A New Financial Architecture? Outlines from the People’s Bank of China

By Warwick Powell

In mid-June 2025 the Governor of the People’s Bank of China - the country’s central bank - Pan Gongsheng, delivered a speech at a forum in Shanghai that articulated some important perspectives on the state and future direction of the international monetary system.

The speech explicitly addressed four themes:

● The nature of the international monetary system;

● The nature and evolution of cross border payments systems;

● Questions concerning global financial stability; and

● The future of governance of international financial institutions.

The full text of his speech is provided below with an English translation (unofficial) and the Chinese original.

The speech came before the meeting of BRICS, which took place in Rio de Janeiro on 6-7 July. At that meeting, a consensus declaration was issued in which a range of global finance architecture-related positions were articulated. Pan’s speech can be seen to resonate within this wider context.

The BRICS declaration delivered an ongoing critique of the prevailing post-Bretton Woods financial institutions, principally on the basis that their governance remained skewed to a point where the voices of the global south remained marginalised. The implied position was that existing financial institutions and their practices were not in accord with the aspirations and interests of countries of the global south.

The declaration then went on to outline some important operational and institutional steps that BRICS now intends to take forward. These include:

● The elevation and expansion of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) as the de facto clearing and settlement engine for national currency-based trade among BRICS and BRICS+ countries. This positioning affirmed the NDB’s role in supporting the transition to a sovereign or national currency-based trade settlement system.

● The endorsement of the Interbank Cooperation Mechanism that will knit together central and commercial banks across this ecosystem, creating a unified platform for liquidity management, payment interoperability and credit coordination in national currencies. This forms the financial backbone of what is emerging as a parallel development architecture.

● A consensus on the revised Treaty and operational rules governing the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Originally designed to provide short-term liquidity support during balance-of-payment crises, the CRA’s updated framework reflects its new role as a safety net for national currency trade. This is the operational lifeblood to mitigate against liquidity risks as the network transitions towards a currency multipolarity operating system.

● Agreement on the BRICS Rapid Information Security Channel, as an emerging platform for coordination on information security and financial technology. This will support standards harmonisation, ongoing institutional collaboration and enable the establishment of secure data exchanges, all of which are foundational to an independent settlement system.

Pan’s speech was in some regards one of the most forthright declarations of intent, clothed in the diplomatic vocabulary and style of central bankers. It was a direct critique of the post-war system and America’s intransigence and role, as well as outlining the key parameters and concerns that will shape China’s own approach to the development of alternative systems and the prosecution of reform to the existing system.

To explore the key elements of Pan’s speech, I had the pleasure of interviewing Professor Liang Yan from Willamette University in the USA.

---

Speech by Pan Gongsheng, Governor of the People’s Bank of China, Lujiazui Forum, 18 June 2025

(Unofficial translation)

Distinguished Secretary Jin Ning, Former Governor of the People’s Bank of China Mr. Zhou Xiaochuan, Mayor Gong Zheng, Respected Comrades Wang Jiang, Yun Ze, Wu Qing, Hai Feng, and He Xin, Honored Guests:

Good morning!

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Shanghai Municipal Committee and the Shanghai Municipal Government - especially Secretary Chen and Mayor Gong - for their continued care and support for the financial sector and the People’s Bank of China. I am deeply honored to serve as a co-chair of this year’s forum. After years of dedicated effort, the Lujiazui Forum has become a platform of strong international influence and broad market reach. On behalf of the People’s Bank of China and the forum organizers, I extend a warm welcome and sincere thanks to all of you!

At last year’s Lujiazui Forum, I presented China’s monetary policy stance and the evolution of its future framework. Over the past year, the People’s Bank of China has maintained a supportive monetary policy stance and introduced a number of measures across quantity, price, and structure dimensions. These policies have effectively supported the continued recovery and positive momentum of the economy, as well as the stability of financial markets.

