The realist theories propose that the sovereign states are the main actors in the international system and that other institutions have little influence in the international scene (Evans M. 2001). Of course this assumption at that time was very plausible considering the fact that globalization and giant multi-national organizations were not really very popular at the time when the World Bank and the IMF were organized. Remember that it was just after World War II when these organizations came into being and at that time the notion that the international system is anarchic (Doyle, Michael (1997) and that no authority is considered above the state that is capable of regulating the interactions among nations (Schweller, Randall L (2003) was very popular. Since the World Bank and the IMF were organized to help the states, their presence was more or less acceptable to its member nations. Of course the roles that World Bank and the IMF play have been questions by many people over the years but the point is that these organizations have been instrumental in bringing together some order in the international financial scene. Moreover, aside from trying to make some policy influence on some nations, the World Bank and the IMF do not really have any means of directly intervening into the affairs of the different states all over the world. In other words, despite the presence of these international organizations, nations remain to be relatively independent when it comes to making decisions.
At the start, we can say that the World and the IMF were more biased toward assisting sovereign nations and do not really recognize non-government organizations as potential vehicles for development.