rice: Certainly, existential crisis, right? Is the major shareholder going to leave the institutions was a serious question being asked. So, fast forward to this past week, I think a very different mood and some positive expressions of support for the bank and the fund coming from US Treasury amongst others but that was that was very notable. I think that’s because there has been a movement toward reform in both institutions over the past year. I think it’s also because we are now in a much more difficult situation in terms of the global economy and the realization that, the bank and the fund, can really be very useful when the the global economy hits troubled waters. So, the firefighter role, as you say, we’ve all seen this before in the past when crisis hits, who do we call? The bank and the fund. And in large measure it’s a question of resources because, as we’ve just discussed, the bank and the fund can actually put some money on the table. I think that was very much part of the mood of the meetings. In these darker economic times given what’s going on, the bright light in terms of support for the bank and the fund and the recognition of the important role that they play. That could lead us to a discussion of the third Bretton Woods Institution. We could talk a little bit about WTO. I don’t think they’re quite in that same bucket.
Slater: Let’s get to the WTO. Just on the resources, it’s going to become more important and as you said, as the institutions have and will need resources to respond to crisis. We very much hope the US Congress will approve the quota reform package that had been agreed to. That would transition resources from the NAB over to quota which would be very helpful and could be very useful if the fund needs more firefighter resources in this moment and just going forward. Stronger reserves always better.
Rice: And I think the Treasury Secretary, Emily, sorry to interrupt you, I think he did make some positive statements around that.
Slater: Yeah. U.S. Treasury has been very supportive of this. It’s just a matter of Congress taking action at this point and it’s something that Bretton Woods Committee is actively informing Congress on why this is an important item to authorize. So, we will keep working on that.
But let’s turn to the WTO, because trade ministers met in Cameroon about a month ago. So, just a few weeks before the IMF and World Bank spring meetings. There was a pretty ambitious agenda leading into that WTO ministerial in March. They wanted to get agreement on a roadmap for reform for the institution. They had a few priorities that they were putting on the table. I think we’ve all probably seen the headlines at this point and have learned that despite some substantive and fruitful negotiations, the ministerial did not deliver a real tangible outcome or deliverable or consensus on the reform roadmap. I just want to ask you a little bit Gerry about what your impressions are from the outcomes of the WTO ministerial? What comes next for negotiations in WTO?
Rice: Yeah. Well, I actually thought the Bretton Woods Committee was very helpful in this respect, Emily, because you were able to bring Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to speak with the Bretton Woods Committee after the ministerial. She was very visible during the spring meetings. Of course, everyone was disappointed in how the Cameroon ministerial turned out. No global agreement amongst the membership could be agreed. Hearing Ngozi describe it, there were some incremental steps taken in terms of trade facilitation and process. But nothing really tangible that you can put your hands on. So modest progress I think would be the best that you could say about it.
However, listening again to Ngozi, I was struck by a couple of points she made in that context. She didn’t sugarcoat what had happened in Cameroon, but she made a couple of points I thought were interesting. One, many people have the impression that world trade has fallen apart. It’s fallen off the cliff. It is not happening. That’s far from being the case. She said that 72% of global trade continues under the broad WTO framework and is proceeding healthfully in that respect.
Secondly, she pointed to a number of trade agreements, deals being made on a bilateral basis. The big word is plurilateral, right? Amongst different countries, regions, on specific issues related to trade, amongst coalitions of the willing, which seems to be where we are and seems to be where we are headed because I think the big question is how does the WTO go forward from here? It seems they have this major problem in terms of how they come to agreement. They talk about agreement by consensus. But it seems to be that consensus actually means unanimity which, if any institution had to work on that basis there wouldn’t be many institutions left because it’s just, as a practical matter, so difficult to achieve unanimity. So, I don’t know if there’s anything that could be done around that. I mean, the World Bank and the IMF actually work by consensus. But that does not mean one “no vote” can stop the show completely. So I think that’s a major governance issue. I don’t know how, when that can be addressed but it’s certainly a problem. A lot of these different type of trading arrangements Ngozi said plurilateralism and so on are actually well within the WTO framework which was something that I actually didn’t know. And so, maybe this is the way forward. Maybe this is what it’s going to look like. Rather than having this big global rules-based trade regime, you’re just going to have within a much more flexible framework a lot of coalitions of the willing.