At the same time, we have improved the monetary policy framework, optimized intermediate targets, nurtured policy interest rates, enhanced the transmission efficiency of monetary policy, enriched the policy toolkit, and strengthened communication and expectation management. The transformation of the monetary policy framework is a gradual and continuous process, and we will continue to assess and refine it going forward.

Now, I would like to share some reflections under the theme “Thoughts on Global Financial Governance.” Global financial governance is a broad topic. Today, I will focus on four key areas: the international monetary system, cross-border payment systems, the global financial stability framework, and the governance of international financial institutions.

1. On the International Monetary System

Historically, the international monetary system has been in constant evolution. Changes in dominant international currencies reflect deep shifts in global power structures and the competitive capacities of nations. In the 17th century, the Dutch guilder served as an early international currency. From the late 18th century to the first half of the 20th century, the British pound was the dominant global currency. After World War II, the U.S. dollar assumed that role and continues to lead to this day.

A dominant international currency functions as a global public good but is, by nature, a sovereign currency. This creates inherent instability:

1. Conflict of interest: When the sovereign issuer’s national interest conflicts with the public good nature of its currency, the issuer tends to prioritize its own needs, undermining its role as a provider of global public goods.

2. Risk spillovers: Fiscal and regulatory issues in the sovereign country, as well as accumulated structural economic imbalances, can spill over in the form of financial risks, even triggering global crises.

3. Geopolitical risks: In times of geopolitical tension, national security concerns, or war, the dominant international currency can be weaponized or instrumentalized.

As a result, calls for reforming the international monetary system are growing. Over the past decade, discussions were mainly driven by the aftermath of the global financial crisis and focused on economic and financial dimensions. Today, a new wave of debate is increasingly driven by geopolitical considerations. These discussions generally fall into two directions:

First Direction: Reducing overreliance on a single sovereign currency, and creating a system of healthy competition and mutual checks among a few strong sovereign currencies. A multipolar international monetary system encourages greater discipline among sovereign issuers, enhances resilience, and better safeguards global economic and financial stability.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde recently noted that the multilateral global system is fragmenting, the dominance of the U.S. dollar is becoming more uncertain, and the euro is expected to play a greater role.

Over the past 20+ years, two major developments have marked the evolution of the international monetary system:

1. The euro was introduced in 1999 and now accounts for about 20% of global foreign exchange reserves, second only to the U.S. dollar.

2. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, the international role of the renminbi (RMB) has steadily increased. The RMB is now the second-largest currency for trade finance, the third-largest currency for global payments (on a full-caliber basis), and ranks third in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency basket.

Looking ahead, the international monetary system may continue to evolve into a structure where a few major sovereign currencies coexist, compete, and counterbalance each other. Whether dominated by a single currency or a few, sovereign issuers must assume corresponding responsibilities: strengthening fiscal discipline, enhancing financial supervision, and advancing structural economic reforms.

Second Direction: Promoting a supranational currency to replace or complement existing sovereign currencies. The most widely discussed candidate is the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR). Former PBOC Governor Mr. Zhou Xiaochuan raised this issue as early as 2009.

In theory, the SDR can better overcome the flaws of using a single sovereign currency as the international reserve currency. SDRs offer stronger stability, can better serve as a global public good, moderate global liquidity, and support crisis response; all features of a potential supranational currency.

However, the SDR faces challenges:

● Lack of political consensus and momentum at the global level.

● Insufficient market size, depth, and liquidity, limiting its real-world impact.

To elevate the SDR to the status of a leading global currency, we must:

● Build political consensus among IMF members - a challenging task in today’s geopolitical climate.

● Refine operational mechanisms and gradually expand SDR usage.

On allocation and issuance, the IMF currently uses SDRs mostly for crisis response, often through one-off large allocations. In the future, regular SDR issuance and larger volumes could be considered.

