The United States is yet to respond to the Group of 20's call to ratify the reform package of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Sunday, and analysts here say the price tag for delaying the passage of such a package could be high.
The reform plan includes a doubling of IMF quotas and a shift in quotas to dynamic emerging markets, such as India and China, and under-represented countries, and a proposed amendment to reform the executive board that would facilitate a move to a more representative and all-elected 24-member board.
However, it is still a question if the U.S. can heed this call.
In the communique released after the meeting of its finance ministers and central bank governors in Cairns, Aistralia, G20 members said, "We continue to urge the U.S. to ratify the reforms agreed to in 2010 by year-end and reaffirm our leaders' agreement in St. Petersburg and our agreement in April 2014."
It is not the first time the G20 has pressured the U.S. on the reform plan.
At the IMF meeting in April, finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 major economies expressed their " deep disappointment" with the continued delay of the reform, which was approved by the IMF's Board of Governors in December 2010. They urged the U.S. to endorse the reform by year-end, saying or else they would consider an optional plan.
The reform is good for the United States itself, as well as the more prosperous emerging markets, which bode well for U.S. foreign trade and would help sustain its hard-earn recovery.
If the reform package is implemented, China, India, Russia and Brazil will all become top shareholders of the Washington-based global lender.
The U.S. has been a strong advocate for the reform when it was still in its infancy.
However, the U.S. has now blocked the reform due to partisan disagreement. In fact it has become a bargaining chip for the U.S. Republicans and Democrats in an internal political game.
The price tag of the reform delay could be high, however, argued analysts here.
First, it caused serious damage to the G20 leadership. Second, it was a threat to the IMF legitimacy. Third, it created some uncertainty for the future resources of IMF.
And the reform is considered as key to promoting democracy in global economic governance. Blocking it, there will be a lot of dangers and risks in the long run.
The reforms were approved by most of the IMF's 188 members, but have been blocked by the United States, which has veto power over IMF decision.
"It is overdue by two years now. And we do everything we can to convince the necessity of this reform," Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund said in a news conference on Sunday.