Originally posted in The Daily Star on 20 October 2026
The 2026 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, held in Bangkok from October 12 to 18, took place amid a war-driven energy shock, record public debt, rising inflation, and an AI boom that is lifting some economies while leaving others behind. Beyond acknowledgment of these issues, poorer countries need affordable finance, workable debt solutions, and room to protect people while implementing reforms.
The meetings, which covered jobs, investment and growth, public debt, energy and food security, climate risks, and artificial intelligence, broadly diagnosed global challenges but made few binding decisions. The employment challenge was especially stark. World Bank President Ajay Banga at the Annual Meetings plenary said about 1.2 billion young people are expected to enter the labour market over the next 10 to 15 years, while only about 400 million jobs are projected to be available.
The IMF’s steering committee called for greater support for countries facing short-term financing difficulties, particularly those affected by conflict and high energy prices. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) Chair said the global economy had weathered shocks better than expected, but its resilience was weakening.
The World Bank reported efforts to expand its lending capacity and attract private investment. But its own figures show the limits of private investment in closing the development gap; for low-income countries, such mobilisation remained at around $3 billion. Poorer economies often lack the infrastructure, stable institutions and financial conditions needed to attract large commercial investments. Cheaper and more flexible public and concessional finance therefore remain essential.
The challenges facing poorer countries must now translate into practical debt relief and affordable financing because the stakes are immediate. High debt costs, expensive imports and limited revenue leave governments with less to spend on health, education, social protection and investment. So, developing countries called for more accessible financing.
Rapid access to finance should be on terms countries can repay without cutting essential services. When debt becomes unmanageable, they also need a timely, predictable restructuring process. However, the meetings did not deliver a major new debt-relief agreement or a clear, funded response to the pressures facing vulnerable countries, leaving urgent concerns over debt, conflict, inflation and access to affordable finance unresolved for developing countries.
Private investment can help when projects are viable and risks are manageable. But it cannot replace concessional finance when expected returns are low, risks are high, or private investors cannot capture the benefits. Poor countries need private investment for projects that can generate a return, and public or concessional finance for essential projects that cannot attract private investors.
Notably, Bangladesh has requested a new IMF-supported programme, but the amount and date are not officially confirmed. On June 3, 2026, the IMF confirmed the request and ongoing policy discussions, but its July mission statement did not mention any finance amount or timetable. Per the IMF’s lending guidance, staff-level agreements are not final without conditions and until the IMF Executive Board approves them.
Earlier in January 2023, Bangladesh entered into an IMF-supported programme which was later expanded, bringing total financing under its three facilities to about $5.5 billion, prioritising revenue mobilisation, exchange-rate flexibility, financial-sector stability, and climate resilience. In May 2025, it said completing the third and fourth reviews depended on prior actions related to tax revenue and exchange-rate reforms.
Bangladesh has proposed implementing reforms in phases. Phasing could make difficult changes more manageable, provided it includes clear deadlines, public reporting, and protection for households affected by price or subsidy changes. If subsidy changes raise household costs, targeted support should protect low-income people—a recommendation also made in the IMF’s July 2026 statement. Earlier in June 2026, the IMF said the economic and political context had changed substantially since it approved the previous programme and noted that weaknesses in the banking sector and low revenue mobilisation underscore the need for renewed, sustained reform efforts.
The IMF has not yet published the conditions for a new Bangladesh programme, so any list of requirements should be treated as an informed expectation, not as an agreed package. The IMF’s July statement identifies likely areas of focus, including stronger revenue mobilisation, rationalising subsidies, greater exchange-rate flexibility, and a credible plan to restructure the banking sector. An IMF programme could also seek better loan classification and recovery, stronger bank supervision, fewer tax exemptions, improved public financial management and protection for low-income households affected by price changes. These are not merely loan conditions but reforms Bangladesh needs to address its own economic problems.
Such reforms are crucial, particularly when Bangladesh faces persistently high inflation, weak economic growth, subdued private investment, and inadequate job creation. The government should therefore own the reform agenda rather than wait for international organisations to prescribe it.
Bangladesh can decide how to reform energy prices. It need not withdraw all support from every group, including poor and vulnerable households. It can replace broad, costly subsidies with targeted assistance, improve energy pricing, collect more revenue, reduce non-performing loans, and strengthen bank governance and supervision. If the government demonstrates commitment and results, it will be better placed to negotiate the pace and design of reforms with the IMF. If the country does not own the reform and pursue it seriously at home, no loan conditions can make it succeed. Delays will weaken the economy and increase the debt burden, ultimately placing repayment costs on citizens who did not create the underlying problems.
While Bangladesh must urgently tackle its economic challenges, its negotiations with the IMF and World Bank highlight a broader question: how can international institutions provide timely, affordable support while giving countries room to tailor reforms to their own circumstances? The annual meetings in Bangkok offered a chance to see whether they are ready to meet that challenge.
The Development Committee chair’s statement sets out priorities, including growth, jobs, resilience, and stronger crisis response, without any binding commitments to provide new funds or deliver debt relief by set dates. Developing-country representatives pressed for more. The G24’s statement at the meetings called for faster IMF quota realignment, a stronger World Bank lending capacity, broader participation in debt restructuring and reforms to strengthen developing countries’ voice and representation, ensuring institutional policies and financing reflect their needs. Bangkok was therefore a diplomatic success but delivered limited results. The meetings clarified the scale of the challenges and reaffirmed cooperation yet offered few enforceable steps to meet the expectations of people and countries in the Global South. The test now is whether the institutions and their shareholders can turn recognition into affordable finance, fairer decision-making, and timely results.
Dr Fahmida Khatun is an economist and distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD). Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