On usage, we should encourage private sector participation, promote SDR usage in trade and investment, issue SDR-denominated bonds, and build a settlement infrastructure for large-scale SDR transactions.

2. On Cross-Border Payment Systems

Cross-border payment systems are the arteries of global monetary flows, essential for promoting international trade and investment, maintaining financial stability, and supporting the international monetary system itself. The evolution of the international monetary system toward a coexistence of several major sovereign currencies, combined with rapid advances in digital technologies, is driving the diversification of cross-border payment systems. In turn, more diversified payment systems will further accelerate changes in the monetary system.

In recent years, several shortcomings of traditional cross-border payment systems have become increasingly apparent:

1. A mismatch with emerging digital technologies has led to low efficiency, high costs, and limited accessibility - issues that urgently require resolution.

2. Cross-border payments must navigate different legal and regulatory frameworks and coordinate among numerous stakeholders, highlighting the need for stronger international cooperation. Organizations like the G20 have responded by launching roadmaps to improve cross-border payments.

3. Geopolitical tensions are rising. Traditional cross-border payment infrastructures are increasingly vulnerable to politicization and weaponization, used as tools for unilateral sanctions that undermine international economic and financial order.

Against this backdrop, there is a growing global consensus on the need to improve cross-border payment systems. Emerging payment infrastructures and new settlement models are constantly emerging, pushing the global cross-border payment landscape toward greater efficiency, security, inclusiveness, and diversity - a trend that is expected to strengthen over time.

First, the system is becoming more diversified.

● Currency diversification: More countries and regions are using their local currencies for settlement, supporting the internationalization of more currencies. The dominance of a single sovereign currency in cross-border payments is gradually diminishing.

● Channel diversification: In addition to traditional correspondent banking models, we are seeing the rise of new cross-border payment systems and regional multilateral platforms. This variety of settlement pathways has boosted efficiency. After more than a decade of development, China has built a multi-channel, wide-coverage RMB cross-border clearing and settlement network.

Second, interoperability is improving.

● More countries and regions are extending operating hours, adopting international standard messaging formats, and promoting the interconnection of fast payment systems, all of which improve efficiency and reduce transaction costs.

● In Asia, for example, the interconnection of QR code payment systems across borders has dramatically improved interoperability in retail payments, significantly enhancing the convenience of cross-border payments for individuals.

Third, emerging technologies are being rapidly applied.

● Technologies like blockchain and distributed ledger systems are driving the growth of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and stablecoins. These enable payment and settlement to occur simultaneously, fundamentally reshaping the traditional payment landscape by shortening cross-border payment chains.

● However, these advances also present significant regulatory challenges.

● Smart contracts and decentralized finance (DeFi) will continue to push forward the evolution of cross-border payment systems.

3. On the Global Financial Stability Framework

Before the 2008 global financial crisis, the international community primarily relied on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and similar mechanisms for reactive and post-crisis support. After the crisis, there was a strong push to develop preventive measures, including tighter financial regulation.

On one hand, a multi-layered financial safety net has taken shape and is being continuously improved.

At the Boao Forum for Asia last March, I spoke on strengthening financial safety nets. Since then:

● At the global level, the IMF has been working to enhance its crisis response capacity, strengthen policy surveillance, and expand the scope of its oversight.

● At the regional level, institutions like the European Stability Mechanism, the Latin American Reserve Fund, the Chiang Mai Initiative in Asia, and the Arab Monetary Fund have emerged, becoming important regional backstops for financial stability.

● At the bilateral level, major developed economies - such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank - have used currency swap lines to inject liquidity into markets during crises. Local currency swap arrangements among emerging markets are also steadily progressing. The People’s Bank of China has now signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with more than 30 countries and regions, making it an important component of the global financial safety net.

On the other hand, crisis prevention through regulation has seen steady progress.

Following the global financial crisis, major reforms were implemented in global financial regulatory standards, such as:

● The introduction of Basel III, which strengthened bank resilience.