Slater: Yeah. I think to your point, until the governance issue can be grappled with, that’s the only real path forward here. Again we have to be realistic about the moment. But I don’t think we can say that that’s the best outcome and just say this is how it should be forever. I do think that the global community still needs, and policy makers and politicians, still need to work towards a path back to more broad-based multilateralism and a kind of a rules-based trading system. But recognizing that there were flaws with the institutional governance structure and with the way that the rules were agreed upon and then implemented and enforced. There’s, I think, some valid criticisms from several different corners. I think a little bit to your point, there’s starting to be a recognition that change has to happen, right? I mean, in the interim, we’re going to go for some incremental pragmatic plurilateralism. But there’s going to have to be a little bit of real revolutionary reform to really fix what has been deteriorated over time.
Rice: And to your point Emily from what I heard from Ngozi just before and at these spring meetings she’s totally up for that. And that’s what she’s putting on the table. And many members are up for it too.
Slater: Yes.
Rice: But some are not. And it only takes one. I mean, it’s kind of the opposite of it takes a village. It only takes one to stop the train.
Slater: Yeah. It only further underscores the issue at hand around the governance structure, right? that they can’t get agreement on reforming the governance structure with the governance structure that they have.
Rice: That’s right. Yeah. But I would say, Ngozi is a very strong dynamic leader in a very difficult job and I think she’s doing the best that she possibly can in those difficult circumstances and certainly is a strong supporter of the reform impulse.
Slater: Yeah. It’s almost an impossible job. She’s doing everything she can. Absolutely.
So, maybe just to transition looking forward to kind of end on. It’s a slightly different road ahead for the WTO than it is for the IMF and World Bank. But given these two, large global convenings of their memberships over the last month or so, what do you think the outcomes of both the ministerial and the springs reflect about the state of multilateralism and cooperation going forward? And what do you think it means for each of the institutions?
Rice: Well, I would go back to the phrase we discussed earlier. I think it’s pragmatic cooperation right now. Cooperate where you can on specific issues in specific areas. Focus on concrete deliverables. I think trying to preach to people about the benefits of multilateralism without showing what is actually being done on the ground through cooperation and through multilateralism. I think that has to be the way forward. It’s going to be step by step. Look, it’s back to what we started with. Geopolitics are dominating the current economic cycle and it looks like it’s been like that for a while, as far as the eye can see at the moment. I think, in that context, it’s about being realistic and being practical and not going for big highfalutin, visionary statements or aspirations that everybody knows are not going to be achieved. I think it is about incrementalism, step by step and concrete achievements. I think that’s the way forward for cooperation and for multilateralism.
Slater: Yeah, as you say I think that’s certainly the growing consensus at the moment is that this is the way that we have to operate in this current moment. As the Bretton Woods Committee executive director, I do hope that at some point going forward, people will start thinking about what comes next because I still do believe that the current modus operandi does not get us to the best optimal outcomes. I do hope that we can figure out how to get through this current moment and then figure out what comes next that’s going to deliver broad-based growth, prosperity and cooperation.
Rice: Yeah. Well, let me jump on what you said Emily about the Bretton Woods Committee. I think that we are right now in a world of second-best options given where we are. But I do want to say the Bretton Woods Committee is doing first best work and I wanted to congratulate you and the leadership team on what you’re doing and what you did during the spring meetings. We talked about people wanting to come together to discuss these issues and, my goodness, the Bretton Woods Committee conference was a tremendous example of that. If you didn’t get to your seat a half hour in advance, you weren’t getting a seat. And it has become one of the go-to events on the global calendar and certainly during the IMF and the World Bank meetings. So the convening power of your team and the leadership group at Bretton Woods Committee is very evident. But I want to add it’s not just the convening power. I think the analytical power that you’re now bringing to the table in many ways with your policy analysis on various issues, we saw your paper on AI being launched during the meetings. And I think swinging back to what you just said, I think the work that you’re doing on the question of multilateralism, the old order, the new order, whatever you want to call it, the upcoming study that you have of that I think is going to be important and potentially very influential.
Slater: Well, thank you Gerry. That means a whole lot coming from you certainly. And yeah, really really appreciate your kind words and let’s hope we can keep that momentum going and let’s hope that we’re having this conversation in October in a slightly less gloomy global environment.
Rice: Yeah. Well, I think Emily, we did our part today. We at least tried to identify a few silver linings.
Slater: Yep. Well, thank you, Gerry. It’s, as always, wonderful to chat with you and great to get your take on all things Bretton Woods institutions and the Bretton Woods Committee. Really appreciate the silver linings and if we’re not the flag bears for cooperation then I don’t know who will be. So, thank you for always carrying the torch for the institutions and for the mission of the Bretton Woods Committee.
Rice: Thank you Emily and thanks for this opportunity.