To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Christine Lagarde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christine Lagarde
Lagarde, Christine (official portrait 2011).jpg
Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund
Assumed office
5 July 2011
DeputyJohn Lipsky
David Lipton
Preceded byJohn Lipsky (Acting)
Minister of the Economy,
Finance and Industry
In office
19 June 2007 – 29 June 2011
Prime MinisterFrançois Fillon
Preceded byJean-Louis Borloo
Succeeded byFrançois Baroin
Minister of Agriculture and Fishing
In office
18 May 2007 – 18 June 2007
Prime MinisterFrançois Fillon
Preceded byDominique Bussereau
Succeeded byMichel Barnier
Minister of Commerce
In office
2 June 2005 – 15 May 2007
Prime MinisterDominique de Villepin
Preceded byChristian Jacob
Succeeded byPosition abolished
Personal details
Christine Madeleine Odette Lallouette

(1956-01-01) 1 January 1956 (age 63)
Paris, France
Political partyUnion for a Popular Movement (before 2015)
The Republicans (2015–present)
Spouse(s)Wilfred Lagarde; Eachran Gilmour[1]
Domestic partnerXavier Giocanti
EducationParis West University Nanterre La Défense
Institute of Political Studies, Aix

Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde (French: [kʁistin madlɛn ɔdɛt laɡaʁd]; née Lallouette, IPA: [laluɛt]; born 1 January 1956) is a French lawyer and politician serving as the Managing Director (MD) and Chairman of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2011.

She previously held various senior ministerial posts in the Government of France: she was Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry (2007–2011), Minister of Agriculture and Fishing (2007) and Minister of Commerce (2005–2007). Lagarde was the first woman to become Finance Minister of a G8 economy and is the first woman to head the IMF. A noted anti-trust and labour lawyer, Lagarde was the first female chairman of the major international law firm Baker & McKenzie, between 1999 and 2004. On 16 November 2009, the Financial Times ranked her the best Finance Minister in the Eurozone.[2]

On 28 June 2011, she was named as the next Managing Director of the IMF for a five-year term, starting on 5 July 2011,[3][4][5] replacing Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Her appointment is the 11th consecutive appointment of a European to head the IMF.[6] In 2014, Lagarde was ranked the 5th most powerful woman in the world by Forbes magazine. She was reelected by consensus for a second five-year term, starting 5 July 2016, being the only candidate nominated for the post of Managing Director.[7] In December 2016, a French court found her guilty of negligence for her role in the Bernard Tapie arbitration, but did not impose a penalty. In 2018, Forbes ranked her number three on its World's 100 Most Powerful Women list.[8]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    2 153
    1 868
    169 279
  • ✪ Christine Lagarde, International Monetary Fund
  • ✪ Conférence de Christine Lagarde "La Finance autrement"
  • ✪ Yuval Noah Harari In Conversation with Christine Lagarde