● Enhanced oversight of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs).

China has actively participated in the formulation and implementation of international regulatory standards and is one of the few countries that has fully implemented Basel III. In addition:

● China has established a regulatory framework for SIFIs, and all systemically important banks in the country now meet Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements.

● A deposit insurance system is in place, covering over 99% of depositors in full.

● The country has fully rolled out its new regulations on asset management, significantly curbing shadow banking risks.

Yet, the global financial stability framework faces several new challenges:

1. Fragmentation of regulation: The regulatory framework remains inconsistent across borders, with signs of "race to the bottom" competition. For example, implementation of Basel III has been affected by domestic political factors in some countries, opening the door to regulatory arbitrage and weakening the global framework.

2. Insufficient regulation in emerging areas:

• Regulation of fast-growing crypto assets and climate-related risks is inconsistent and highly politically influenced.

• The use of artificial intelligence in finance also lacks standardized global supervision.

3. There is an urgent need to enhance global regulatory coordination and close regulatory gaps.

4. Weak oversight of non-bank financial intermediaries:

• Over the past two decades, non-bank intermediaries have played an increasing role in global finance.

• However, they tend to have lower transparency, higher leverage, and greater instability.

5. Regulation in this area needs to be strengthened.

We believe that a strong and central IMF, supported by a diverse and efficient global financial safety net, and a consistent and authoritative regulatory framework, is the key pathway to crisis prevention and resolution. This is a direction the global community should continue to pursue.

4. On the Governance of International Financial Institutions

After World War II, the international community began with the IMF and the World Bank, gradually establishing a multi-level, multi-dimensional international financial institutional system. This system covers areas such as international policy coordination, financial regulatory rulemaking, and multilateral development finance, forming the primary institutional platforms for global financial governance. These institutions have played a significant role in promoting global economic and trade growth and maintaining global financial stability.

However, as the global economic landscape has changed, the quotas and voting shares of major institutions like the IMF and World Bank - as well as some regional financial organizations - have long lagged behind actual shifts in global economic weight. The representation of emerging markets and developing countries remains significantly lower than their true role in the global economy.

The international community must also pay attention to unilateralist tendencies of certain member countries, which have interfered with the governance and operations of international financial institutions. These institutions need to reform and evolve, reflecting changes in global dynamics, strengthening the voice and representation of emerging markets and developing countries, upholding genuine multilateralism, and improving governance efficiency.

Among international financial institutions, the IMF holds a central position and plays a pivotal role in global economic and financial governance. The IMF is a quota-based organization:

● The scale of quotas determines the IMF’s capacity to provide crisis support.

● The distribution of quotas determines a member's voting power and access to IMF resources.

At present, the IMF's quota distribution does not reflect the real economic weight of its members. According to an already reached consensus, accelerating quota reforms is essential to improving IMF governance and enhancing its legitimacy and representativeness.

At a time when the global economy faces heightened uncertainty, international financial institutions must go beyond governance reforms and also strengthen their surveillance functions:

● Objectively assess global and national-level risks;

● Guide countries in supporting economic globalization and multilateral trade systems;

● Promote macro policy coordination among nations;

● Help safeguard the stability of the international financial system.

Concluding Remarks

Dear guests,

Improving global financial governance requires dialogue and cooperation from all parties. China will continue to pursue reform and opening up, uphold multilateralism, and play a constructive role in shaping a fairer, more just, inclusive, and resilient global financial governance system.

Finally, I wish this year’s Lujiazui Forum great success.

Thank you all!

