Reading these three chapters makes me very curious about who came up with the tactics the IMF uses. In chapter 22, Stiglitz writes that the evidence available suggested there would be little if any positive effect on growth. Then chapter 33, Vreeland argues at first that the IMF is doing well but then introduces the many studies with conflicting results. Then he shows that all studies focusing on income inequality show that the IMF exacerbates it. I am really confused why the IMF is still sticking with these tactics at this point - it's been 20 years since one of the latest of these studies came out! I work in government, I know things are slow, but is it so exacerbated at the top of the chain too? Just like Life + Debt pointed out, the more I learn the more this seems like this was a system put in place to benefit the winners of WWII. I have a hard time believing the original users of the IMF (impoverished Europe) were subject to what developing countries are now subjected to. I think the original goal of the IMF is admirable, but things have really become twisted. The text points out that even now these top countries don’t have to follow the rules. I know the French farmer’s protesting in France are dealing with similar issues. One of the issues is that their products can’t compete with cheaper imports.
2 comments:
I appreciated how you pointed out that the global economic standard benefits the Winners of WWII. Numerous IMF policies demonstrate a double standard, such as allowing government subsidies for certain crops in developed countries but not in developing ones. This uneven playing field has really effected the ability of poorer countries to participate in a global market.
It's definitely frustrating to see that the IMF's tactics have not changed despite evidence showing their negative impact on growth and income inequality. It makes you wonder who is actually benefitting from these policies. It's concerning that even after 20 years of conflicting studies, the IMF is still following the same tactics. It does seem like there is a disconnect between the original goals of the IMF and the current realities faced by developing countries.
Post a Comment