It has long been clear that the governance of the International Monetary Fund is not fit for purpose. The distribution of voting rights, based on each country’s contribution to the fund’s equity, is skewed against emerging countries. The likes of Brazil, China and India matter less than they should given the size of their economy or their recent rates of growth.

In 2010, the US spearheaded a reform that would give developing economies a greater say over how the fund is run. For example, Beijing would increase its voting rights from 4 to 6 per cent. Yet, three years later, Congress has yet to ratify the agreement. Since the US holds de facto veto power over the IMF’s key decisions, Washington is holding up a step towards making global economic governance more democratic.

The sticking point of the reform is that it would require the US to increase its own contributions to the fund by $65bn. This is anathema to some Republicans in the House, who think the US has already paid enough. President Obama supports the increase, but has so far been reluctant to risk political capital to make it happen. Last November, before the presidential election, he backed off from asking for funding approval.