Original Chinese:

尊敬的吉宁书记、中国人民银行原行长小川先生、龚正市长，尊敬的王江、云泽、吴清、海峰、鹤新同志，尊敬的各位来宾：

大家好！

非常感谢上海市委、市政府特别是陈书记、龚市长对金融事业和人民银行的关心和支持，非常荣幸担任本届论坛的共同轮值主席。经过多年努力，陆家嘴论坛已经成为具有很强国际影响力和市场传播力的交流平台。我代表人民银行，也代表主办方，向大家表示热烈的欢迎和衷心的感谢！

在去年的陆家嘴论坛上，我报告了中国的货币政策立场和未来货币政策框架的演进。一年来，人民银行坚持支持性的货币政策立场，从数量、价格、结构等方面，出台了多项货币政策措施，有效支持了经济持续回升向好和金融市场的稳定。同时，我们完善货币政策框架，优化货币政策中间变量，培育政策利率，提升货币政策传导效率，丰富货币政策工具箱，做好政策沟通和预期引导。货币政策框架的转型是一个渐进、持续的过程，未来我们还将不断地做好评估和完善。

下面，我以“关于全球金融治理的若干思考”为主题，与大家做一个交流。全球金融治理是一个十分宽泛的话题。今天，我主要聚焦国际货币体系、跨境支付体系、全球金融稳定体系、国际金融组织治理四个问题，与大家分享几点看法。

第一个问题，关于国际货币体系。

从历史看，国际货币体系始终处于演进之中，国际主导货币的更替反映了国际格局的深刻变化和国家竞争力的迭代。17世纪，荷兰盾成为早期国际通用货币；18世纪末至20世纪上半叶，英镑成为国际主导货币；二战后，美元确立主导地位并延续至今。

国际主导货币具有全球公共品的属性，由一国主权货币来承担，与生俱来就存在一些内在的不稳定问题。一是当主权货币国自身利益与全球公共品属性发生矛盾时，主权货币国会更多考虑自身利益，影响对全球公共品的提供。二是主权货币国的财政和金融监管问题、内部经济结构性矛盾的不断累积，会以金融风险的形式向全球溢出，甚至演变为国际金融危机。三是当出现地缘政治冲突、国家安全利益考量甚至战争时，国际主导货币容易被工具化、武器化。

因存在上述问题，国际上对改革货币体系的讨论越来越多。过去十多年，国际货币体系变革的驱动力量，主要来自国际金融危机之后的经济金融层面，相关讨论也主要是在经济金融层面；当前新一轮的讨论，更多来自地缘政治层面。这些讨论大致有两个方向。

第一个方向，是如何弱化对单一主权货币的过度依赖和负面影响，形成少数强势主权货币的良性竞争和激励约束机制。国际货币体系向多极化发展，有助于推动主权货币国强化政策约束，提升国际货币体系韧性，更有效地维护全球经济金融稳定。欧央行行长拉加德女士最近有个演讲，她认为，基于多边合作的全球体系正在裂变，美元的主导地位不确定性上升，欧元有望在全球货币体系中扮演更重要的角色。

过去20多年中，国际货币体系的演进有两个重要特征。一是欧元于1999年诞生，目前在全球外汇储备中的占比约为20%，仅次于美元。二是2008年国际金融危机后，人民币国际地位稳步上升。人民币已成为全球第二大贸易融资货币；按全口径计算，人民币已成为全球第三大支付货币；在国际货币基金组织（IMF）特别提款权（SDR）货币篮子中的权重位列全球第三。

未来，国际货币体系可能继续朝着少数几个主权货币并存、相互竞争、相互制衡的格局演进。无论是单一主权货币还是少数几个主权货币作为国际主导货币，主权货币国都需要承担相应责任，强化国内财政纪律和金融监管，推进经济结构性改革。

讨论的第二个方向，是由一种超主权货币作为国际主导货币，讨论比较多的是IMF特别提款权（SDR）。人民银行前行长周小川先生就曾在2009年提出过这一问题。理论上，SDR能够较好地克服单一主权货币作为国际主导货币的内在问题，具有更强的稳定性，可以更好承担全球公共品的职能，调节全球流动性并实施危机救助，具有成为超主权国际货币的特征。

