Case Study Of The Failure And Failure Of IMF In Argentina

An example of the IMF’s ability to promote strong, stable economies is the case of Jordan. In the 1980s the declining oil prices and the related recessions in the Middle Eastern oil exporting countries was disadvantageous to Jordan. In 1989 Jordan had a 30-35 percent unemployment rate and was having a hard time due to their external debt. This led the authorities to request the country’s first arrangement with the IMF. Economic reforms were a part of the agreement between Jordan and the IMF. Jordan agreed to a series of five year reforms financed by the IMF, therefore the government took on huge reforms prioritizing foreign investment and easier trade policies. They were ultimately able to reduce the overall debt payment up to a manageable level. Jordan is currently regarded as a country by which the effectiveness of the IMF assistance is assessed.

Several developing countries are sunk in debt and poverty because of the arrangements of global establishments, for example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Their projects have been vigorously reprimanded for a long time and have been constantly blamed for poverty. Moreover, developing countries have been in constant expanded reliance on the wealthier countries, despite the IMF and World Bank's claim that their main goal is to fight poverty (Shah, 2013). During recent decades, the poorest nations on the planet have needed to swing progressively to the World Bank and IMF for money related help, because their impoverishment has made it unthinkable for them to acquire somewhere else. The World Bank and IMF connect strict

Each country is different, different people, different resources, different culture and an exhaustive analysis was necessary to implement any policy . If the IMF had respected the sovereignty of the country, letting them follow their own rules and letting the people from the country create their own strategy get afloat, they would have had better

I do agree with pushing for economic reform, especially with policies that would help to control inflation and reduce the deficit. However, I don't agree that aid should be in the form of loans. IMF and the World Bank should provide grants in exchange for economic policies, and only after the policies have been in place for a period of time. Dave Ramsey (n.d.) says that “you can't borrow your way out of debt”, and while this was in reference to personal finance, I believe that it also rings true on a larger scale as well. If the Mexican government was not spending so much of its' income on paying off debt, it would have had more money available for infrastructure or social projects, and may not have needed to dip into its'

This can be shown by the US having 17% control of the executive board meaning they have the right to veto as board approval requires 85%. Whereas India has only 2.44% of voting rights compared to the Netherlands who are significantly weaker in terms of economic power who have 2.17% . It can be argued that the way the voting structure works iensures that the IMF would prioritise its creditors and voters, so the EU and USA have a combined total of 49% thus they hold great sway over the institution. This can explain how in terms of loans 79.5% have gone to European countries, with the largest loans going to Greece, Portugal and Ireland to bail out their banks. Another accusation is that the IMF in general tends to create more harm than good when attempting to help countries as shown in the fast track scheme. Where they gave far too much loans to Argentina and they were forced to default . A similar event occurred to create the 1997 East Asia crisis where the IMF encouraged countries affected to borrow their way out of trouble thus making the crisis worse. These events were not prioritised by western country whereas when the Euro crisis hit the west only then did the IMF pour in billions to save essential countries in Europe. The IMF can be considered strongly European for all 11 directors in the IMF’s history have been European. So the IMF can be considered to be working in favour of western interests as

I want to write about this topic although I am aware that the IMF is said not to be directly related to Plan Colombia. This information does not seem accurate and of course you can find different points of view on this “fact”. I believe the IMF is most definitely related to Plan Colombia which has had a negative effect on the poor by cutting back on public services. This topic is particularly interesting to me because I am Colombian-American and this puts me in a difficult situation between my two countries.

International institutions reflect the interests of core capitalists and therefore do not essentially alter the economic positions of core and periphery countries. Global institutions and organizations are usually created by core countries and often refrain from undermining the authority of the core. Instead, IGOs and NGOs tend to perpetuate the power of the core by encouraging policies that align with the interests of wealthy countries and consequently exacerbate underdevelopment in peripheries. A significant example of mistreatment against Chile is the debt crisis it faced since the late 1900s. The USA and lending agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) declined

However, although globalization has helped several countries, "in some developing countries, foreign aid and investments are not relieving widespread poverty, and policies forced by global institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have created more harm than good, because the policies are based on models constructed by the developed countries and are not customized for each developing country 's situation" (2003).

Even though there were some major issues, Argentina did not let the IMF regulate them. Argentina made the decision that they thought was best for their citizens and that is the most important thing a government can do. "Rather than developing policy prescriptions in Washington, the Fund instead would rely on the recipient country to select the mix and implement the detail of policy reforms."(2002, November 1). The best quote I have read. It is amazing to know the IMF’s managing director Horst Köhler had something to say like that.

First, let us examine how economic policies like the structural adjustment policies implemented by the IMF affect a country. A great example of this is detailed in Ault and Sandberg’s “Our Policies, Their Consequences”, where both authors explore how seriously the structural adjustment policies changed the economic state in Zambia. As these authors point out, the terms of the loans “reflect the economic and political interests and values of the world’s wealthiest nations (470)”. It is seen here already that that does not bode well for Zambia. One clearly can see that globalization is just another way first world nations still colonize the world, but instead through means of economic and trade conquests. Now, the article continues on to talk about the kind of changes that the IMF implemented on Zambia: they wanted them to devalue their currency and stop supporting many domestic programs, social welfare programs, and fire federal employees and instead they wanted them to focus on increasing their exports for the global market. And what are changes without its consequences? Because the IMF favored the growth of international markets, the local economy in Zambia suffered greatly. Devalued

Following a steep currency devaluation and the largest sovereign debt default in history, Argentina entered a deep recession with high unemployment and social upheaval

Throughout, there is a keen sense that the IMF is completely guided by ideology which is focused on the free market and the markets’ ability to guide the economy properly at all times. It would seem that all those who work at the IMF are misguided and/or towing the party line in the form of the Washington Consensus. Moreover, of greater concern is perhaps that throughout this piece, it would seem that the World Bank could do no wrong. Stiglitz portrays himself and the World Bank as the white knight(s) who were championing the rights of those who could not fight for themselves against the US government, the US Treasury and even the Federal Reserve. He does so with little regard to any policies or actions that these organizations have done for positive reasons or with positive results. He displays unwavering support for governments to stimulate aggregate demand via social spending, so it is surprising that he is so punitive towards Western governments.

The three major international economic institutions are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization; this book mainly focuses on the IMF and the World Bank, due to the author’s first-hand experience with both institutions. The IMF, a public institution built as a guiding hand for economic stability around the world, has brought false

During this time period the IMF took on a new role of lending to countries on the brink of default. By the mid 1980s, some observers noted that the loan qualifying austerity policies implemented by many borrowers were prolonging and deepening the debtor nations’ problems.

The Argentine debt restructuring is a process of debt restructuring by Argentina which began on January 14, 2005, and allowed it to resume payment on the majority of the USD 82 billion in sovereign bonds that defaulted in 2002 at the depth of the worst economic crisis in the nation 's history. A second debt restructuring in 2010 brought the percentage of bonds, out of default, to 93%, though ongoing disputes with holdouts remained. Bondholders who participated in the restructuring, accepted repayments of around 30% of face value and deferred payment terms, and began to be paid punctually; the value of their bonds also began to rise.The remaining 7% of bondholders later won the right to be repaid in full.