Anna's Deep Dives

_{Just facts, you think for yourself}

Anatomy of SDRs: Basket, Valuation, and Mechanics

Understanding SDRs requires looking at their composition, how their value is set, and how they function within the international monetary system. These elements define the SDR's role as a unique global financial tool.

SDR Composition: Dollar, Euro, Renminbi, Yen, Pound

The IMF created Special Drawing Rights in 1969. SDRs serve as an international reserve asset. They supplement the official reserves of IMF member countries. The value of an SDR is not tied to a single currency. Instead, it derives from a basket of five major world currencies. These are the U.S. dollar (USD), the euro (EUR), the Chinese renminbi (RMB), the Japanese yen (JPY), and the British pound sterling (GBP).  

The IMF reviews the composition and weighting of this currency basket every five years. This ensures the basket reflects the relative importance of currencies in the global trading and financial system. The most recent review concluded in May 2022. 

Following this review, the weights assigned were: U.S. dollar 43.38 percent, euro 29.31 percent, and Chinese renminbi 12.28 percent. The Japanese yen and British pound hold the remaining shares. 

The inclusion of the Chinese renminbi on October 1, 2016, marked a milestone. It was the first currency from a major emerging market added to the basket. This addition acknowledged China's growing role in the global economy.  

Despite the basket structure, the U.S. dollar's influence remains strong. The dollar constitutes about 60 percent of global foreign exchange reserves. The renminbi's share of global reserves remained relatively small at 2.58 percent in early 2023, even after its inclusion in the SDR basket. 

The next review of the SDR basket composition is scheduled for completion by July 2027. Some countries advocate for expanding the basket further, potentially including currencies like the Indian rupee.

Interest-Bearing Nature and Allocation Criteria

SDRs function as both an asset and a liability on the IMF's balance sheet. Countries holding SDRs earn interest on them. Countries allocated SDRs pay interest on their allocation. The SDR interest rate is calculated weekly. It is based on a weighted average of representative interest rates on short-term government debt instruments in the money markets of the SDR basket currencies. 

This rate was initially set very low (0.05 percent per year). However, as global interest rates rose, the SDR interest rate increased, reaching 3.95 percent by June 2023. This variable interest rate encourages countries to manage their SDR holdings actively. Countries can use SDRs to obtain hard currency from other members or to settle obligations with the IMF itself.  

The IMF allocates SDRs to its member countries based on their IMF quotas. Quotas represent a member's financial contribution, determine its voting power, and influence its access to IMF financing. Quota shares broadly reflect a country's relative economic size. 

As of 2022, the United States held the largest quota (82,994 shares), while smaller economies like Afghanistan held far fewer (323 shares). 

Historically, emerging markets and developing economies received 42.3 percent of total SDR allocations. Low-income countries received only 3.3 percent. The landmark SDR 456 billion ($650 billion) allocation in August 2021 aimed to combat the COVID-19 crisis. 

It raised total cumulative allocations to SDR 660.7 billion (about $943 billion). While this allocation provided vital liquidity – potentially boosting reserves by over 6 percent of GDP for low-income countries – the distribution mirrored quota shares. 

Advanced economies received a larger absolute amount and a larger boost to reserves (average 18 percent) compared to emerging markets (7 percent). This disparity fuels ongoing debates about reforming the quota system. 

The IMF aims to update quota formulas in 2025, considering factors like GDP, economic openness, variability, and reserves more dynamically. Fairer allocation criteria are seen as essential for SDRs to effectively support global economic stability and address inequality.

Recent SDR Allocations and Rechanneling Proposals

The largest SDR allocation in history occurred recently. This event provided critical support but also exposed limitations in the current system. Efforts to overcome these limitations focus on rechanneling SDRs to where they are most needed.

USD 650 Billion Issuance in August 2021

On August 23, 2021, the IMF executed its largest-ever SDR allocation. It issued SDR 456 billion, equivalent to approximately $650 billion. This action aimed to provide rapid liquidity support to member countries. Nations faced severe economic strain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The SDRs helped countries bolster their international reserves without increasing their debt levels.

However, the distribution followed the IMF's existing quota system. Consequently, wealthier nations received the largest share. High-income and upper-middle-income countries received about $375 billion, representing 89 percent of the total allocation. 

Developing countries received the remaining $275 billion. Low-income countries (LICs) received less than $21 billion combined, just 3.3 percent of the total. 

For the African continent, the $33 billion allocated represented more than half of its typical annual official development aid. Yet, for many individual LICs, the amounts fell short of the estimated $450 billion needed over five years for pandemic recovery. 

This allocation highlighted the inherent mismatch between the quota-based distribution and the actual liquidity needs of vulnerable economies. Critics also observed that some recipient countries might use the SDRs primarily for debt repayment rather than investing in sustainable recovery efforts.

Multilateral Trusts, Concessional Financing, and Climate Financing

The unequal distribution of the 2021 SDR allocation spurred proposals to "rechannel" SDRs. Wealthier countries holding large amounts of unneeded SDRs could voluntarily channel them to support vulnerable nations. 

The G20 countries pledged to rechannel $100 billion of their SDRs. As of late 2023, commitments reached about $87 billion, falling short of the target. More concerning, less than 1 percent of these rechanneled funds had reached LICs by October 2023.

Several mechanisms exist or have been proposed for this rechanneling. The IMF operates specialized trusts. The Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) provides concessional loans, often interest-free, to LICs. It has disbursed around $30 billion total to 56 countries. 

The newer Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) focuses on longer-term challenges like climate change and pandemic preparedness. Both trusts can receive rechanneled SDRs. Japan committed 10 percent of its SDRs to the PRGT.

Another major proposal involves channeling SDRs to Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Institutions like the African Development Bank (AfDB) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) possess the capacity to leverage these funds. Estimates suggest MDBs could multiply the impact of SDRs significantly. 

For every $1 billion in SDRs received, they might generate $4 billion in new lending. A $5 billion SDR contribution could potentially unlock $15 to $20 billion for development projects. This approach could help close financing gaps. 

The world faces a $4.3 trillion annual gap for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Climate action alone requires an estimated $1.8 trillion annually. However, obstacles remain. IMF rules currently limit MDBs' ability to hold and use SDRs directly. 

The European Central Bank has also expressed legal concerns, blocking some proposals for rechanneling SDRs held by Eurozone countries to MDBs.

Climate financing is a critical area where rechanneled SDRs could make a difference. Developing countries need vast sums – potentially $2.5 trillion annually – to meet climate goals. Current international climate finance flows fall far short. Many vulnerable nations face crippling debt burdens. 

Around 60 percent of LICs are in debt distress. They spend five times more servicing debt than adapting to climate change. Climate-related losses for these nations totaled $525 billion over the past two decades. Rechanneling SDRs via trusts or MDBs could provide vital, low-cost financing for renewable energy, adaptation projects, and sustainable infrastructure. 

Proposals include creating a dedicated global climate trust funded by SDRs or issuing SDR-denominated bonds. Addressing the debt crisis, potentially through mechanisms like State-Contingent Debt Instruments, is also crucial for freeing up resources for climate action. Ultimately, making SDRs a more effective tool requires reforming allocation methods and overcoming barriers to rechanneling.

IMF Governance Reform: Quota, Voting, and Representation

The IMF's legitimacy and effectiveness hinge on its governance structure. This structure determines how financial contributions are set, how voting power is distributed, and ultimately, whose voices shape global economic policy. Current arrangements face criticism for failing to keep pace with global economic shifts.

Calls for Quota Realignment Toward Emerging Powers

IMF quotas lie at the heart of its governance. They determine a member country's financial commitment to the Fund. They also dictate its voting power and its access to IMF financing. Currently, the total quota resources stand around $960 billion, following a proposal for a 50 percent increase. However, the distribution of these quotas causes friction.

Emerging market economies argue they are severely underrepresented. China, for example, contributes roughly 18 percent of global economic output. Yet, its IMF quota share is only 6.3 percent. India and Brazil echo these concerns. Sub-Saharan Africa, despite its large population and growing economic potential, holds less than 5 percent of the total voting power. 

Emerging markets collectively generate around half of global GDP. Their representation within the IMF does not reflect this reality.

Groups like the G24, representing developing nations, actively push for reform. They argue that the current system grants disproportionate influence to advanced economies. They contend that policies set by these economies sometimes negatively impact developing countries. 

The last significant quota realignment occurred in 2010. That reform shifted 6.2 percent of quota shares to emerging and developing countries. It also doubled total quotas from SDR 238.5 billion to SDR 477 billion. Many feel this change is now outdated. 

A recent quota review resulted mainly in replacing borrowed funds with quota resources. It failed to deliver a meaningful shift in representation toward emerging economies.

The rise of blocs like BRICS+ adds pressure. This expanded group, including nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran, represents about half the world's population. It accounts for roughly 40 percent of global trade. Their collective economic weight challenges the dominance of traditional powers like the G7, whose share of global GDP has fallen from 43 percent to 30 percent. 

African finance ministers also demand change. They seek reforms to reduce high-risk premiums on loans, costing the continent $74 billion annually. They also advocate for increased IMF lending capacity targeted towards their needs. The upcoming 17th General Quota Review, with a deadline of June 2025, presents a critical opportunity to address these imbalances. 

The goal is to align quotas more closely with current economic weights, ensuring fairer representation for all members.

Proposals to Democratize Decision-Making

Beyond quota shares, the IMF's decision-making process itself faces calls for democratization. The current system largely operates on a "one-dollar, one-vote" principle tied to quotas. Major decisions require an 85 percent majority vote. 

The United States holds between 16.5 and 17.4 percent of the voting rights. This share effectively grants the U.S. veto power over critical IMF policies.

Critics argue this structure marginalizes developing nations. The Vulnerable Group of Twenty (V20), representing 57 climate-vulnerable countries, commands only 5.6 percent of the votes. 

Some analyses show that 30 percent of the IMF's member countries collectively hold just 5.6 percent of the voting power. This concentration of power breeds distrust. It raises concerns that the perspectives and needs of smaller or poorer nations receive insufficient consideration.

Various proposals aim to make IMF decision-making more inclusive. One suggestion involves implementing a double-majority voting system. Such a system would require support from both a majority of voting power (based on quotas) and a majority of member countries. This could give smaller nations a greater say. 

Reforming the quota formula itself is central to increasing the voting power of underrepresented EMDEs. Calls also exist to increase transparency and accountability within the Fund. Reducing the perceived political influence of major shareholders over operational decisions is another goal. 

Civil society organizations actively advocate for these changes. Nearly 70 groups recently demanded more input in IMF discussions. They argue current debt sustainability frameworks fail to adequately consider human rights and social impacts.

The push for reform gains urgency from pressing global challenges. Rising debt levels, inflation, and the climate crisis demand effective international cooperation. Legitimacy is key to the IMF's ability to coordinate global responses. 

The upcoming Fourth UN Financing for Development Conference in Seville in June 2025 provides a key forum to advance these governance reforms. Failure to adapt could lead countries to question their reliance on the IMF. It might encourage them to seek alternative arrangements, potentially fragmenting the global financial safety net. 

The IMF acknowledges these pressures. It works to enhance its budget and adapt its tools, like creating the Resilience and Sustainability Trust. Yet, fundamental governance reform remains a critical, unresolved issue for the future of international economic cooperation.

We don’t take shortcuts, chase headlines, or push narratives. We just bring you the news, straight and fair. If you value that, click here to become a paid subscriber—your support makes all the difference.

Table of Contents

(Click on any section to start reading it)

I. Historical Foundations and the Imperative for Change

1.1 The 1944 Bretton Woods Conference

• Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision and the role of John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White

• Establishment of fixed exchange rates and gold‑dollar linkage

• Creation of the IMF and World Bank

1.2 Evolution and Unraveling of the Original System

• The “Nixon Shock” and end of dollar‑gold convertibility (1971)

• Transition to floating exchange rates and currency volatility

• Legacy institutions adapting to new realities

1.3 Contemporary Calls for a “Bretton Woods 2.0”

• Academic and policy proposals for a UN‑sponsored conference

• IMF Managing Director on “21st‑century multilateralism”

II. Evaluating the Limitations of the Current Financial System

2.1 The Dollar’s Hegemony and Global Imbalances

• Extent of dollar usage in trade, reserves, and finance

• Risks of concentrated exchange‑rate and funding pressures

2.2 Recurring Financial Crises and Liquidity Gaps

• The 2008 global financial crisis and IMF’s response

• SDR allocations in 2021 and their impact

• COVID‑19 liquidity injections and uneven access

2.3 Emerging‑Market Stress and Currency Wars

• “Original sin” and over‑reliance on hard‑currency debt

• De‑risking, de‑dollarization pressures among middle‑income economies

III. Reinventing Global Liquidity: SDRs and IMF Reforms

3.1 Anatomy of SDRs: Basket, Valuation, and Mechanics

• SDR composition: dollar, euro, renminbi, yen, pound 

• Interest‑bearing nature and allocation criteria

3.2 Recent SDR Allocations and Rechanneling Proposals

• USD 650 billion issuance in August 2021

• Multilateral trusts, concessional financing, and climate financing

3.3 IMF Governance Reform: Quota, Voting, and Representation

• Calls for quota realignment toward emerging powers

• Proposals to democratize decision‑making

IV. Challengers to the Dollar: BRICS, Regional Blocs, and Alternative Currencies

4.1 BRICS Cross‑Border Payment Initiative (BCBPI)

• Shift from dollar‑clearing to national currencies

• Technical architecture and political hurdles

4.2 Prospects for a BRICS Common Currency

• Basket‑based proposals akin to SDRs

• Divergent member interests and India’s stance

4.3 Regional Currency Arrangements: From RCEP to ECOWAS

• Lessons from the euro‑zone and African Monetary Union

• ASEAN’s payment integration efforts

V. Technological Catalysts: CBDCs, Digital Money, and FinTech Innovations

5.1 The Global CBDC Landscape

• 134 jurisdictions exploring CBDCs; 66 in advanced phases

• Wholesale vs. retail CBDCs: design trade‑offs

5.2 Interoperability and Cross‑Border Digital Rails

• BIS “mBridge” and the fate of multi‑CBDC platforms after U.S. withdrawal

• SWIFT alternatives and blockchain/DLT pilots

5.3 Risks and Governance of Digital Currencies

• Privacy, surveillance, and financial stability concerns

• Regulatory frameworks and standard‑setting by the IMF/BIS

VI. Designing a Multipolar Financial Architecture: Governance, Regulation, and Future Scenarios

6.1 Principles for a New Monetary Order

• Equity, transparency, and environmental sustainability

• Balancing sovereignty with global public goods

6.2 Institutional Frameworks and Rule‑Making

• Potential roles for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and new bodies

• Strengthening global financial safety nets

6.3 Scenario Analysis: Paths to Reinvention

• Gradual reform vs. disruptive overhaul

• Implications for emerging vs. advanced economies

• Roadmap for stakeholders: policymakers, central banks, and the private sector

Baked with love,

Anna Eisenberg ❤️