>> John Haskell: Members of Congress and distinguished guests, welcome, to the Library of Congress and the 8th Henry A. Kissinger lecture. I'm John Haskell, director of the Kluge Center here at the library. The Kissinger program is made possible by generous donations of the friends and admirers of Dr. Kissinger who was the 56th Secretary of State of the United States and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Before we move on, on behalf of all of us at the library, we join America in mourning the passing of former president George H.W. Bush. The Kissinger program celebrates statesmanship and foreign policy, President Bush's legacy of commitment to global diplomacy is in keeping with exactly that tradition. We all wish the extended Bush family and as many close friends the best in this difficult time. In a similar vein, we mourn the passing last month of Dr. James Billington, the 13th librarian of Congress. The Kissinger program is one of his many legacies here at his distinguished career at the library, which spanned 28 years. The Kissinger lecture has been delivered by heads of state, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former president of Mexico, Filipe Calderon, former president of Brazil, Fernando Enrique Cardoso, former president of the French Republic Valery Giscard d'Estaing, as well as former United States Secretaries of State, James Baker, George Schultz, and Dr. Kissinger, himself. As is customary, tonight's program will include an address by our Kissinger lecturer, Madame Christine Lagarde, followed by a conversation with Margaret Brennan, CBS News senior foreign affairs correspondent and host of Face of the Nation. At this time, it is my distinct pleasure to introduce Dr. Carla Hayden, the 14th librarian of Congress. [ Applause ] >> Dr. Carla Hayden: Good evening, Madame Lagarde, members of Congress, and distinguished guests. We are deeply honored to welcome to the Library of Congress tonight Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund. As you can see, we are in the great hall of the library's Thomas Jefferson building, surrounded by visual art, symbolizing the progress of civilization and the traditions of knowledge and learning, a most fitting venue for the 8th Kissinger lecture. Madame Christine Lagarde is a distinguished public servant with deep knowledge of the world's economy, and the ways financial architecture can shape the lives of individuals in countries around the globe. Among her many other high ranking points and posts in government and the private sector, in June 2007, she became the first woman to hold the post of finance and economy minister of a G7 country. Later, as chairman of the G20, she set in motion a wide ranging agenda on the reform of international monetary systems. And on July 5th, 2011, Ms. Lagarde became the 11th managing director of the IMF and the first woman to hold that position. And on February 19th, 2016, the IMF executive board selected her to serve as managing director for a second five year term. She has tackled some of the most challenging financial issues related to European integration, international trade, and the development of global economic governance. However, I am excited to be the person that will deliver breaking news. The room just got a little quieter. [Laughter]. Well, today, Forbes released its 100 Most Powerful Women in the World and Madame Christine Lagarde was voted the third most powerful woman in the world. [ Applause ] So ladies and gentleman, please join me in welcoming Ms. Christine Lagarde. [ Applause ] >> Christine Lagarde: Thank you, very much, Dr. Hayden, dear Carla, for this generous and brief introduction. They are the best. They are the best. I'm so happy to see many of you here, my friends, and very much looking forward to the discussion that we will have after these remarks with Margaret Brennan. And thank you also, Mr. Haskell, for the warm welcome that you've extended to all of us. He could not be here tonight but I had a conversation with him just before arriving at this beautiful Library of Congress and Henry Kissinger was delighted that we were gathering tonight and he has asked me to express to all of you his best wishes and very strong support for continuing the lecture that he started back in 2001. I would also like to indicate myself that somebody else is very much in our thoughts tonight. And that is, obviously, former President George H.W. Bush and all his family members. We all mourn his passing, many others are trying to enter into the rotunda as we speak. And we celebrate the arc of his life. The pilot who bravely fought in World War II, the president who helped heal division after the cold war, and the statesman who believed in the power of international cooperation. I hope to honor his spirit tonight. And I was privileged to meet him recently on several occasions up in Maine. And I could appreciate what a kind, generous, and noble man he was. So tonight -- tonight is December 4th. It's actually an important date for a particularly reason that I will not mention to you now. You'll have to wait until the end of my remarks. [Laughter]. And you're not allowed to look at your cell phone, please. [Laughter]. No. I have to confess something here. When I walked into the great hall and was given a lovely private tour by you, Dr. Hayden, three thoughts crossed my mind. The first one was, this young French student who was studying for her political science dissertation back 42 years ago, and has spent quite a little bit of time, in the reading room, thanks to the courtesy of the Library of Congress, I was able to better research the work that I did on Ralph Nader and the American consumerism of those days. Thank you. I am in your debt. The second person whom I thought about was my son, who is a young architect. He would love this place. He would love it. The space, the height, the creativity. And the third thought I had was about my country, France. And maybe another country, actually, that I was just visiting a couple of days, Argentina. Now why is that? Well, when this structure was completed in 1897, the chief engineer remarked, I quote, "that the Palais Garnier, the Paris Opera House, was the prime suggestion for the new Library of Congress." That makes sense, actually. Because the Paris Opera House was completed 20 years earlier in 1875. Now, I think the French may have borrowed a little bit from others. Because the Teatro Colón in Buenos Aires was, itself, finished in 1857. And if you look at these three buildings, well, it tells you something. First of all, that valuable intellectual property was of great interest across borders, even back then, at least among architects who happily borrowed from each other, learned from each other, became inspired as a result. Second, it reminds us that they understood that building something lasting means linking the solid foundations of the past with the spark of imagination. You can't just copycat. That kind of creativity and long-term vision rooted in history and informed by our successes and failures from the past is my theme for this evening. First, where have we been? How has creativity and international economy cooperation helped bring more prosperity and more peace in the world? And second, where can we travel together? How can creativity and informed visionary thinking help adapt the international system to our current challenges? So let me begin first with a little bit of shared history between the international monetary fund and the United States over the last 75 years. In the first half of the 20th century, the dominant economy [inaudible] military powers used force to assert their self-interests at enormous costs in terms of human life and physical destruction. The tragic results compelled nations to find a better way. It only took them two wars and atrocities along the way. But in 1944, they found it. The United States emerged as the major global power and did something unprecedented. Informed by the devastating, ultimate outcome of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, for which we just celebrated the 100-anniversary, the United States decided to use its power in the service of cooperation. It was an experiment that would shape our modern world. And in his inaugural lecture in 2001, Dr. Kissinger called the innovations of the post war period, I quote, "a great burst of creativity that brought security to the world." How did the U.S. do it? Out of generosity? Yes. With consideration to their self interests? Yes. And with a little help from some of their friends. Let us look at that turning point of 75 years ago and think first of the creation of the Breton Wood system, itself. The principle architects, John Maynard Keynes of the U.K and Harry Dexter White of the U.S. were deeply influenced by the period between the two wars. They witnessed a moment in history when flawed domestic policies poisoned international relationships, which themselves were built on troubled foundations. Treaty of Versailles. The result was protectionism and competitive currency devaluations, imploding world trade deepened the Great Depression and caused massive economic, financial, and social upheaval. Ultimately, these pressures gave rise to nationalist and populist movements and eventually catastrophe. Emerging from the second world war, the U.S. and some other 40 countries gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and decided to create the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. They tasked the fund with three critical missions, promoting international monetary cooperation, supporting the expansion of trade and economic growth, and discouraging policies that would harm prosperity. It was revolutionary. It was visionary. And guess what? It worked. From the very beginning, the IMF held countries address major new challenges through collaboration. Complimenting the marshal plan, we at the IMF helped Europe rebuild from the rubble of war. Our loans gave countries breathing space to stabilize their economies in difficult time and implement policies to promote growth. It's a mission that we continue to this day, as you may have recently seen in countries like Argentina, Egypt, Ukraine and many others. The genius of the collaborative system that they invented was that it was designed to adapt and change. And in the early '70s, that change arrived. Some of you might remember that speech, a landmark speech. The challenge of peace. President Nixon suspended the U.S. dollars convertibility into gold. And that decision shocked the world and forced a year-long negotiation that led to the modern floating exchange rate structure, away from the fixed gold reference structure moving into floating exchange rate structure. A system that is still today in place in many corners of the world. But at the time, some thought that this particular change would mean the end of the IMF. But all our members at the time, including the United States knew that the goal of stability and prosperity extended well beyond fixed exchange rates. They recognized the benefits of a global financial [inaudible] fighter that could help countries in times of need. They built on what worked, changed what did not, and they adapted. And we moved on, 1973, the oil crisis. The IMF created new tools to help countries facing an energy emergency in line with the funds role to help smooth shocks and prevent harmful spillovers. As a debt crisis hit lots in America in the '80s, the IMF with creative ideas and support from the United States stepped in to calm the waters. And after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we took on a new challenge, which was helping the former Soviet Union block nations transform themselves from centrally planned to free market economies. In the 1990s, the fund assisted countries in overcoming first the Mexican peso crisis and then the Asian financial crisis. And throughout all these challenges, we continue to help countries around the world with the economic fundamentals. Their fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate policies and with steps to build stronger economic institutions. Because without that macroeconomic stability growth cannot prosper. These efforts enabled better policies that opened markets, bolstered trade, created jobs, and unleashed economic potential. And then came 2008 and the financial crisis, the global financial crisis. Most of the other crisis that I have referred to applied to particular regions. This one was the first of a completely global nature. The ensuing great recession reminded us that international cooperation was essential not optional and as the French finance minister at the time, I certainly was [inaudible] in that exercise. All G20 nations and the Federal Reserve took extraordinary steps to save the system. As veterans when we sort of come together, we just wonder how we did it? And how much we transgressed and had to violate many principles and rules and just reinvent. But at the time, the IMF deployed its own fire power committing over $500 billion to help secure the global economy. And in the decade since the 2008 financial crisis, we supported economic programs in 90 