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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS