Why the global financial architecture is unfair to Africa

In July 1944, the then American President Franklin D. Roosevelt brought together 730 delegates from 44 nations at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The gathering, dubbed the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, happened at the height of the second World War. The countries that President Roosevelt had invited were overwhelmingly European and American, which were fighting against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Two men dominated the conversations. The United Kingdom was represented by celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes, who at the conference, proposed the establishment of an International Clearing Union, which would issue a new global reserve currency called the bancor. But it was Harry Dexter White, who had represented the United States Treasury, that won the crown. He proposed a system anchored in the US dollar, tied to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce, with two new institutions to govern global finance. The American position generally won, a reflection of the fact that the United States held most of the world's gold reserves at the time and would be the primary financier of post-war reconstruction. The Bretton Woods conference then agreed to establish three institutions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now part of the World Bank Group, and an International Trade Organisation, now the World Trade Organisation. When those rules were being established, none of the African countries were represented. Most of the countries had not gained independence yet, except for Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa, and Liberia, who were also still heavily influenced by their colonial protectorates. “African countries were not independent [at the time] and therefore were not represented at the table,” says Claver Gatete, Executive Secretary UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). Yet, those rules, global in nature, now govern who gets access to finance, to what extent, and who doesn't. “Africa’s shareholding in institutions like the IMF and the World Bank remains disproportionately low,” Gatete tells The New Times. When the IMF was established, it was designed to oversee the international monetary system, provide short-term balance of payments support to member countries, and maintain exchange rate stability. Voting power was weighted by economic size and financial contribution, ensuring that the United States and its allies held decisive control. “For example, the combined shareholding of Africa’s 54 countries in the IMF is roughly equivalent to that of Germany alone. This has consequences,” Gatete says. When Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) worth $650 billion were allocated during COVID-19, Africa received only about $34 billion because allocations are based on quota shares. The United States holds the largest IMF quota by far, accounting for 17.42 per cent of total quota shares. Japan, China, and Germany follow as the next largest contributors, each holding between 5.5 per cent and 6.5 per cent of total quota shares. European countries — Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy — collectively maintain a strong presence, together accounting for nearly 17.21 per cent, almost equal to the United States alone. On the other hand, Africa, which has more IMF members than any other continent — 54 out of 190 countries — holds the second-lowest voting shares at 6.5 per cent, after Oceania. As Gatete observes, “That illustrates the imbalance.” That imbalance has meant that Africa struggles to raise international funding that it desperately needs to finance its ambitious development and transformation agenda. According to UNECA’s 2024 assessment, Africa still accounts for less than 3 per cent of global trade. The continent faces an annual financing gap estimated at nearly $1 trillion to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and respond effectively to climate change. At the same time, many African countries are confronting severe debt pressures. More than 25 African countries currently are either in debt distress or at high risk of it. Evans Kirui, an economics lecturer at Nairobi-based Kenyatta University, argues that the current system works against the continent. Africa pays a high cost of capital, carries rising debt pressures, and remains unrepresented where key global financial decisions are met,” he notes. Quest for reforms These unfair rules have prompted many African countries to demand reforms to the international financial architecture. Hannan Morsey, Deputy Executive Director at the UNECA, laments that reforming the global financial architecture is not a technical exercise, but a matter of fairness and development imperative. Member states through UNECA and the African Union (AU) have been advancing the reform agenda through the Africa High-Level Working Group on Global Financial Architecture. Among the priorities for reforms include ensuring a debt system that works better for development, one that is timely, transparent, and effective. “Debt restructuring processes should help countries return to growth and development more quickly, rather than trapping them in prolonged uncertainty,” she says. In October 2025 in Togo, African countries adopted the 'Common African Position on Debt' as a step toward ensuring a stronger and more unified voice in shaping the reforms. Countries are equally pushing for reforms that will ensure the cost of borrowing is fair for Africa. Morsey insists that correcting these distortions, improving risk assessment, strengthening data systems, and mobilising greater investment are essential if Africa is to unlock its economic potential.

News

Why the global financial architecture is unfair to Africa