Question

The IMF issues loans to countries in crisis, but it is often criticized for attaching (some-times onerous) conditions to these loans.

(i) Does realism or liberalism better explain the existence of the IMF and its crisis lending role?

(ii) Does realism or liberalism better explain the IMF’s propensity to attach onerous conditions to its loans? Identify specific assumptions of either realism or liberalism in your answers

Answer 1

1)IMF was developed with an objective of sovereign lending therefore realism and liberalism was there, but since political pressure, the countries which were and which are having more share have better voting rights therefore liberalism is not attached and that string of liberalism is fading especially in lending policy to the developing nations.

It has become questionable to the existence of IMF? What is the purpose of this lending institution, it is neorelistic world, therefore international organizations are merely becoming puppet of powerful nations.

According to the IMF's article of agreement adopted on 1944 they were having a policy of lending and the goal was expansion and economic coperation and economic sustainability of under developed nations which is simply fading with the growing interference of the super developed nations.

2) question 2 is almost similar to question 1 so you can refer question one's answer