SDR成为国际主导货币，在政治层面上面临着国际共识和驱动力不足的问题，而且目前市场的规模、深度、流动性不足，发挥的作用比较有限。推动SDR成为国际主导货币，需要各成员国在政治层面凝聚共识，而在当前国际环境下，做到这一点并不容易。在操作层面，需要优化机制安排，逐步扩大SDR的使用。在分配和发行机制上，目前IMF分配SDR主要用于危机应对，多采取一次性大额发行的方式。未来，可增加常态化SDR发行并扩大发行规模。在使用范围上，积极推动私营部门和各类市场主体积极参与，在国际贸易、投融资活动中广泛使用SDR，发行以SDR计价的债券，提升SDR作为储备资产的作用，并建立适应大规模使用的SDR结算机制。

第二个问题，关于跨境支付体系。

跨境支付体系是全球货币资金运行的“动脉”，是促进国际贸易和投融资、维护金融稳定的重要依托，也是国际货币体系的重要支撑。国际货币体系向少数几个主权货币并存演进和数字技术的快速发展，将促进跨境支付体系的多元化发展；多元化的跨境支付体系反过来也将加速国际货币体系的变革。

近年来，传统跨境支付体系面临的问题逐渐凸显。一是传统跨境支付方式与新兴数字技术存在代差，效率低、成本高、普及性差等问题亟待改善。二是跨境支付需要协调不同的法律和监管框架、更多的利益相关者，国际合作有待加强。对此，G20等国际组织高度关注，专门制定了改善跨境支付的路线图。三是地缘政治博弈加剧，传统跨境支付基础设施容易被政治化、武器化，作为单边制裁工具使用，破坏国际经济金融秩序。

在这种背景下，全球希望改善跨境支付体系的呼声不断高涨，新兴支付基础设施和结算方式不断涌现，推动全球跨境支付体系朝着更加高效、安全、包容、多元的方向发展。这一趋势未来会持续增强。

一是跨境支付体系向多元化发展。币种方面，越来越多的国家和地区使用本币结算，促进更多货币的国际化使用，单一主权货币主导跨境支付的局面正逐步改变。渠道方面，除传统的代理行模式外，新兴跨境支付系统、区域性多边支付系统等陆续出现，结算渠道更加多样，跨境支付效率进一步提升。经过十余年的建设与发展，中国已初步建成多渠道、广覆盖的人民币跨境支付清算网络。

二是支付系统和生态的互操作性不断提升。更多国家和地区延长支付系统运行时间、采用国际通用报文、推进快速支付系统互联互通，提高跨境支付的效率、降低交易成本。以亚洲为代表的国家和地区通过二维码支付互联互通，大幅提高了零售支付生态的互操作性，极大便利了居民跨境支付。

三是新兴技术在跨境支付领域加速应用。区块链和分布式账本等新兴技术推动央行数字货币、稳定币蓬勃发展，实现了“支付即结算”，从底层重塑传统支付体系，大幅缩短跨境支付链条，同时对金融监管也提出了巨大的挑战。智能合约、去中心化金融等技术也将持续推动跨境支付体系的演进和发展。

第三个问题，关于全球金融稳定体系。

2008年金融危机前，国际社会主要依赖以IMF为主的全球金融安全网进行事中事后救助。危机之后，进一步强化了金融监管规则等事前防范机制。

一方面，多层次的金融安全网持续完善。在去年3月的博鳌亚洲论坛上，我就加强金融安全网建设作了演讲。在全球层面，近年来，IMF不断增强危机救助能力，强化政策监督职能，扩大政策监督范围。在区域层面，欧洲稳定基金、拉美储备基金、亚洲清迈倡议、阿拉伯货币基金等相继建立，成为相关地区金融稳定的重要支撑。在双边层面，美联储、欧央行等主要发达经济体央行通过货币互换机制，在危机时期向市场注入流动性。新兴市场本币互换合作也在稳步推进。目前人民银行与30多个国家和地区央行或货币当局签订双边本币互换协议，成为全球金融安全网的重要组成部分。

