IMF reform is not limited to a certain unilateral content. Almost every aspect is to be reformed, from the value of institutions to their functions, from governance structure to working methods, from strategic decision-making to personnel arrangement. To sum up, these numerous contents mainly revolve around three themes: legitimacy, responsibility and effectiveness.

legality. Legitimacy is to discuss whether the IMF should be established and whether the organization and operation of the IMF reflect fairness and justice from the value level. The establishment of the IMF is the result of people trying to erase the chaotic memories during the two world wars. It not only witnessed the concerted efforts of the international community, but also showed national interests and ambitions to plan the world governance order. Undeniably, in the course of 6 years, IMF has played a great role in maintaining international financial order and promoting world economic development. However, people have different opinions on how to continue the IMF over the age of 6 to prove its value. Friedman, Schultz and others have clearly stated that the IMF should be abolished on the grounds that its existence is an obvious example of political intervention in the market. Although few people agree with this extreme view, most people still realize that the IMF should make major adjustments, otherwise its legitimacy foundation will face the worry of disintegration. One of the most important aspects is that the IMF should reflect international fairness and justice more. The IMF currently has 185 member countries, and the rights of each country are directly linked to its share. However, the allocation principle and adjustment mechanism of shares are not only unscientific, but also lack of dynamics, which leads to the fact that developed countries as a whole have greater decision-making power, especially the United States has a de facto veto power over major decisions, while many developing countries have less right to speak in the decision-making process of the IMF. Even fast-growing emerging powers can hardly show their vitality and progress in the operation of the IMF.

responsibility. Responsibility is to discuss the operating mechanism of IMF from the institutional level, including function setting, monitoring and response mechanism. Under the Bretton Woods system, the IMF's main role is to maintain exchange rate stability among member countries. When there is a "fundamental imbalance" in the balance of payments of member countries, it will negotiate with them to adjust exchange rate parity and provide liquidity assistance. Under the Jamaican system, the main task of the IMF is to maintain the stability of the international financial system and assume the responsibility of "fire brigade" in the event of financial crisis in member countries; Act as a "mediator" when international creditors negotiate with debtors. However, there are many problems worth discussing in the process of IMF performing its duties. For example, the IMF's problem vision should focus on country policies or systemic issues; How to strengthen the crisis early warning function of IMF in crisis management; Whether the conditions attached to the IMF loan are reasonable; Who should be responsible for the IMF's performance, how to respond, and so on.

among them, there are many disputes about loan conditions. Because some major countries dominate the decision-making process, the setting of loan conditions may be biased. The experience of South Korea during the Asian financial crisis is an example. ChangHa-Joon, a British economist of Korean descent, satirized the IMF's loan conditions with a story in his Hypocrisy of Rich Countries: "If I were a small business owner, I would borrow some money from the bank to expand my factory. It is very natural for the bank manager to set some unilateral conditions on how I will repay the money in the future; Even it is reasonable to set some conditions for what building materials I use and what machinery I buy when I expand my factory. However, if he attaches the condition that I should reduce my fat intake, because (not completely irrelevant) foods with high fat content will make me unhealthy and reduce my ability to repay the loan, then I will think it is unreasonable intrusion. Of course, if I really put all my eggs in one basket, I will bear the insult and agree to this unreasonable condition. But if he further stipulates that I should stay at home for one hour less every day (thinking that wasting less time at home will increase the time available for work, thus reducing the chance of defaulting on loans), I may rush out of the bank. It's not that my diet and family life have no influence on my ability to run a business. According to the bank manager's reasoning, they are related. But the problem is that their correlation is indirect and limited. "

effectiveness. Effectiveness is to discuss the governance structure of IMF from the tool level, including institutional setup, decision-making system and personnel arrangement. From the perspective of organizational structure, IMF is mainly composed of board of directors, IMFC, executive board, management and many professional service organizations. As the highest authority of the IMF, the board of directors is composed of a director and a deputy director from each of the 185 member countries. It usually meets once a year at the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, and special meetings can be held when necessary. Apart from reserving the power to approve the increase of shares, allocate special drawing rights (SDR), amend the IMF Articles of Association, accept the compulsory withdrawal of new members and existing members, and amend the Bylaws, the Council entrusts most of the power to the Executive Board. IMFC consists of 24 directors from 24 constituencies of the Executive Board, who are responsible for providing decision-making suggestions to the Board on the management of the international monetary and financial system, so IMFC is only a policy consultation and decision-making forum. The Executive Board is responsible for the day-to-day work of the IMF as authorized by the Board of Directors, and consists of 24 directors, five of whom are appointed by the five member countries with the largest share of the IMF (the United States, Japan, Germany, France and Britain). The other 19 directors are elected by constituencies composed of other member countries (among them, China, Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia each elect one director to represent their own countries). In addition to regular weekly meetings and regular annual reports to the Council, the Executive Board also meets frequently to discuss major economic development issues in member countries and major events in the international financial field. The management includes a president, a first vice president, two vice presidents and their staff. The managing director is not only the non-voting chairman of the executive board, but also the top leader of the IMF staff. Nominally, the managing director is elected by the executive board, but according to an informal practice at the time of the establishment of the IMF, the managing director has always been a European, and since the establishment of the position of first vice president, the position has always been held by an American.

as for the governance structure of the IMF, the main issues discussed by all parties are: whether ministerial committees should be set up to strengthen the strategic decision-making function of the IMF, how to establish and strengthen the working contact mechanism between the IMFC and the board of directors, how to reform the way of producing executive directors, and the selection of the president and senior managers.