Question

Economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that the IMF has failed its mission to secure global economic stability. He identifies the reasons for this failure with changes in the IMF’s mission and economic policies. In his role as Senior Vice President and Chief Economist at the World Bank in the late 1990s, Stiglitz was privy to the policies and failures of the IMF. In his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, Stiglitz lays out an argument for why the IMF has failed in its mission to ensure global economic stability. Stiglitz argues that the IMF’s policies not only do not work, but often make matters worse for the countries in crisis. He highlights several problematic policies:

Capital market liberalization. The IMF pressures countries that petition for IMF loans to open their markets to outside investment capital. Rather than help matters, this approach often makes matters worse as it destabilizes the economy of the country as well as the global economy. Investors may invest huge sums in a country only to pull those investments at a moment’s notice, causing acute economic crises.

Latin America as the template. Stiglitz says that many of the the ideas of the “Washington Consensus” were based on the experience with Latin America. The economic growth in these countries had not been sustained, governments had let budgets run out of control, and loose monetary policy had led to rampant inflation. The belief of the Washington Consensus was that this had happened as a result of excessive government intervention in the economy. So, if government intervention was the problem, then government intervention should be limited. The Washington Consensus pushed for policies such as capital market liberalization. Stiglitz notes that even if this approach was appropriate for some Latin American countries, it did not make sense to apply this policy blindly to other countries in very different situations where this kind of policy might make matters much worse.

Insensitivity to strength of local markets. Stiglitz says that the IMF policy forcing rapid trade liberalization has not only not worked, but does not follow lessons learned from history. He notes the cases of the U.S. and Japan. Both countries had trade protection policies in place until their industries were strong enough to compete in a global market. However, IMF policies forcing trade liberalization on a developing country where industries are not strong enough can actually cause more harm. Local industries could not compete, and rising interest rates made job creation virtually impossible. Says Stiglitz, “Liberalization has, thus, too often, not been followed by the promised growth, but my increased misery.”

Taxation without Representation. Stiglitz notes that even though the IMF is a public institution, funded by money from taxpayers around the world, it is not held accountable to the interests of these taxpayers. He identifies the problem of governance as one of the prime “underlying factors” for problems with the IMF.   (Center on Law & Globalization)

Related articles about IMF/Work Bank/Globalization by Joseph Stiglitz

Main Post

Identify a criticism made by Joseph Stiglitz in regards to the IMF, World Bank, or globalization. In your response, provide the following:

Summarize Stiglitz's criticism and provide a citation to the article you selected (include website address if applicable)

Using two or more academic sources, dispute or support Stiglitz's criticism (provide full citations to sources)

Answer 1

Answer :-  

Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz’s stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years — that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries — have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world’s rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.

… Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended picking it up, saying thank you very much and dropping it straight in the garbage can.

… To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of free-market fundamentalismcontinues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government’s collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.

… Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF’s reputation than any other living economist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------