另一方面，基于监管规则的危机防范体系不断完善。金融危机后，国际社会对全球金融监管体系进行了一系列重大改革，包括发布《巴塞尔协议III》，增强银行机构的稳健性、强化对系统重要性金融机构的监管等。中国一直积极参与国际金融监管标准的制定与实施，是少数全面实施《巴塞尔协议III》的经济体之一；已建立系统重要性金融机构监管框架，中国系统重要性银行总损失吸收能力已全部达标；建立了存款保险制度，能为99%以上的存款人提供全额保障；出台并全面实施资管新规，影子银行风险大幅压降。

当前，全球金融稳定体系正面临一些新的挑战。

第一，监管框架仍然碎片化，甚至出现“竞争性逐底”的倾向。近来，《巴塞尔协议III》等国际监管规则的执行受成员国国内政治因素影响出现摆动，可能会带来监管套利，削弱全球金融稳定体系。国际社会应积极落实已议定的监管改革措施，防范监管套利和风险跨境传导。

第二，数字金融等一些新兴领域监管不足。比如，对于快速扩张的加密资产市场和气候风险相关的监管框架，全球监管协调不足，监管的取向大幅摆动并受政治的驱动太强；人工智能在金融领域的应用，缺乏统一监管标准。全球需要加强监管协同，补齐监管短板。

第三，对非银行中介机构的监管仍然薄弱。过去20年，非银行中介机构在全球融资中的比重大幅上升。这类融资稳定性较弱，透明度较低，杠杆水平不断上升，监管有待加强。

我们认为，以强有力的国际货币基金组织为核心，构建多元、高效的全球金融安全网，维护全球金融监管规则的一致性和权威性，是危机防范与化解的关键路径，也是应该继续坚持的方向。

第四个问题，关于国际金融组织治理。

二战后，国际社会从IMF和世界银行起步，逐步建立了多层次、多维度的国际金融组织体系，覆盖了国际政策协调、金融监管规则制定、多边开发机构等领域，成为开展国际金融治理的主要制度性平台，对于促进全球经济和贸易增长、维护全球金融稳定发挥着重要作用。

随着全球经济格局变化，IMF、世界银行等主要国际金融组织和一些区域性金融组织的份额和投票权长期缺乏实质性调整，新兴市场和发展中国家的占比明显低于在全球经济中的实际地位。国际社会还应关注，个别成员国奉行单边主义的政策取向，干预和影响了国际金融组织的治理和运作。国际金融组织需要与时俱进推进治理改革，动态反映成员国在全球经济中的相对地位，提高新兴市场和发展中国家的话语权和代表性，维护和践行真正的多边主义，提升治理效率。

在诸多国际金融组织中，IMF处于核心地位，在全球经济金融治理中发挥着重要作用。IMF是以份额为基础的国际金融组织。份额规模决定了IMF的危机救助能力，份额占比决定了成员国在基金组织的投票权和获取融资的规模。当前IMF的份额占比没有能反映成员国在全球经济中的相对地位。按照已达成的共识，尽快推动份额占比调整，是IMF完善治理、提升自身合法性、代表性的关键。

当前，全球经济面临高度不确定性。在完善治理结构的同时，主要国际金融组织应进一步强化经济监督职能，客观评估全球和各国面临的风险，积极引导各国坚定支持经济全球化和多边贸易体系。加强对各国的政策引导，强化宏观经济政策协调，维护国际金融体系稳定。

各位来宾：

完善全球金融治理，需要各方加强对话与合作。我们将坚持走改革开放之路、多边主义之路，积极发挥建设性作用，为构建更加公平、公正、包容、有韧性的全球金融治理体系贡献力量。

最后，预祝本届陆家嘴论坛圆满成功，谢谢大家！