This might involve price differentiation on loans. Some suggested reviewing pricing policies based on types of project or sector. Similarly, the MDBs could create some sort of internal credit rating system that would avoid excessive encouragement of reliance on public rather than private sector resources. Roundtable members conceded that in some cases regional development banks have special advantages working in a particular region. Most argued that, despite existing inefficiencies and occasional overlap between these agencies, the competition created by different development agencies offers both the developing countries and the private sector a far greater advantage.
Competition puts borrowers in the driver's seat and makes the banks more accountable.
A consensus emerged that the World Bank often has a stronger capacity for lending and advising in these countries than the regional development banks. Any efficiencies gained from a shift of portfolios from the World Bank to the regional development banks might not be worth the economic and political costs. There was near consensus that the multilateral development banks, fundamentally institutions of public policy by participating members, should continue to serve as flexible tools to help resolve crises. One participant suggested that such a review might lead to the conclusion that crisis lending should come solely from the IMF, and that the role of MDBs in this field should be eliminated. An important advantage of such crisis lending is the dialogue that comes with it.