Today’s IMF (and, to a lesser degree, the World Bank) recall Talleyrand’s description of France’s Bourbon kings: It has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. At a time when rich countries like the US are running deficits of 12 percent of GDP because of the global financial meltdown, the IMF has been telling countries like Latvia and Ukraine, which did not start the crisis but have turned to the Fund to help combat it, that they must balance their budgets if they want aid.
Such hypocrisy would be laughable if global economic conditions weren’t so dire that even countries that once swore never again to deal with the IMF have returned to its door, cap in hand. Some leading economists in Argentina justify this reversal by arguing that the world now has an “Obama IMF,” one presumably friendlier and more attuned to local problems than the “Bush Fund.” But, as the IMF programs for Latvia and Ukraine suggest, the main difference may only be a smile.
To be sure, IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn recently called for a global fiscal response to the worsening recession. But will the Fund now abandon its long-held emphasis on government cutbacks, monetary contraction and overall austerity, policies that — in the opinion of many development economists — do considerably more harm than good? Are the IMF and the World Bank actually willing to reconsider their failed policies?
In recent years, lending by both institutions contracted dramatically, even though they have increasingly become the exclusive lenders to the world’s poorest countries. In 2005, Argentina and Brazil were the first of the countries that previously denounced the IMF’s neo-liberal agenda to begin repaying their loans. Repayments followed from other large debtors, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Serbia and Turkey.
UNPRECEDENTED
Indeed, the IMF’s outstanding general resource account (GRA) credits to middle-income developing countries fell by an unprecedented 91 percent from 2002 to 2007 as richer developing countries gained access to sources of financing that were free of the Fund’s conditionality. But poorer countries, for which international capital markets remain off limits, have no alternative but to rely on the World Bank and the IMF.
In September 2007, a year before warning signs gave way to a full-blown financial meltdown, Strauss-Kahn himself suggested that the IMF was in a “crisis of identity.” Indeed, the unprecedented decline in GRA lending, the IMF’s main source of income, forced the Fund to announce a US$100 million cost-cutting plan in April last year. Similar financial pressures affected the World Bank, with its main source of income, IBRD lending, down 40 percent in 2007 from late-1990s levels.
But the world’s pain has been these institutions’ gain. Since the crisis went global last autumn, the IMF has had countries parading to its door. Between Nov. 5 last year and Jan. 12 this year, the Fund committed nearly US$50 billion to seven countries (Hungary, Ukraine, Iceland, Pakistan, Latvia, Serbia and Belarus).
The World Bank, too, has recently been resurrected in places like Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru, with loans to that region of Latin America up four-fold year on year since last September, reaching nearly US$3 billion.
Unfortunately, for both institutions, the growing demand in such countries for financing merely means business as usual. Consider the recent standby arrangement with Latvia, whose conditions include a massive 25 percent cut in public-sector wages, a similar reduction in government expenditures and a huge tax increase.
Ukraine’s government, moreover, was told to balance its budget by massively slashing state pensions. Only when conditions in the country deteriorated even more in the wake of the Fund holding back on the second tranche of its loan did the IMF agree to loosen its conditions. In Latvia, however, the IMF has continued to demand austerity even in the wake of plummeting growth and rising unemployment that have lead to riots and political instability. Recent World Bank loans are similarly conditioned, in part, on “fiscal discipline.”
Insistence on such policies at a time when the US and most of the rest of the rich world are following virtually the opposite economic strategy indicates the need for fundamental rethinking of what actually generates growth and development. There is a growing body of alternative ideas in this area — including work by Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman — that the IMF and the World Bank should consider.
ADJUNCT
More importantly, US control has meant that throughout their history these institutions have been used as an adjunct of US foreign policy. Given the centrality of orthodox stalwarts like Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the Obama administration, the prospect of serious reform appears dim. Summers was a key architect of neo-liberal policies while at the World Bank and the US Treasury during the Clinton administration, and Geithner is a former senior IMF official.
Both men are likely to support the prevailing global double standard, which allows rich countries to use fiscal expansion in the face of recession while forcing poor countries into greater austerity.
But the Obama administration can still help — for example, by asking the Federal Reserve to expand currency swap arrangements it recently offered to Singapore, South Korea and Brazil to other developing countries. That way, the world’s poor could at least avoid the heavy-handed conditionality imposed by the IMF and the World Bank.
Howard Stein, a professor at the Center for Afro-American and African Studies at the University of Michigan, is a member of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue’s Africa Task Force and G8 Working Group. Claudia Kedar is a visiting scholar at the Latin American Studies Center at the University of Michigan.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS