Critically Evaluate the Debates Surrounding the Continuity of Bretton Woods’s Institutions. Which of These Institutions Would You Recommend to Be Discontinued? Justify Your Choice.

All three countries actively follow the guidelines of these major international institutions. According to Managing Director of the IMF (Kohler, 2002), “There has been a near-revolution in transparency at the IMF, and a steady improvement in the release of economic information by our member countries.” It is essential for countries to be transparent in their annual checkups from the IMF in order to keep all member countries up to date on economic data in countries they have financial dealings with. This information is what keeps countries from financial crisis. The United States is the largest shareholder of the World Bank and is the only country with veto power over changes in structure, therefore the US plays a major role in developing and supporting the World Bank’s mission (The World Bank, 2013). Since 1998, France has only been a respondent to 4 dispute cases (World Trade Organization), which shows that they actively try to follow the guidelines.

Due to capital limitations, most governments, particularly in the developing nations borrow funds from their bilateral friends and organizations such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in earnest to enable them pursue development projects, and sometimes to correct balance-of-payment deficits. Nevertheless, such governments must adhere to some outlined conditions that are spelt out in the article of agreement in order for them to secure the loans; otherwise, the loans are withheld (White, 2012). Equally, a healthy population significantly contributes to economic development of

The new Bretton Woods system was backed by nearly all the Allies, save for the Soviet Union, and seemed to be heralding a new era of global cooperation in the economy. Reality, however, did not match with that expectation. The insistence on using a gold standard brought forth bullionism reminiscent of the

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.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Argentina was considered to be a model country for the IMF due to their compliance with conservative economic policies. The country sought financial assistance after a decade of instability with increases in external debt, inflation, and fiscal deficits that led to a financial collapse. Argentina received a series of loans from the IMF which gave the organization “leverage to guide Argentine policymakers in privatizing state enterprises, liberalizing foreign trade and investment, and tightening government fiscal and monetary

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

The impact of the Washington Consensus has been felt mainly through the IMF’s increasing use of loan conditions (‘conditionality’) to force policy change in developing countries. The use of loan conditions can be traced to section 1(v) of the Fund’s Articles of Agreement, which encourages the IMF to make its funds “temporarily available under adequate safeguards”. But while conditions had, in the 1950s and 1960s, been used to promote global financial stability (as per the IMF’s Articles of Agreement) in the late 1970s and 1980s, loan conditions began to be used as "structural adjustment" tools, and conditionality structural change in client countries became a central focus for the IMF’s work. (www.imf.com)

In an effort to bring an end to world poverty the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) were established in 1944. Consisting of members from 44 nations “The Bank and the IMF are twin intergovernmental pillars supporting the structure of the world's economic and financial order”(Driscoll, 1996). In other words they are international economic organizations that grant loans to third world countries for development programs.

The IMF and World Bank providing loans to impoverished and financially unstable countries is not only irresponsible, it's unethical. I intend to use the example of the loans provided to Mexico during the Mexican peso crisis, also called the Tequila crisis or December mistake crisis to illustrate this, and then provide what I believe would be a better solution

Clearly, something went wrong in Bolivia. Internationally regulated trade seems a necessity, but there is surely a better way to do it. For instance, how much leverage did Bolivia have in the IMF? It seems they were the weaker party, in need of the IMF as savior. The problem is that inevitably the benefactor-beneficiary relationship is not sustainable, and can often hurt the beneficiary when the benefactor assumes control. If developing nations that participate in the IMF (whether receiving loans or otherwise) had equal power when it comes to decision making, they would not be taken advantage of by multi-national corporations. All countries participating in a trade organization should have equally powerful voices. This is the only way to keep the natural course of global capitalism from destroying weaker

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.

Harvard Business School’s Case Study “Aid, Debt Relief, and Trade: An agenda for fighting World Poverty” outlines the steps, and missteps, that the world community has taken since World War II to address the efficacy of international assistance. The study focuses on international financial institutions (IFIs) and their ability to help poor nations break out of poverty and the possible obligations of rich, developed countries to assist the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). Additionally, the study seeks to see if this assistance has been and can be parlayed into growth and investment for the HIPCs.

Jamaica economists has already prepared a long term plan to solve their crisis.They wanted to request a long term loan with the hope of funneling it gradually into their drying economy.The IMF,however,had other plans and rejected their proposal.The IMF felt that jamaica was unproductive and instead provided a short term loan with a lot of usage conditions

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

The readily identification of debt crisis was Mexico’s inability to serve its outstanding debt of $80 billion debt. And the situation continue to worsen, and one year later, by October 1983, 27 countries owing $239 billion had reschedule debts or in the process of doing so.