countries and adopted our lending instruments, including zero interest loans, to help low-income countries. But the global economy did not only need liquidity and stimulus, it also needed to reform its financial architecture. And we worked with our membership to build a stronger financial sector so that we could together limit the consequences of what will be one day the next crisis. So we learned from the past. We got creative and we changed for the better. And none of that -- none of that would have been possible without the United States. This country challenged the international economy corridor when it needed challenging. It forged compromise when compromise was necessary. Why? Why did it do all that? Benevolence? It does so because a stronger and more stable world paid dividends for the United States. It enabled the U.S. to enjoy some of the longest runs of sustained economic growth the modern world has ever known. Since that meeting at Bretton Woods nearly 75 years ago real U.S. GDP increased by a factor of eight. And the average Americans real income has quadrupled. And this success did not come at the expense of other nations. On the contrary, this country's collaborative leadership paved the way, not only for decades of opportunities here in America but also for growth that spread across the world. Now, today that landscape is shifting again. And part of this change is driven by geopolitics and the shift in some economic power from west to east. Part of it by the rise of non state actors including multi-national organizations and corporates. Part of it is driven by technology and the rapid acceleration of everything in our lives. As I'm sure you know, Dr. Hayden, 90 percent of the world's data was created just over the last two years. Now, I have to say as a daughter of two classics professors, I know my parents would have found that very, very depressing. [Laughter]. But the truth is that everything moves faster, information, money, disease, you name it. And this transformation can bring enormous opportunities but they can also create massive risks. Why is that? Because more than every before at least as was demonstrated in 2008, what happens one nation is going to impact all nations. From weapons of mass destruction to cybersecurity to the interconnected financial system, many of our current challenges recognize no borders. So when support for international cooperation falters, we must remember the lessons the United States and her allies taught the world over the last 75 years. It's a big lesson. Solidarity is self interest. And that principle endures in our changing world. Our challenge now is to yet again adapt and reform. So I believe that this year, 2019, can be another turning point in our journey. A moment when the world delivers a new burst of creativity in solving our shared challenges. Actually there's something up there that you can't see but from which we can draw inspiration. Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's something like, they build too low those who build beneath the stars. It's written up there. Imagine what the world could be if we were to build beneath the stars, the [inaudible], as I call it, or the age of anger. Let's imagine the age of anger. By 2040, inequality could exceed the levels of the gilded age. Strong tech monopolice and weak governments with ineffective domestic policies could make it impossible for start ups and entrepreneurs to succeed. Health breakthroughs could allow the richest to live past 120, while millions of others would suffer from extreme poverty and disease. Social media would bombard the left behind population and [inaudible] the disparity between their reality and the possibility of a better life and the aspiration gap would fuel resentment and anger. Trust between nations would break down. The world would be more interconnected digitally but less connected in every other way. International cooperation for the benefit of all would be a concept best studied in libraries, like this one, but rarely practiced on the world stage due to the supremacy of national interest and a singular focus on domestic policies. To borrow from Dr. Kissinger's world order we might be, I quote, "facing a period in which forces beyond the restraints of any order determine the future." That is a very dystopian scenario. Isn't it? Not one that we designed and certainly not one that I believe can, and should be, our destiny. Neither does Dr. Kissinger, for that matter. We have overcome existential threats before and we can do so again. Think of the world. If we make 2019 the start of a different kind of A-I. Everybody thinks, oh, she's going to talk about artificial intelligence. No. Age of ingenuity. This would be a future fueled by creativity and cooperation. Okay, 2040. I'm in a new scenario now. We would see flourishing economies predominantly running on renewable energy. Women would be fully empowered in the workforce proving to be an economic and social game changer. New pension systems and healthcare portability would reflect the changing nature of work in the digital economy. Corporation would embrace social responsibility as part of their business model because they would be rated on that basis as well. Technology called wizardry could save lives and create millions of jobs. We would see an end to mass migration, trade would expand across the world and peaceful coexistence between nations would prevail. Am I being too optimistic? Of course. You know the difference between the optimist and the pessimist? They're both wrong but the optimist is happier. [Laughter]. So I have to be optimistic. Because I'm thinking about the world my grown children will enter it. But it presents us with a fundamental choice, stand still and watch discord and discontent bubble over into conflict. Or, move forward, reimagine the way nations work together and build prosperity and peace. Okay, nice words. What does it mean in practice? It means countries working together to put people, all people, at the center of all our efforts. Focusing on real results to improve their lives. It also means governments and institutions being more transparent and accountable, which includes listening to more diverse voices. It means ensuring that economic benefits of globalizations are shared by many, not just a few. I call that the new multilateralism [assumed spelling]. You might just call it common sense, if that word suits you better. But let me be very clear here. Good international cooperation is never going to substitute for good domestic policy. And of course, individual countries have the responsibility for the well being of their citizens. In fact, strong domestic policies can form the foundation for effective international cooperation and in our modern world, there are some issues that can only be addressed through international cooperation. I want to discuss four such issues. I promise I'll be brief on each of the four. But I think they're all important. And to be successful in delivering on those four, we will need creativity and we will need cooperation. Let me start with those -- the first one. First one is trade. I've been saying for some time now that we need to fix the system. More recently, I've been urging countries to actually de-escalate trade [inaudible]. And it was encouraging to see over the weekend some progress made at the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires. And we must continue the de-escalation while at the some time improving the trading system for the future. That would include eliminating distortionary subsidies, whichever form or color they take, but agreeing on what they are. It would also mean protecting intellectual properties rights without stifling innovation and getting rid of economic grants. New trade agreements could unleash the potential of e-commerce and trade in services. And all of this is critical. Not for the sake of trade, although Montesquieu would argue with me. And he would say, where there is trade there is good manners. Is he right? Montesquieu is always right. No, it's critical because trade lifts productivity. Trade accelerates innovation. And we need both. Second issue where we need more cooperation is international taxation. Companies now have world-wide presence, even when they're small. In the old days, you had to be one of those top guns to be international. Now, very small companies can be very international companies. But governments have not figured, yet, a world wide answer to tax. And right now, too many tax dollars are left on the table thanks to tax optimization and the bad kind of creativity. So countries need to work closely together to collect what is owed, where it's owed, and avoid a race tax to the bottom. They can close the loopholes that lead to what is called base erosion and profit shifting. We are working with our partners so that our members can share best practices and devise regulation for digital economy in which many companies have no single established based of operation, and yet they do operate. Why do we need this? Why do we need revenue? Because all countries should be investing in their future. And public and private funding working together can strengthen infrastructure, improve education, and prepare all of us to adjust to the technical transformations of at our doorsteps. When the return on those investments is so far away it's very unlikely that private sector alone will actually invest. My third issue is our climate. From the recent major hurricanes in the Caribbean to the wild fires in California to the sinking islands of the Pacific, the dangerous effects of climate change are becoming more tangible by the day. A new U.S. government study shows that the economic impact from climate change could significantly reduce America's GDP in the coming decades. The collaborative agreement reached in Paris in 2015 is probably the best toolbox that we have to start fixing the planetary challenge and move towards zero carbon economy. It also reflects some of the ideas that I've tried to highlight tonight, creativity, visionary thinking, and a global commitment to the common good that serves self interest. This is as much of survival for future generations. Now I've mentioned three issues, trade, tax, and climate. And each of them is worthy of their own Kissinger lecture. But there is one issue that I believe is the bedrock for progress nearly everywhere else. And that is why the fourth and final area I want to discuss is good governance, free from the shackles of corruption. The simple fact is that without confidence in our institutions, none of the change we seek will be possible. So let me focus on that briefly. It's my four and last key point. Why is corruption so corrosive? Because when people start people the economy no longer works for them, society no longer works for them, they start disconnecting from economy and disconnecting from society. Corruption saps economic vitality and siphons off desperately need resources. The money that is diverted from education and health, perpetuates inequality and limits the possibility of a better life. Do you know what the annual cost of bribery alone, and corruption is more than just bribery, but the cost of bribery every year is 1.5 -- is estimated to be at $1.5 trillion. That's roughly 2 percent of global GDP. Millennials feel the problem acutely. A recent survey of global youth revealed that young people identify corruption, not jobs, not better education, but corruption as the most pressing concern in their own countries. There is wisdom in this insight. Because corruption is the root cause of many of economic injustices that many of these young men and women are facing. And that is why, with the support of our entire membership we are going to scrutinize [inaudible] the impact of corruption on a country's macroeconomic health. So far we've done quite a bit of work on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism. We've done that. We had 110 of our country members. But it's only a small part of the wider work that is needed to promote good governance. Investing in institution is indispensable as is indispensable [inaudible] to verify that those institutions actually deliver. Because likewise, corruption knows no border. Think for a second, how Phintec [assumed spelling] is changing the economic game. New innovations including cryptocurrencies, crypto-assets can be used by cybercriminals to funnel illicit financial flows and fund illegal activities on a worldwide basis. This is not one nation's problem or within one nation's power to resolve. It can only be fixed through cross border collaboration. But it is fixable. Because the same innovations that create cross border challenges can also be used to help us fight back through biometrics, block chain, and more. We can find creative ways to build a better, safer system for the long term. Governments can and must work with the world's best engineers to build stronger cybersecurity systems that protect people's bank account, their well being, and even their hotel booking. This is common good that we must choose to support. And if we take -- if we take the challenge of corruption as the model of