Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In the run-up to the annual Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in the second week of April, there was much talk that the two organisations were on the cusp of change. Multiple crises are demanding attention from the international community. But these institutions, once central players in the management of the international economic order, seem to have little to offer as effective managers in the current conjuncture. Hence the need for change. Two factors account for their loss of significance or even descent into irrelevance. The first is that these dominant multilateral bodies once accounted for a significant share of the cross-border flows of finance from the capitalist North to the Global South but are now minor players in the global movement of capital. The share of yield-seeking or even predatory private capital in total flows has increased enormously as the distribution of the surpluses generated globally concentrate in the hands of these private players rather than in the hands of governments, including those in high-income countries. The second is that even the surpluses that remain in the hands of public players are no more concentrated with G7 governments but are spread across governments of countries outside the North, varying from the oil exporters to the now dominant or newly emerging global-manufacturing hubs, especially an increasingly combative China. The Bretton Woods twins, established at a time when the international order looked very different, have a structure of governance and decision-making (dominated by the G7, especially the US) that does not correspond to the current distribution of global economic (even if not military) power.These dissonant features have developed at a time when the need for multilateral action is urgent, given multiple global challenges. External debt crises overwhelm a large number of low- and middle-income countries that accumulated excess debt during the years when high-income-country governments and central banks injected cheap liquidity into the international system and the COVID pandemic and the spike in food and fuel prices pushed poorer countries into soaking up that liquidity. The result is debt stress and widespread default. With a fragmented creditor community unable to offer viable paths to resolution, adjustment in countries overwhelmed by debt is forcing austerity on populations least able to bear more burdens.Q.What is the main reason for the call for change in the World Bank and IMF, as mentioned in the passage?a)Inadequate response to multiple global crisesb)Lack of funding for low- and middle-income countriesc)Overreliance on G7 governmentsd)Shift in military power distributionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.