In the wake of the global financial crisis, three G20 Summits have reinvigorated global cooperation, thrusting the International Monetary Fund centre stage with approximately 1trillionofresources.WithChina,Brazil,India,Russiaandotherpowerfulemergingeconomiesnowatthetable,isanewmoremultilateraleraofgovernanceemerging?Thisarticleexaminestheevidence.ItdetailsthegovernancereformsandnewfinancingoftheIMFbutfindsonlyverylimitedshiftsintheengagementofmajoremergingeconomies–insufficienttopositiontheIMFtoaddresstheglobalimbalances,tosetnewmultilateralrules,tooperateasanalternativetoself‐insuranceorindeedtoprovideamoremultilateralresponsetothedevelopmentemergency.TheIMFisshiftingbetween:borrowerdependence(relyingonfee‐payingborrowersforincome);independence(withitsowninvestmentincome);andlenderdependence(relyingonwealthymemberstoextendcreditlinestoit).TheresultisanambiguoussetofforcesrestrainingtheIMFtostayasitis,andonlyweaklydrivingreform.Anewordermayemergeinwhichmultilateralinstitutions–suchastheIMF–endupwithonlyalimitedroletoplayalongsideemergingnationalandregionalstrategies,unlessamoreradicaltransformationbegins.PolicyImplications•IMFgovernance(decision‐makingmajority,location,managementandstaffing)needstotransformfastifitistoaddressthetasksassignedtoitbytheG20.•TheIMF’sdependenceonloansfromitswealthiestmembers(foritsnew 600 billion) restrains the institution from serious reform, only weakly offering a driver for further change.• There has been a failure to mandate and resource the IMF (and its sister institution the World Bank) so as to ensure a multilateral response to the ‘development emergency’that has resulted from the financial crisis.