cooperation that we can actually implement, it can be a model for the other topics that I mentioned. It can be the sign that the brotherhood of man, as Keynes called it, is ready once again to meet the call of history. Except, by the way, that this time women will play a role. [ Applause ] You should have seen the photo of those who created Bretton Woods in 1944. Forty-four men. Full stop. So I think it's by doing that that we can start restoring trust, which is probably the most precious and most in demand commodity in our society. And this is how we begin to adapt once more and reimagine that international cooperation that we need. Now before I conclude, we have one more thing to do. I began my remark by mentioning that December 4th was an important date. Now, there's one person who is not allowed to answer that question. That's Mrs. Harmon, who is the president of the Woodrow Wilson Center. Because on December 4, 1918, exactly 100 years ago to this day, President Woodrow Wilson set sail for France to help negotiate what he hoped would be a lasting peace. He became the first U.S. -- the first sitting U.S. President to travel to Europe. And in some way -- some ways, we can trace the origins of modern creativity and visionary thinking in U.S. foreign policy to this date. It's also a humbling reminder that our plans do not always work out as intended. But it is also a signal that we must try and try and try again. We must build on what worked, change what does not, and continually evolve, improve, imagine a better future for all people. It was the vision that inspired the leaders of this country and it must be the mission that will guide us in the days ahead. Thank you, very much. [ Applause ] >> John Haskell: Thank you, Madame Lagarde. And without further delay I want to welcome to the stage, please join me in welcoming to the stage Margaret Brennan, the moderator of CBS Face the Nation. [ Applause ] >> Margaret Brennan: Thanks to all of you and what a gorgeous venue to have this conversation. I'm privileged to have it today. You know, your introduction, you were -- it was pointed out that you were named one -- the third most powerful, I believe, between Theresa May and Chancellor Merkel in terms of most powerful women. But I think the correction that needs to be made is that you're actually one of the most powerful individuals in the world, in terms of some of the work you have done to stabilize the global economy. And that's why, I think, you laying out your vision as you had, there are a lot of things that we want to sort of break apart here. Let's start off with what's happening today. You're seeing recession fears come out once again. It was a bad day in the markets. There are some who looked at what happened at the G20 and said, there wasn't progress. You said you saw some. How do you define some progress? Where's the hope that you're seeing? >> Christine Lagarde: Well, I might be a little bit bias because I was also attending previously the G7 leaders meeting in Canada and then the APEC meeting in Papua, New Guinea. And at the G7 there was a reneged communicate and at the APEC meeting there was just no communicate. People could not agree on anything. So the fact that leaders agreed on a set of principles, issues, points -- the fact that there was that was in a way reassuring. So that's -- not any agreement. I think it was probably not as strong as some expected it but it really touched on many critical issues. The language was not exactly according to, sort of, the example of communicate drafting. But there was, you know, positive news coming out of that. There was clearly a consensus around the fact that trade was critically important. Trade had to be conducted according to rules set by an institution, the WTO that had to be reformed. It was a clear agreement on the principle of reforms, how it will be reformed is going to be another matter and, I think, it's not going to take a few weeks but probably more months than weeks. There was willingness to engage on the part of all. And Saturday night was not such a bad outcome. >> Margaret Brennan: You mean, in the meeting between Xi Jinping and President? >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: Ninety days? Is that enough to come to sort of trade agreement between the two largest economies in the world? >> Christine Lagarde: Oh, I'm not sure that's, you know, the objective is a trade agreement. But if at least there was significant progress and a framework under which they agreed to move forward and to address some of the key issues, I -- you know, I think what's clearly important is to come to an understanding on both sides, to agree on some key principles, to have definitions of, you know, what is a subsidy? What warrants intellectual property right of protection? And what is a state owned enterprise? And so on and so forth. So it is complicated. And it is going to take time. But the willingness of these two presidents to move forward and to agree to discuss those issues, I think, is compared with what we have just gone through is progress. Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: So the nervousness that we're seeing in the markets, you're saying, look, they're talking. It is a positive. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes, yes. And, you know, we can't just react on a daily market variations. These things take time. Markets get jittery and react sort of off the cuff on the news of the day. But I think those are much longer term issues that warrant time, thinking, considerations, and you know, it's also a clear shift that we are seeing, which is being acknowledged. And will turn into, I hope, some resolution. >> Margaret Brennan: I think it was in listening to you sketch out, going back to Bretton Woods, to the present, I think it's a good reminder to many people that the U.S. was part and parcel of creating many of these international institutions because now they, in our daily political life, are described or at least felt, perceived by some, to be against U.S. interests. That is how some of the more popular rhetoric has described institutions like yours. Today, in Europe, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed all of what he felt were the flaws of international organizations and saying that even the IMF has sort of failed to live up to what it was meant to do, which was to rebuild Europe. He said now austerity measures, the things that are doing, are actually hurting the world, not helping it. What did you make of his speech? And that description? >> Christine Lagarde: Well, first of all, I did not read his entire speech. I saw bits and pieces picked up and, you know, I will very carefully read his speech. But, you know, I've heard this austerity comment made in many instances. And -- When we are called upon to help a country that is in very dear financial difficulties, we have to restore stability. We have to restore public finance discipline. We have to empower the authorities with financing. That's one thing that we do. But we are also an instrument of macroeconomic sanity. Because if we're called upon to act, it's because there was mismanagement. There was poor public finance organization. There was poor monetary policy. For multiple reasons, the situation was not in order. And we're trying not to bring austerity but to bring order. So that's number one. Number two, if we did not come in to help, the situation would be even worse. Because what happens is when a country calls for help, we come in, we do expect that public finances will be, you know, re-disciplined, reorganized, and that stability will result. At which point, investors come in and say, okay, now the situation is stabilized. We can come back in and we can invest. So if we did not do that they simply would not come in at that point. So I think it's -- we're not the merchant of austerity, per se, we are merchant of trust in the stability of a system that is needed in order to attract investors, generate growth, and, you know, entail creation of jobs. And that's -- we are the enablers of that. >> Margaret Brennan: You called out for a kind of collaborative leadership, particularly from the United States. >> Christine Lagarde: Because that is what has worked. You know, when I look back and I consider the history of the United States role, it's involvement, what has worked, how has it worked for this country and others. That collaboration has proven extremely efficient. >> Margaret Brennan: Well, the Secretary of State today said the administration is working to refocus the IMF and WTO to promote more prosperity, halt lending tenations [assumed spelling] that can already access global capital market and reduce taxpayer handouts to development banks that could raise capital on their own. That's his vision. That's the vision that he describes the U.S. should be implementing right now. What do you make of that proposal? Because it was delivered in Brussels, and it ruffled a few feathers. >> Christine Lagarde: Well, you know, on the point of making sure that private capital can invest, that's exactly what we do. It is because private capital has completely lost interest in certain countries. You know, when I look at the three that I've mentioned, Egypt, Ukraine, Argentina. Why did we come in? because nobody else wanted to come in. Because there was not a single investor who was prepared to take the risk of going in because the situation was in disorder, because public finances were not properly managed. Because there were external factors that created massive instability. So we come in and we enable the country to become attractive again. So it's not as if we were a substitute to private sector investors -- investment. We are the facilitators of that investment. Because otherwise they won't come. They simply won't come. Too risky for them. Once they know that we are involved, it means that we put in place, you know, debt sustainability. If restructuring is needed, we ask for it. If new monetary policy needs to be implemented, we recommend it and it's implemented, with some success, I dare say. So I'm not sure that he understands very clearly what is -- well, our mission is prosperity. And yes, this is what the initial founders actually tasked us to do and that's what we need to do. >> Margaret Brennan: So these descriptions of the vision and the leadership that America's providing on this front, for you it is not achieving what you were saying is needed to meet the crisis, right now, that you see. >> Christine Lagarde: I was curious about the taxpayers' money. Because you know, the -- we've actually always paid back and more. So over the course of time, the United States has actually made quite a bit of money out of the IMF involvement in countries. >> Margaret Brennan: You think there's just a fundamental misunderstanding or are there portions of truth to these criticisms? >> Christine Lagarde: Well, the fact that growth must be generated as a result of our involvement is something that I completely agree with. It doesn't come overnight. Because you need to, you know, restore the situation. You need to sort out public finance. You need to reorganize sometimes, you know, through structural reforms, the economy. But growth ultimately comes back. When I look at -- I'll tell you, as French finance minister, we had to deal with some difficult cases in Europe. But when I look at a country like Portugal, the involvement of the IMF was critical in turning the situation around and sorting out quite a few difficult issues. Portugal is now doing pretty well compared with other European countries. When I look at Ireland, Ireland is thriving. >> Margaret Brennan: These are countries that needed -- >> Christine Lagarde: Those are countries where we had to come in as the IMF, we had to put in place significant lending programs. And we expected serious measures to be taken on the physical front, because there was too much fiscal deficit, and because the -- in the case of Ireland, because the banking system was completely out of control and had gone way too far into expanding beyond the country. So you know, these programs have clearly generated a growth. >> Margaret Brennan: When you use that phrase, you know, describing, we could live in an age of anger. You're putting a timeline out, decades from now. If you look at some of the forces, not just in the United States, that contributed to making trade a very contentious issue during the 2016 campaign, on the left and on the right, but also what you're seeing in Europe, in your home country of France right now. Protests around the economy and specifically the gas tax. I won't get into President Trump's tweet about it tonight. But generally speaking, aren't you seeing those forces of anger. I mean, you're seeing more populace governments come to power or at least use the economy and anti-insti -- anti-multilateral institutional rhetoric in a lot of places right now. