By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
Twenty-seven nations have moved to activate emergency financial instruments to secure rapid funding from existing World Bank programs since the outbreak of the war involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. An internal World Bank document viewed by Reuters detailed these efforts to shore up economic defenses against the geopolitical shockwave.
The conflict began on February 28. It has severely disrupted global energy markets and fractured international supply chains. Developing nations face severe economic pressure as vital fertilizer shipments fail to reach global destinations.
The internal document notes that three countries have successfully approved their new emergency instruments. The remaining twenty-four nations are currently finalizing the bureaucratic process. The World Bank did not name the specific territories or disclose the total amount of capital requested. Bank officials declined to comment on the internal findings.
Domestic Crises Drive Immediate Financial Demands
The economic shockwaves of the Middle East conflict manifest differently across vulnerable economies. Officials in Kenya and Iraq have confirmed they are actively seeking rapid financial support from the World Bank to mitigate severe domestic crises.
In Kenya, leadership is scrambling to cushion the economy against surging fuel prices that threaten domestic stability. Conversely, Iraqi officials are confronting a massive drop in oil revenue caused by shifting energy dynamics.
The 27 applicants belong to a broader group of 101 nations holding prearranged financing instruments designed for rapid deployment during crises. Within this group, 54 nations have signed up for the Rapid Response Option. This mechanism allows participant states to immediately access up to 10 percent of their undisbursed financing allocations.
Scaling the Institutional Toolkit
World Bank President Ajay Banga outlined the scale of the available safety net last month. He stated the bank’s crisis toolkit would allow countries to draw on prearranged contingent financing, existing project balances and fast-disbursing instruments to access an estimated US$20 billion to US$25 billion.
Banga indicated that the institution could scale its response even further if global conditions continue to deteriorate. He said the bank could also reorient parts of its portfolio to bring the total to US$60 billion over six months, with further longer-term changes possible to bring the total to around US$100 billion.
Avoidance of Traditional Monetary Fund Lifelines
The proactive surge toward the World Bank highlights a distinct shift away from traditional emergency lenders. At the onset of the crisis, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said she expected up to a dozen countries to seek US$20 billion to US$50 billion in near-term help from the global lender.
That expected wave of applications has failed to materialize. Three sources familiar with the matter confirmed that very few formal requests have been logged with the fund.
“Countries are definitely in wait-and-see mode,” said one of the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Policy experts point to structural differences between the two global institutions to explain the current trend. Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Centre at Boston University, said countries were more willing to seek World Bank funds than negotiate with the IMF because IMF programmes generally required austerity measures that could compound the social unrest already seen in countries like Kenya.
Local Resonance Across West Africa and Ghana
The wider African continent is uniquely exposed to these escalating fiscal stresses as international donor aid continues to shrink. In West Africa, regional leaders gathered in Lagos to warn that overlapping environmental crises and war-driven supply shocks are actively displacing millions of citizens. Experts from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have warned that the macroeconomic shock from the Iran war will hit vulnerable, import-dependent African economies the hardest.
The dilemma between World Bank liquidity and IMF intervention is especially relevant in Ghana, which has recently charted a delicate path toward fiscal normalization. After successfully completing its final reviews under a grueling US$3 billion [approximately GH₵34.8 billion] IMF Extended Credit Facility program, Accra is transitioning to a non-
financing Policy Coordination Instrument. For Ghana and its regional neighbors, the availability of low-friction World Bank emergency tools offers a vital cushion to sustain growth-friendly adjustments without triggering the stringent domestic austerity conditions that typically spark public resistance.
This institutional tension underscores a widening debate over global safety nets during geopolitical friction. While the World Bank provides rapid capital with minimal policy interference to address immediate supply shortages, economic analysts observe that prolonged fiscal deficits may eventually test the limits of these fast-disbursing reserves. Consequently, the international community remains divided on whether these emergency tools offer a permanent alternative to deep structural reforms, or simply delay an inevitable return to broader macroeconomic programs.
