The IMF/World Bank conference may have launched a raft of new buzz words, key among them "transparency" - the provision of detailed financial information for investors and regulators. But as critics say, what exactly will it mean in practice?

There are still huge delays after the IMF enters into discussions with national governments until its reports are released and investors can judge the outlook for the economy involved.

Also, there is likely to be opposition from many states to publishing detailed data, particularly on private-sector lending. International banks, particularly hedge funds, have never been overly enthusiastic about making their own exposures public.

Better regulation is also a cornerstone. But some question how this will be implemented. If the US Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to step up its regulation of Long Term Capital Management say, many believe it would have simply upped sticks and relocated in somewhere like the Cayman Islands.

Details on how the IMF intends to ensure offshore jurisdictions act in the same way as the bigger states are also lacking at the moment. Controls on the flow of capital are being examined. The IMF appears to have moved from a position of complete opposition to any such control to reviewing "the circumstances where such measures may be appropriate".

In a hard-hitting speech this was recognised by Japanese finance minister, Mr Kiichi Miyazawa, who warned that these efforts were "far from sufficient". He added that no matter how much transparency was improved, and no matter how surveillance was strengthened, crises could still occur. Only time will tell how successful the new proposals will be. But the expected rescue package for Brazil should be a good start. If that works, and most observers expect it to, it could mark a turning point for the IMF and indeed the world's economies.