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. That is -- >> Margaret Brennan: Are we in that age that you're describing? I mean, where are we as the time -- >> Christine Lagarde: We are at risk of slipping into that kind of age of anger. Which is why it is critically important to actually address those issues. As I was trying to explain in my remarks, those are not issues that can be addressed purely domestically. Some of them have to be addressed domestically. But when it comes to trade, to tax, to climate change, to cybersecurity, to corruption it has to be on an international cooperation basis, as well. They come together. But, yes, there has to be a response to those issues because many people are not satisfied with their income, are not satisfied with their future, have this anxiety of what the future holds for their children and it -- all these concerns need to be addressed. Need to be addressed by societies at large. >> Margaret Brennan: The challenge there is that lack of trust in the institutions that are tasked with this or have been tasked with this. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: You mentioned your time when you were Minister of Finance in France, and clearly one of the most difficult time periods you could have that job. And I remember from covering it, that famous story of you speaking to then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and advising him against allowing Lehman Brothers to go under. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: You foresaw the domino affect. Did you see -- did you draw a line between what you predicted then and where we are now? Is that where this shift began, that you're laying out? >> Christine Lagarde: I certainly did not anticipate that at the time. But looking back, yes, I think that there is a lot in today's anger, resentment, frustration that is actually attributable to the legacy of the crisis. I think that we did a reasonably good job in trying to strengthen the financial system, avoid that people actually lose all their savings, and that there be bank runs all over those countries. But, I think, the fact that we addressed the issues of institutions, of the financial system at large, without doing probably enough explanation as what it meant for people. And the fact that many involved in those financial deals got away with it and managed to reestablish themselves, I think, created a sense of impunity. In other words, some of the lower, middle class people thinking to themselves, okay, I've lost my job, I've lost my house. And those people, what have they lost? Their bonus? Yes. But that's about it. And they reestablished themselves. So I think this is not at the root of and the only component of the frustration and the anger that we see, but it certainly participates and fueling it. >> Margaret Brennan: So how -- >> Christine Lagarde: That's what I call the sort of untold story of the legacy of the crisis. >> Margaret Brennan: So how do you address that then? If that age of anger is simmering. >> Christine Lagarde: I think it's, you know, in a way it's too late to go back to things that should have taken place at that time. But we also have the possibility with new technologies, a digital age, that is clearly in the making at the moment and at an accelerated pace, to organize it in such a way that it is transparent, that it is accountable, that it includes people, that they are brought in to that digital picture by being properly trained, educated, skilled and that they don't feel there's emasculation that you have when something is so alien to you, and so foreign to you that yet again you feel that anger about it. >> Margaret Brennan: You want another Bretton Woods type summit? >> Christine Lagarde: There's so many groups that are thinking, oh, let's have another Bretton Woods. Let's just reform. I think it's -- >> Margaret Brennan: Who leads this? >> Christine Lagarde: Oh, there are multiple leaders everywhere. You know. They don't have to do the job of, you know, giving advice, drafting and preparing those programs, and providing technical assistance around the globe to have an 89 countries. But the beauty of the institution that I have the privilege to lead, is that in its articles, in its foundations, are the seeds for constant transformation. What is changing massively around it calls for probably a different approach. I think, that the digital economy in which we are moving, which is transforming the financial sector, which is transforming the existing relationship between value and monetary cost, all that needs new thinking. I think it's more new thinking than a reform of the Bretton Woods system. >> Margaret Brennan: I know the IMF has written on this and talked about demand for cash decreasing and, you know, money itself is changing, not just how we think and talk about this. You mentioned Phintec in that context, financial technologies and all the various forms of it. I mean, where there are advantages and there are disadvantages, these days it seems to be not very well understood, even by the public at large. How much more of this needs to be led, not by the IMF or these organizations, but coming from the corporate world? Coming from Silicon Valley? You have these hearings on Capital Hill and the joke is, you know, you have these CEOs come up and answer questions and the individuals asking them don't even know how to use the websites that they're talking about. You know, I mean, how do you regulate cryptocurrencies? How do you talk about all of this in a way that actually leads to some kind of regulation or reform? >> Christine Lagarde: Well, first of all, I don't think it should be entirely left in the hands of those corporate sector representatives or their legal departments or their public affairs. Because they are dealing with a common good. They're dealing with your privacy. They're dealing with your data. And they're dealing with your freedom. So -- So governmental authorities, Parliamentarians have to be involved. And they have to be held along the way for those who are not computer literate, for those who feel completely alien to this digital transformation. They have to be held by -- including my people like us, the IMF, in relation to financial technologies. Because, you know, we try to grasp what it means, how its formed, how those technologies are used to shorten the circuits to enable payments and to include people that we're not including -- not included in the banking sector, for instance. So it is a public responsibility. And it has to be done, again, in cooperation with those engineers and in cooperation with those who understand the future of data protection, who understands, you know, how cloud will eventually be accessible or be raidable and hackable. So there are many technicalities that you don't master, that I don't master either. But, you know, having enough knowledge to understand the key principles that need to be respected is something, I believe, fall on the shoulders of Parliamentarians and members of government because they today have the responsibility to represent the people. >> Margaret Brennan: You've also issued a number of calls for some of those parliamentarians to get rid of the legal obstacles to inclusion of women. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: In the economy. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes. >> Margaret Brennan: Where does that begin? >> Christine Lagarde: It very often begins at home. Of the 189 countries that are members of the institution, about 90 percent still have in their constitution or in the legal system discrimination against women, barriers to the participation in the economy, to the inheritance when parents die, to the owning a business to the opening bank account, to be able to bring collateral when they try to have a loan. So I think that's where the work has to begin. And we have demonstrated in many countries, or observed in many countries such as, you know, some Latin American countries like Peru, some African countries, as well. That when those changes happen, it actually has consequences on the economy and it pushes growth and it enables women to become better integrated into the economy. But it's not only that. It begins there because there should not be legal barriers and legal constraints imposed by governments that prevent women from playing their role in the economy. >> Margaret Brennan: How much of an economic benefit is there? How do you quantify -- >> Christine Lagarde: Huge. It's huge. I mean, it varies from, you know, if you look at the Nordic countries. You know, Norway being clearly one of the best performers. Finland being very good, as well. But from those countries to say, India, Saudi Arabia, you can have an increase in the economy, which varies from 3 percent to 27 percent. So that's nothing to be, you know, sort of turning your eyes away. It's pretty big. >> Margaret Brennan: Why the resistance? >> Christine Lagarde: Ha. >> Margaret Brennan: If you can make the argument on numbers, why is there is such resistance? >> Christine Lagarde: I think you're talking about something that goes much, much deeper into culture, into psyche, into the way in which societies have been built over the course of time. You're also talking about the divide between urban centers and rural areas. You know, India is a case in point, where clearly in rural areas, in particular, women are prevented from joining the flow from being economic partners and sometimes from having access to sanitation. >> Margaret Brennan: Bigger picture. I know we're running out of time here. I would be remis if I didn't ask you about Brexit. And what this -- we're talking about the forces sort of pulling at the global order right now. It's -- that's a rejection of international organizations and solidarity there. Add that in to what you're seeing here in the U.S. as well, in terms of that kind of rejection. I mean, it sounds like you're trying to swim upstream. >> Christine Lagarde: You know, first of all, I think that the situation has changed and is changing in the U.K. When I look at the latest polls that was produced, the shift is now into a majority of those polled. Now, you can turn surveys and polls whichever way you want. But it seems that there are more Brits who would rather remain than exit. Sad. Number one. Number two, I think a lot of the campaign that took place at the time, two years ago now, was geared towards, watch out the foreigners are going to take, you know, your meal away and they're going to have -- they're going to go first in the health benefits and healthcare system. And they're going to take jobs. And it was the fear of the foreigners. And fortunately, from within Europe. And it was directed at people from Poland, from Bulgaria, from Romania, who by the way, have been extremely well integrated in say the German economy, as was demonstrated recently, in a country that needed additional skilled labor. So that fear factor that was raised during the campaign may have completely missed the opportunity that that particular flow of migration actually produced in an economy next door, which was Germany. So that's a little bit beside the point. But -- I think there is regret in many, many European corners. I think there is more regret in the U.K than there was only six months ago. And I think there is now, the realization that there will be more loss as a result of Brexit than was ever mentioned, described, accounted for, by those who campaigned for the Brexit. I can say that with relative confidence because when we produced the article for, for the U.K., which is the annual audit that we do of all economies, we did actually gave -- we did give at the time three scenarios of Brexit, one of which was the baseline, which was pretty much in line with what everybody assumed. But another one which was a [inaudible] scenario which is very close to some of the numbers that we are seeing now. >> Margaret Brennan: The dark scenario? >> Christine Lagarde: In terms of forecast coming up. In case of a Brexit development and in case of a no-deal Brexit, which is what we had considered. >> Margaret Brennan: Is that a warning to brace ourselves? >> Christine Lagarde: I think it was a very clear, you know, assessment of what the consequences would be as a result of a no-deal Brexit scenario, where the terms of trade between the U.K. and its main economic and trade partner, which is the European Union would be done under the WTO rules with no additional sweetener to WTO rules. >> Margaret Brennan: Wow. The dark scenario, is a scary phrase to end on. But, unfortunately, I'm told that we are -- >> Christine Lagarde: Oh, no. But you know there was something very interesting today, which is the attorney general opinion delivered to the European Court of Justice. So for those like me who would very much like to keep the U.K. within the European Union, there is apparently a perfectly, legally acceptable way to revoke the article 50, which is the provision under which the U.K. pulled out. >> Margaret Brennan: You think that's a viable scenario? >> Christine Lagarde: It's -- at least it's legal. I'm a reformed lawyer. [ Laughter ] >> Margaret Brennan: I think this is the optimist that you described yourself as. >> Christine Lagarde: Yes, yes. >> Margaret Brennan: Thank you so much, Madame Lagarde. >> Christine Lagarde: Thank you. >> Margaret Brennan: Thanks all of you. [ Applause ]


