1. Does Superpower status allow for policy super-imposition? Does US aid effect the size and conditionality of IMF loans?

2. America in the IMF 16.77% of vote share Together with 4 key allies –Japan, UK, France and Germany- has a vote share of 38.37% Only nation that can block supermajority vote of 85% Can also influence policy as many other vote groups have allies.

4. Executive Directors 16 of the 24 are voted in through vote blocs These blocs are not always geopolitically linked and hence are possibly interested in being represented in board. Allows for significant control by America and NATO allies.

5. Time Period and cases for study Post Cold war- paradigm shift in IR Aid to non-NATO allies. Nations during Financial crises- more likely to borrow from fund Mexican financial crisis 1996 – Mexico joined NAFTA in 1995 Russian crisis 1990-1998, under Yeltsin. Pakistan 2007

6. Methodology Statistical and analytical Using data, compare IMF loans to selected nations to those in the same regions and/or nations of similar GDP. Using journal articles and books to determine how and why these countries were important at the time to the US. The latter will determine how conditionality was implemented while former focuses on size of loan.

7. Why Russia? After fall of USSR, Russia under Yeltsin was seen as a possible regional/global power and hence a key potential ally for the USA American interest in Kosovo.

8. Why Mexico? NAFTA member and important trade partner. Perhaps a crisis would mean instability in a border state, thereby affecting America indirectly.

9. Why Pakistan? After 9/11 Key to war effort in Afghanistan Long time non-NATO cold war ally. Perhaps fear of losing ground to China, another key Pakistani ally?

10. Long term vs Short term factors An IMF loan is aimed at not just immediately relieving immediate crisis but also foster stable growth. Hence, both immediate and long term importance to America needs to be dealt with.

11. Other Pertinent Issues To Address Why does the US not simply fund directly? Does this blatant politicization of policy have any fallout – clearly to IMF credibility, but are there any consequences to American image around the world?