The majority report recommended changes to the IMF and World Bank which were then criticized by a number of commentators inside and outside the U.S.
Four out of the five Commission members nominated by the then-minority Congressional Democrats filed a dissent from the majority's recommendations (Fred Bergsten, Richard Huber, Jerome Levinson, and Esteban Torres), although one of the four (Huber) both voted for the majority report and joined the dissent.
The majority's core recommendations are defended by Chairman Meltzer's chief advisor Adam Lerrick and critiqued by de Ferranti in their respective chapters in an edited volume published by the Center for Global Development and fully accessible on the web.
[2] An alternative perspective is offered by Susanne Soederberg, Associate Professor, Development Studies, Queen's University (Ontario): "The Meltzer Commission drew public attention to the shortcomings of the IFIs but also heightened the legitimacy crisis of neoliberal restructuring of the global South, especially in HIPCs.
For instance, the commission charged the IMF with giving too little attention to improving financial structures in developing countries and too much to expensive rescue operations.