Personal life

Lagarde was born in Paris, France,[9] into a family of academics. Her father, Robert Lallouette, was a Professor of English; her mother, Nicole (Carré),[10] was a Latin, Greek and French literature teacher. Lagarde and her three brothers, all younger, spent their childhood in Le Havre where she attended the Lycée François 1er and Lycée Claude Monet.[11][12][13] As a teenager, Lagarde was a member of the French national synchronised swimming team.[14] After her baccalauréat in 1973, she went on an American Field Service scholarship to the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland.[15][16] During her year in the United States, Lagarde worked as an intern at the U.S. Capitol as Representative William Cohen's congressional assistant, helping him correspond with French-speaking constituents during the Watergate hearings.[15][16] She graduated from Paris West University Nanterre La Défense, where she obtained master's degrees in English, labor law, and social law.[17][18] She also holds a master's degree from the Institut d'études politiques in Aix-en-Provence.[14][19] Since 2010, she has presided over the Aix school's board of directors.[20] She also prepared for the École nationale d'administration's entrance exam but ultimately failed to gain admission to the elite school.[21]

Lagarde is divorced and has two sons, Pierre-Henri Lagarde (born 1986) and Thomas Lagarde (born 1988).[22] Since 2006, her partner has been the entrepreneur Xavier Giocanti from Marseille.

A health-conscious vegetarian who rarely drinks alcohol,[11][23][24][25] Lagarde's hobbies include regular trips to the gym, cycling, and swimming.[13]

Professional career

Lagarde joined Baker & McKenzie, a large Chicago-based international law firm, in 1981. She handled major antitrust and labour cases, was made partner after six years and was named head of the firm in Western Europe. She joined the Executive Committee in 1995 and was elected the company's first female chairman in October 1999.[26][27][28][29]

In 2004, Lagarde became President of the Global Strategic Committee.[30]

Ministerial career

As France's Trade Minister between 2005 and May 2007, Lagarde prioritized opening new markets for the country's products, focusing on the technology sector. On 18 May 2007, she was moved to the Ministry of Agriculture as part of the government of François Fillon.[31] The following month she joined François Fillon's cabinet in the Ministry of Economic Affairs,[32] Finance and Employment to become the first woman in charge of economic policy in France.[citation needed] She was the only member of the French political class to condemn Jean-Paul Guerlain's racist remarks of 2010.[33]

International Monetary Fund


On 25 May 2011, Lagarde announced her candidacy to be head of the IMF to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn, upon his resignation.[34] Her candidacy received the support of the British, Indian, United States, Brazilian, Russian, Chinese and German governments.[35][36][37][38][39] The Governor of the Bank of Mexico (and former Mexican Secretary of Finance) Agustín Carstens was also nominated for the post. His candidacy was supported by many Latin American governments, as well as Spain, Canada and Australia.[35]

On 28 June 2011, the IMF board elected Lagarde as its next Managing Director and Chairman for a five-year term, starting on 5 July 2011.[3][4][5] The IMF's executive board praised both candidates as well-qualified, but decided on Lagarde by consensus. Lagarde became the first woman to be elected as the head of the IMF.[3] Carstens would have been the first non-European. Her appointment came amid the intensification of the European sovereign debt crisis especially in Greece, with fears looming of loan defaults. The United States in particular supported her speedy appointment in light of the fragility of Europe's economic situation.[40]

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that Lagarde's "exceptional talent and broad experience will provide invaluable leadership for this indispensable institution at a critical time for the global economy."[5] Nicolas Sarkozy referred to Lagarde's appointment as "a victory for France." Oxfam, a charity working in developing nations, called the appointment process "farcical" and argued that what it saw as a lack of transparency hurt the IMF's credibility.[41]

On 17 December 2015, Michel Sapin, French Finance Minister, said that Lagarde could stay on as head of the IMF, despite being charged with criminal negligence.[42] Throughout her time at the IMF, she has repeatedly ruled herself out of the races to secure a top job in Europe, including the positions of President of the European Commission or President of the European Central Bank.[43]


Alistair Darling (left) with Lagarde and Timothy Geithner (right) in 2009
Alistair Darling (left) with Lagarde and Timothy Geithner (right) in 2009

In July 2010, Lagarde told the PBS NewsHour that the IMF's lending program for distressed European countries was "a very massive plan, totally unexpected, totally counter-treaty, because it wasn't scheduled in the treaty that we should do a bailout program, as we did." She also said, "we had essentially a trillion dollars on the table to confront any market attack that would target any country, whether it's Greece, Spain, Portugal, or anybody within the eurozone." With respect to the French economy, she stated that besides short-term stimulus efforts: "we must, very decisively, cut our deficit and reduce our debt."[44]

In public remarks made right after her appointment, Lagarde stated that both the IMF and EU required Greek austerity measures as a prerequisite for further aid. She said, "If I have one message tonight about Greece, it is to call on the Greek political opposition to support the party that is currently in power in a spirit of national unity."[5] She said of her predecessor that: "The IMF has taken up the challenges of the crisis thanks to the actions of [Managing Director] Dominique Strauss-Kahn and to his team as well."[38] On 25 December 2011, Lagarde argued that the world economy was at risk and urged Europeans to unify in terms of the debt crisis facing the continent.[45]

Lagarde during the World Economic Forum 2013
Lagarde during the World Economic Forum 2013

In July 2012, as the Greek economy continued to decline, and the country's leaders asked for an easing of the terms of external assistance, Lagarde said she was "not in the negotiation or renegotiation mood at all."[46][47] A year later, though, with her own organization conceding that its "rescue" package for Greece had fallen short of what was required, Lagarde—having previously said that Greece's debt burden was "sustainable"—decided that Greece would not recover unless its debt was written off in a meaningful way.[48][49] According to Yanis Varoufakis, the combative former finance minister of Greece, Lagarde and others at the top of the IMF have been quite sympathetic behind closed doors.[50] As the crisis peaked again in summer 2015, Lagarde's organization made headlines by calling for massive debt relief for Greece,[51] a call she reiterated personally.[52] In 2016, the IMF refused to participate with eurozone countries in further emergency financing for Greece, because concrete measures to relieve the country of its debt burden remained absent.[53]

Lagarde during the Munich Security Conference 2018
Lagarde during the Munich Security Conference 2018

Questioned about her economic philosophy, Lagarde has described herself as "with Adam Smith—that is, liberal."[25]

