The IMF Files: They Want to Believe (by Elizabeth Palmberg)
Andrew Berg, an International Monetary Fund African department policy adviser, is a nice man. I know this because he spent some time talking earnestly with me after an IMF press conference in which I'd asked a pretty confrontational question about Malawi, whose 2002 famine is often partly attributed to IMF (and World Bank) advice, and whose current bumper crops are attributed to ignoring it.
Berg looks a tiny bit like The X Files' Agent Skinner, but what this conversation brought into focus for me is that the IMF is not a vast conspiracy of evil, cigarette-smoking men. It's a large, overly influential group of people who earnestly push policies that are often disastrous.
While many civil society advocates insist the IMF is imposing its will wholesale on poor countries, it insists it's just inspiring them to choose sound policies. Given the huge power imbalance here -- very poor countries often need IMF approval to help get other international loans and aid -- many critics, like me, view the IMF's claim as a farce. Berg's and his colleages' earnestness, however, convinced me that they genuinely believe they're empowering government officials to do the right economic thing in the face of their
And the IMF's critics, including me, are wrong sometimes in blaming the IMF rather than other challenges poor countries face. Take Malawi's 2002 famine. After talking with Berg, I did more research, and discovered that he was basically right: The famine really was caused much more by bad (and likely corrupt) national governance, bad forecasts, bad weather, and bad roads, rather than by the country's agreement with the IMF to partly reduce maize reserves. (I wasn't taking Berg's word for this, but rather frequent IMF critic ActionAid's.)
It was clear that folks at the IMF did care about the food crisis (and, at least somewhat, about years of criticism from advocates for the poor). Berg agreed that policies like grain reserves should be considered on a country-by-country basis, and he was strongly supportive of crop insurance for small farmers. The IMF panelists I heard said that governments should respond to the food crisis by spending money on social safety nets. This may signal a partial change from the IMF's traditional preoccupation with cutting government spending, partly so governments can make national debt payments and partly on the theory that government spending would somehow "crowd out" otherwise-eager private investment.
Overall, though, the IMF is still disastrously wrong in its unjustified overemphasis on "market signals." Take Malawi's current abundance of grain, which happened largely because the government decided to subsidize fertilizer. In recent decades, various international "experts" have advised many poor countries to stop helping their farmers with affordable loans, seeds, and fertilizer. The theory was that it would be better for farmers to buy these things themselves after selling their crops on the world market -- a great idea if it worked, which it really hasn't.
Malawi's fertilizer program ran directly counter to the advice of the World Bank (which has since repented). And this advice was seconded by IMF executive directors' brief expression of concern last year that Malawi's "government interventions in grain and fertilizer markets have continued to impede private sector development." (At the same time, the IMF assented to the need to "protect ... pro-poor spending," and a recent IMF report says its Malawi staff is now "generally supportive" of the fertilizer program).
Perhaps the most relevant kind of market signal is the way in which, over the last four years, almost all the middle-income countries who had borrowed from the IMF (including 90 percent of its loan portfolio) have run for the exits to escape the IMF's policy, um, advice -- so that it is now mostly the world's poorest countries who are dependent on the nice, but wrong, people at the IMF.
Elizabeth Palmberg is an asssistant editor of Sojourners.






Add to Newsvine




Comments
The most popular god of our times, "Unregulated Global Capitalist Expansion," has his own trinity:
In the name of the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank...
Posted by: Quetzal | July 29, 2008 1:38 PM
Wow.
I hope the IMF employee got half the wisdom and thought out of the conversation that you did.
The notion of 'the market is always right' is core to much of what has enabled inhumane conduct and human misery in this world, particularly the past 40 years.
Your ability to see his earnestness is a gift. I hope he saw half as much as you have.
Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | July 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Believe in the unfettered free market, no matter the cost or evidence showing otherwise, is idolotry. The business conservatives have pulled the wool over the social conservatives on that one. Let's destroy these idols.
Posted by: I and I | July 30, 2008 3:53 PM
Unfortunately it's the same economic philosophy (which seems more like a religion to these folks) that has been ascendant in the U.S. for the past 30 years or so. Ninety percent (or more) of the Republicans about probably half the Democrats subscribe to neo-liberalism in some form.
That's why we're fast becoming a third-world nation ourselves... but a third-world nation with the world's largest, most powerful military. This can't be good for anyone.
Posted by: Crosencreutz | July 31, 2008 3:25 PM
The IMF may have promoted free markets to poor countries, but here in America, where a few large corporations dominate agriculture, they don't seem to mind all the government subsidies.
Like those who pick out just the bits that they like from the Bible and ignore the rest, free marketeers are happy to rail against government interference when it suits them, while forgetting that, in a true free market, no one company is supposed to be powerful enough to have any influence on prices. GM and Exxon hate real competition when they encounter it.
Posted by: p j batchelder | August 1, 2008 6:31 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?