--> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not
repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to
Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet
at http://www.zmag.org

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-05/15engler.cfm


Unhappy Birthday, World Bank!
By Mark Engler

In 1994, when the IMF and World Bank were celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of their creation, very few people in this country could tell
you anything about the twin fixtures of corporate globalization.
"Globalization" itself was only beginning its life as a buzzword, almost
always used to celebrate an uncontroversial march of progress into the
21st century. Ten years, several regional financial crises, and hundreds
of worldwide protests later, the cheerful anonymity that shielded these
institutions from criticism has long since disappeared.

On April 24, protesters rallied outside the spring meetings of the IMF and
World Bank to wish the financial bodies an unhappy sixtieth birthday. They
highlighted the dramatic manner in which the development debate has
changed in just a few years. And they denounced the nefarious IMF/World
Bank policies that remain important elements of the Bush administration's
imperious foreign policy.

Much of the credit for the IMF/World Bank's deepening image crisis of past
years belongs to the organizations of the 50 Years Is Enough Network. Ten
years ago, a diverse coalition of environmental, faith-based, and
development policy groups formed the network, which has expanded to
include over 200 US organizations and 185 international partners in more
than 65 countries.

Their aim was to publicize grassroots criticisms of the harms inflicted by
the IMF and the World Bank on the developing world, and to advance a
series of sweeping reforms. In the fall of 1995, they gathered over a
hundred people to demonstrate outside the institutions' meetings. By April
2000, in the wake of the Seattle protests, that number grew to 25,000. US
mobilizations have been mirrored by raucous demonstrations overseas, many
in the countries most affected by IMF/World Bank policy.

The demands of the weekend's protest mirror the original platform promoted
by the network ten years ago: democratic reforms to force greater openness
and accountability upon bodies accustomed to directing foreign economies
based on closed-door sessions in Washington, DC. An end to structural
adjustment mandates which increase poverty and inequality in the
developing world. Discontinuation of the many IMF/World Bank projects that
failed to meet even rudimentary environmental standards. And debt
cancellation for poor countries whose foreign debts prevent them from
making basic investments in health and education.

Today the legitimacy of those demands, or at least moderate versions of
them, is acknowledged by virtually all fair-minded observers of
development policy, including a growing number who have defected from the
World Bank itself. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Chief
Economist at the Bank, states that "even those in the Washington
establishment, now [agree] that rapid capital market liberalization
without accompanying regulations"--a core element of neoliberal
globalization that contributed mightily to financial collapse in East
Asia--"is dangerous." Stiglitz further argues that demands "such as the
need for better ways of restructuring debts might have seemed
controversial a short while ago. Today they are either in the mainstream
or are gradually being accepted."

By 1997 Bank President James Wolfensohn was compelled to admit to critics
that "Adjustment has been a much slower, more difficult and more painful
process than the Bank recognized at the outset." A few years later,
"structural adjustment" had become a taboo phrase, eliminated altogether
from IMF/World Bank rhetoric.

Other changes go beyond rhetoric. In 2000, the Congress passed a measure
requiring US opposition to any IMF/World Bank loan mandating "user fees or
service charges on poor people for primary education or primary
healthcare." The institutions have since abandoned such fees.

In past months Argentina, a star pupil of the IMF which saw its economy
implode in late 2001, has bucked the Fund's demands to cut public spending
to benefit private creditors. Bank officers and activists alike recognize
that this successful act of defiance could make Argentina an influential
role model for other countries seeking ways to break the neoliberal
stranglehold on their economies.

Social movement pressure, along with its own failure to deliver on
promises of economic growth, is spelling out a slow but steady decline for
the neoliberal paradigm that reigned over mainstream development thinking
for over two decades. Nevertheless, many US officials are doggedly trying
to hold on to the "Washington Consensus."

The Bush administration's "America First" nationalism has created rifts
between the US and many long-standing allies, and (by fostering stalemates
in such venues as the WTO talks in Cancún) has even scuttled much of the
multilateral "free trade" agenda that proponents of corporate
globalization would like to see enacted. Yet in spite of this
unilateralist turn, the US still uses IMF/World Bank actions as key
mechanisms for regulating foreign economies--probably because the White
House is effectively able to dictate policy to these institutions.

Recent IMF/World Bank reforms have real limits, deftly illustrated by the
cause of debt cancellation. Ministers from wealthy nations have almost
universally conceded that debt is a crisis, but assistance has been slow
in coming. The creditor-based system of debt relief administered by the
IMF/World Bank doles out aid at levels based more on poor countries'
ability to cough up future payments than on what they actually need to
reach humanitarian targets like the Millennium Development Goals.

As economist Jeffrey Sachs writes, "It is perfectly possible, and indeed
is currently the case, for a country or region to have a 'sustainable'
debt" under IMF/World Bank definitions "while millions of its people are
dying of hunger or disease."

Throughout the developing world, huge debts persist despite the fact that
many countries have paid back their original loans several times over. As
the American Friends Service Committee reports, Nigeria has paid over $16
billion on its original $5 billion loan, yet finds itself owing $32
billion on that same debt.

A second problem is that the IMF and World Bank still make relief
contingent on conditions like market liberalization and privatization of
public services--many of the same mandates that were the core of
previously discredited policies.

The IMF and the World Bank now prefer to describe their structural
adjustment as "Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility Programs." However,
advocates in the developing world report that ostensibly "participatory"
processes leave much to be desired. While the financial institutions may
now offer NGOs and governments a seat at the table in drafting their
national economic programs, they don't allow local participants the
opportunity to challenge the market fundamentalism or faulty macroeconomic
assumptions that continue to guide IMF/World Bank decisions.

How does all this fit in with the White House's wider foreign policy? A
pro-corporate vision of "free enterprise" has always held a central place
in President Bush's militaristic quest to spread "freedom" throughout the
world. In its short time in Iraq, the occupying authority has already
succeeded in conducting a radical economic restructuring, privatizing the
bulk of the economy and working to chain the country into a multi-billion
loan package from--guess who?--the IMF.

Asked whether they intend to change the name of their network, the leading
critics of IMF/World Bank policy say they will not. Fifty years was
enough. And ten years later, an end to neoliberal economic policy is long
overdue.


-- Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City, can be reached via the
web site http://www.DemocracyUprising.com. This article first appeared on
TomPaine.com. Research assistance provided by Jason Rowe.

Reply via email to