"Payback" controversy

In an interview in May 2012, Lagarde was asked about crisis-stricken Greece, but opted for a less than sympathetic response. She drily referred to Greek tax avoidance, and assented to the interviewer's suggestion that Greeks had "had a nice time" but now "it's payback time."[54][55] Her comments provoked controversy: Deputy Prime Minister of Greece Evangelos Venizelos said she had "insulted the Greek people", while Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras declared: "We don't need her compassion."[56][57] In an effort to quell the negative response, the next day Lagarde updated her Facebook page with: "As I have said many times before, I am very sympathetic to the Greek people and the challenges they are facing."[58] Within 24 hours, over 10,000 comments had been left in response, many of them obscene.[56] To her accusations that not enough Greeks paid their taxes, Professor Emeritus John Weeks of the University of London retorted: "The moral weight of Christine Lagarde's matronising of the Greeks to pay their taxes is not strengthened by the fact that, as director of the IMF, she is in receipt of a tax-free annual salary of $468,000 (£298,000, plus perks)."[59][60] In her defense, "No taxes is the norm for most United Nations employees covered by a convention on diplomatic relations signed by most nations."[61]

Comment on King Abdullah

In January 2015, on the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Lagarde said "he was a strong believer in pushing forward women's rights",[62] prompting a number of observers to comment on the life of women generally in Saudi Arabia.[63]

The Lagarde list

In 2010 Lagarde, then Finance Minister of France, sent a list of 1,991 names of Greek customers who were potential tax avoiders with bank accounts at HSBC's Geneva branch to the Greek government.[64]

On 28 October 2012, Greek reporter and editor Kostas Vaxevanis claimed to be in possession of the list and published a document with more than 2,000 names in his magazine Hot Doc.[65][66] He was immediately arrested on charges of breaching privacy laws with a possible sentence of up to two years in prison.[67] After a public outcry, Vaxevanis was found not guilty three days later.[68] Vaxevanis then faced a retrial (the Greek authorities were yet to charge anyone on the list),[69] but was acquitted again. A few days before the Greek general elections of January 2015, when it was clear that left-wing Syriza would come to power, the financial crimes police of the conservative government of Antonis Samaras shredded reams of documents pertaining to corruption cases.[70]

Investigation into negligence

On 3 August 2011, a French court ordered an investigation into Lagarde's role in a €403 million arbitration deal in favour of businessman Bernard Tapie.[71] On 20 March 2013, Lagarde's apartment in Paris was raided by French police as part of the investigation.[72] On 24 May 2013, after two days of questioning at the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR), Lagarde was assigned the status of "assisted witness", meaning that she was not herself under investigation in the affair.[73] According to a press report from June 2013, Lagarde was described by Stéphane Richard, the CEO of France Telecom (a former aide to Lagarde when she was Finance Minister), who was himself put under formal investigation in the case, as having been fully briefed before approving the arbitration process which benefitted Bernard Tapie.[74][75] Subsequently, in August 2014 the CJR announced that it had formally approved a negligence investigation into Lagarde's role in the arbitration of the Tapie case.[76] On 17 December 2015, the CJR ordered Lagarde to stand trial before it for alleged negligence in handling the Tapie arbitration approval.[77][78][79] In December 2016, the court found Lagarde guilty of negligence, but declined to impose a penalty.[80]


Lagarde was interviewed in the documentary film Inside Job (2010), which later won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.[81][82]

The fashion magazine Vogue profiled Lagarde in September 2011.[25]

Lagarde was portrayed by actress Laila Robins in the 2011 HBO television drama Too Big to Fail, which was based on the popular book of the same name by New York Times journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin.[83]

Lagarde presented the 2014 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, titled "A New Multilateralism for the 21st Century".[84][85]

In 2014, Lagarde was named the fifth most powerful woman in the world by Forbes magazine.[86]

In 2017, Lagarde was listed by UK-based company Richtopia at number 1 in the list of 100 Most Influential People in Multinational Organisations.[87]



