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 their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS