Limited overs cricket is different from 5 days cricket and full member status depends on the later, it directly related to ICC funding. As of now it goes like this.
Full test nations (12) gets a bigger slice of a pie, atm 85%-90% goes to full nation (test playing countries).
Then comes the associate nations (90+), they gets around 10-ish%. No strict restriction here, like domestic setup (age group , women cricket) etc.
I don't have an issue with India getting $230 million per year (38.5% of the ICC revenues). But how can it be justified that Zimbabwe receives $17.64 million every year from the ICC (2.94% of the ICC revenue), while a team like Nepal receives just $200,000 to $250,000 per year? Nepal is lucky, because they receive around $500,000 to $600,000 per year from the ACC. But teams like Namibia and Papua New Guinea are not that lucky. They don't have the luxury of the ACC funding them.
If free loading is the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.
Bangladesh makes a strong case, Windies as well despite rich legacy. Pakistan is not far behind. Likes of ireland and afghans hardly Play tests.