  1. ^ "The disarming charm of Christine Lagarde". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  2. ^ From Ralph Atkins; Andrew Whiffin; FT reporters (16 October 2009). "FT ranking of EU finance ministers". Financial Times. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  3. ^ a b c "IMF Executive Board Selects Christine Lagarde as Managing Director". Press Release. IMF. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  4. ^ a b "Lagarde wins IMF top job, presses Greece on crisis". Reuters. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  5. ^ a b c d "Christine Lagarde named IMF chief". BBC News. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  6. ^ "IMF Managing Directors". IMF. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
  7. ^ "IMF's Lagarde re-elected to second term". Deutsche Welle. Reuters, AFP. 19 February 2016. Retrieved 25 August 2016.
  8. ^ "World's Most Powerful Women". Forbes. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  9. ^ "Le Nouvel Economiste". Archived from the original on 9 July 2007. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  10. ^ Média, Prisma. "Christine Lagarde - La biographie de Christine Lagarde avec".
  11. ^ a b "Christine Lagarde – La biographie de Christine Lagarde avec" (in French). Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  12. ^ "La mujer que oculta acero tras la sonrisa" (in Spanish). El País. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
  13. ^ a b Guinness, Molly (17 July 2011). "Is this the world's sexiest woman (and the most powerful)?". London: Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  14. ^ a b "Christine Lagarde: the key facts". Daily Telegraph. London. 25 May 2011. Retrieved 25 May 2011.
  15. ^ a b "Interview : Christine Lagarde, la face cachée d'une femme de pouvoir". Retrieved 6 September 2012.
  16. ^ a b Shapira, Ian, "Christine Lagarde stirs wistful memories for friends in Holton Arms Class of ’74", Washington Post, 29 July 2011.
  17. ^ Janet H. Clark (13 August 2013). "Christine Lagarde (French lawyer and politician) – Encyclopædia Britannica". Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  18. ^ "Christine Lagarde : biographie – Le Nouvel Observateur". 18 May 2007. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  19. ^ "Christine Lagarde, Eleventh Managing Director of IMF – Biographical Information". 14 November 2013. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  20. ^ Marc Saillard. "Christine Lagarde élue à la tête du CA de Sciences po Aix – Educpros". Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  21. ^ "…". 21 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014.
  22. ^ David Wilkes (23 May 2012). "The seductive IMF boss and a smitten BBC business guru: Lagarde's Gallic charms leave Peston flustered | Mail Online". London: Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  23. ^ "Contact". Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  24. ^ "Xavier Giocanti, le mari de... Christine Lagarde" (in French). Paris Match. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  25. ^ a b c Johnson, Diane (September 2011). "Christine Lagarde: Changing of the Guard". Vogue. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
  26. ^ "Firm Facts | Firm History | Baker & McKenzie". Archived from the original on 15 June 2014. Retrieved 2014-02-21.
  27. ^ "Christine Lagarde, the eleventh European to head the IMF". 31 July 2012. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  28. ^ "Christine Lagarde: Executive Profile & Biography". S&P Global Market Intelligence. Retrieved 11 May 2019 – via
  29. ^ Petersen, Melody (9 October 1999). "Her Partners Can Call Her Ms. Chairman; Baker & McKenzie Takes Small Step for a Law Firm, Giant Leap for Womankind". The New York Times. p. C1. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  30. ^ "Christine Lagarde biography". Ministry of the Economy (France). Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 2 March 2009.
  31. ^ "Décret du 18 mai 2007 relatif à la composition du Gouvernement" (in French). Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  32. ^ "Décret du 19 juin 2007 relatif à la composition du Gouvernement" (in French). Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  33. ^ Macey, David (2012). Frantz Fanon: A Biography (2nd ed.). London and New York, NY: Verso. p. xix. ISBN 978-1-844-67773-3.
  34. ^ Sage, Adam (26 May 2011). "Christine Lagarde announces IMF candidacy". Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  35. ^ a b "IMF: US backs Christine Lagarde for top job". BBC News. London. 28 June 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  36. ^ "Germany, Britain back Lagarde to lead IMF". Washington Post. 22 May 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  37. ^ "Soutiens européens à une candidature de Lagarde au FMI". Le Monde (in French). 19 May 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  38. ^ a b "Christine Lagarde announces IMF candidacy". BBC News. 25 May 2011. Retrieved 25 May 2011.
  39. ^ "Lagarde suited to head IMF; India voted for her: Pranab". Moneycontrol India. 26 May 2011. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
  40. ^ "France's Christine Lagarde wins IMF top job – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News". Haaretz. Israel. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  41. ^ Oxfam has called for the public release of the transcript of Christine Lagarde’s interview with the IMF Board, news release dated 28 June 2011 at, accessed 18 September 2018
  42. ^ "Lagarde peut rester à la tête du FMI (Sapin)" [Lagarde can remain at the head of the IMF (Sapin)]. Le Figaro (in French). 17 December 2015. Archived from the original on 18 December 2015.
  43. ^ James Politi, Sam Fleming and Alex Barker (September 12, 2018), Christine Lagarde rules herself out of race for top jobs in EU Financial Times.
  44. ^ "As IMF's New Chief, Will Lagarde 'Keep Smiling'?". PBS NewsHour. 29 June 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  45. ^ "IMF's Lagarde warns global economy threatened – Business – Stocks & economy | NBC News". MSNBC. 25 December 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  46. ^ "Greece seeks more time to meet bailout terms". Al Arabiya News. AFP. 7 July 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  47. ^ Paris, Coastas; Granitsas, Alkman (4 July 2012). "Greece's Creditors to Take Tough Line". Retrieved 6 July 2012.
  48. ^ Matina Stevis; Ian Talley (5 June 2013). "IMF Concedes It Made Mistakes on Greece". Retrieved 10 June 2013. In an internal document marked "strictly confidential," the IMF said it badly underestimated the damage that its prescriptions of austerity would do to Greece's economy, which has been mired in recession for the last six years. ... Over the last three years, a number of senior IMF figures, including Managing Director Christine Lagarde, have repeatedly said that Greece's debt level was 'sustainable'—likely to be repaid in full and on time.
  49. ^ Helena Smith (3 June 2013). "Greece's creditors close to writing off some of its debt". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 3 June 2013. In an implicit recognition that the eurozone's weakest member state will never recover unless some of its debt is forgiven, the International Monetary Fund's managing director, Christine Lagarde, said that Athens' debt pile, projected to reach a staggering 185% of GDP this year, would remain high 'well into the next decade'.
  50. ^ Lambert, Harry (13 July 2015). "Exclusive: Yanis Varoufakis opens up about his five month battle to save Greece". Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  51. ^ Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose (14 July 2015). "IMF stuns Europe with call for massive Greek debt relief". Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  52. ^ Rankin, Jennifer (17 July 2015). "IMF steps up Greek bailout criticism over debt relief package". Retrieved 21 July 2015.
  53. ^ Talley, Ian (25 May 2016). "IMF: No Cash Now for Greece Because Europe Hasn't Promised Debt Relief". Retrieved 25 May 2016.
  54. ^ Aitkenhead, Decca (25 May 2012). "Christine Lagarde: can the head of the IMF save the euro?". London: Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  55. ^ Elliott, Larry; Aitkenhead, Decca (25 May 2012). "It's payback time: don't expect sympathy – Lagarde to Greeks". London: Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  56. ^ a b Osborne, Alistair (27 May 2012). "Irate Greeks vilify IMF chief on Facebook after she brands them tax dodgers". The Sunday Telegraph. London. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  57. ^ "Democracy in action". The Economist (2 June 2012). Retrieved 2 June 2012.
  58. ^ "Update of 26 May 2012, 09:43". Lagarde's Facebook page. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  59. ^ Weeks, John (27 May 2012). "Letters: IMF boss is in no position to preach". Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  60. ^ Aldrick, Philip (29 May 2012). "Christine Lagarde attack on Greece backfires as she pays no tax". Retrieved 2 July 2015.
  61. ^ Wood, Robert (30 May 2012). "TAXES IMF's Christine Lagarde: I Don't Pay Taxes, But You Should". Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  62. ^ "King Abdullah – a discreet but strong advocate of women, says IMF chief". 23 January 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  63. ^ Tran, Mark (23 January 2015). "Lagarde calls King Abdullah 'advocate of women' – despite ban on driving". Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  64. ^ "The Controversial 'Lagarde List' Has Leaked, And It's Bad News For The Greek Prime  Minister". Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  65. ^ "Greece arrests journalist over 'Lagarde List' banks leak". BBC. 28 October 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  66. ^ Julian Borger (28 October 2012). "Greek magazine editor in court for naming alleged tax evaders". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 29 October 2012.
  67. ^ McElroy, Damien (30 October 2012). "Greek officials accused of persecution as 'Lagarde List' journalist appears in court". London: The Telegraph.
  68. ^ "Greek journalist Kostas Vaxevanis acquitted in trial for naming alleged tax cheats (UPDATE)". Global Post. 1 November 2012.
  69. ^ Daley, Suzanne. "Greece's Aggressive Pursuit of Tax Offenders Appears to Collect More Anger Than Money." New York Times, 28 October 2013.
  70. ^ Carassava, Anthee (19 February 2015). "Greece shreds files on tax cheating by rich and powerful". Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  71. ^ Chrisafis, Angelique (4 August 2011). "Christine Lagarde faces inquiry over €285m payout for Sarkozy ally | World news". London: Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  72. ^ "France – French police raid home of IMF boss Christine Lagarde". France 24.
  73. ^ "IMF chief Christine Lagarde key witness in Tapie case". 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
  74. ^ Reuters (25 June 2013). "Christine Lagarde accused over Bernard Tapie 'fraud' – Europe – World". London: The Independent. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  75. ^ John Lichfield (23 May 2013). "IMF managing director Christine Lagarde in court over money to disgraced tycoon Bernard Tapie in 2008 – Europe – World". London: The Independent. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  76. ^ "IMF's Christine Lagarde 'under investigation'". 27 August 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014.
  77. ^ "IMF chief Lagarde to stand negligence trial in France". BBC News. 17 December 2015.
  78. ^ Deen, Mark; Mayeda, Andrew (17 December 2015). "IMF's Lagarde to Face Trial for 'Negligence' in Tapie Case". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 18 December 2015.
  79. ^ Lhomme, Fabrice; Davet, Gérard (18 December 2015). "Tapie-Crédit lyonnais : Christine Lagarde renvoyée devant la justice". Le Monde (in French).
  80. ^ "Christine Lagarde, I.M.F. Chief, Is Found Guilty of Negligence". The New York Times. 19 December 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  81. ^ "Power with grace". Retrieved 22 August 2013.
  82. ^ "Winners and Nominees for the 83rd Academy Awards". Retrieved 22 August 2013.
  83. ^ Nikki Schwab; Katy Adams (29 June 2011). "New IMF chief portrayed in HBO's 'Too Big To Fail'". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 29 June 2011.[permanent dead link]
  84. ^ Telegraph. Nationalism could destroy global economy, warns Christine Lagarde. 4 February 2014.
  85. ^ Economic Times. Inequality increasing globally including in India: Christine Lagarde. 4 February 2014.
  86. ^ "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women". Forbes. Forbes. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  87. ^ "Top 100 Leaders from Multilateral Organisations: From Christine Lagarde to António Guterres, These Are the Most Influential People in the NGO Sphere". Richtopia. Retrieved 23 December 2017.
  88. ^ "KU Leuven awards honorary doctorate to Christine Lagarde, IMF chief – KU Leuven". Archived from the original on 1 March 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  89. ^ "Université de Montréal presents honorary doctorate to Christine Lagarde". Retrieved 15 December 2015.

External links

Political offices
Preceded by
Christian Jacob
Minister of Commerce and Industry
Position abolished
Preceded by
Dominique Bussereau
Minister of Agriculture
Succeeded by
Michel Barnier
Preceded by
Jean-Louis Borloo
Minister of Finance
Succeeded by
François Baroin
Business positions
Preceded by
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
This page was last edited on 16 May 2019, at 00:41
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.