Ok I am going to redo this since I was so stupid enough to erase it ... Basically I will start of with two posts from Alpha.Sources ...

The Future of IMF? (One article from The Guardian and the two from The Economist)

(From one of The Economist articles)

"If the IMF were to wither away—its money untapped, its advice unheeded—should anyone care? If emerging economies want to insure themselves against financial crises, rather than run to the fund, surely they should be applauded? Alas, their self-reliance is expensive and inefficient—as if every home had its own fire-engine. Emerging economies are, in effect, lending to foreigners (by piling up treasury bonds paying miserable rates of interest) in order to underwrite borrowing from them (at higher rates of interest). According to Dani Rodrik, of Harvard University, the developing world's reserves carry an opportunity cost of nearly 1% of GDP."

The quotas (shareholdings) of IMF.

'The reform process has been driven by the need to adapt both the governance and role of the IMF to reflect the significant shifts in global economic power, particularly since the rise of Asian and other developing economies .

See also this recent article from The Economist ... 

'The IMF's quotas are a distorted mirror of today's economy, partly because they must do three things at once. They determine how many votes a member can cast on the board, how much money it must put into the fund's coffers, and how many dollars it can take out before attracting penalty interest rates. They were last revised in January 1999. As a result, many countries are now underrepresented, even by the fund's odd formulas, and others find their clout falls far short of their weight in world output.'

In terms of a general introduction to the discourse of the new role of the IMF and the World Bank I can recommend this piece by Kenneth Rogoff which was featured in The Economist two years ago.

'AS THE two Bretton Woods sisters turn 60, the tough love of the International Monetary Fund and even the free love of the World Bank go largely unrequited. Nowadays the twins, never universally admired, are constantly attacked from the left, from the right, from the centre and, sometimes, by each other. For the Fund and the Bank, another birthday all too often means being the piñatas at their own party. Some of the criticism is justified, some bogus. Both institutions still have a useful role to play and they remain a clear overall plus for the world—but they can and should be improved. '

See also this one by Kenneth Rogoff as featured by the Economist in 2002. Lastly The Economist's Global Agenda had a short piece recently on the World Bank and IMF.