World Bank Motives Debate

[cd@xxxxxxxxxx]

on the continuing WB Debate, we refrain from sending further messages, 
and suggest you tune into the debate directly if interested

Nigmendra Narain wrote:
Subject: 
         Re: World Bank Motives 
    Date: 
         Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:15:40 PST 
    From: 
         Nigmendra Narain <NNARAIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: 
         ipe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      To: 
         INTERNATIONAL P
> On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Korsan Yakula Arif wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> >
> > The contents of "Be Wary of Bank's Motive, PNG Advise" are rather
> > surprising.  The author questions the motives of the IMF, claiming that
> > IMF and World Bank perscribed "conditions were only aimed at keeping developing
> > countries forever under the shackles of poverty" and citing Primary Industries
> > Minister Datuk Sari Dr. Lim Keng Yaik asking, rhetorically I hope, "What
> > do these international bodies, including the World Bank and the International
> > Monetary Fund, know about the problems of the developing countries?"
> >
> > Evidently the Minister is not aware of the structure of these international
> > bodies, that is they are comprised of states, including developing
> > countries - for a lack of a better phrase.  IMF and World Bank
> > policy making is based on the contributions and interests of its
> > members.  Notwithstanidng the IMF and World Bank's state centered structure,
> > it is important to note that a state's influence is based on its economic
> > capacity and output.  Thus, one could legitimately argue that IMF and World
> > Bank polices represent the interests of the economic power-houses
> > (primarily the G-7 states) over developing countries.  However, this by no
> > means calls for the conclusion of sweeping and conspiratorial
> > generalizations, such as keeping developing countries in "the shackles of
> > poverty", and inferring that industrialized countries are not
> > aware of the problems facing developing states.  Afterall, many
> > industrialized states, ie. Canada, the United States, are being forced to
> > deal with their debt problems and other social, economic, political
> > concerns caused by fiscal mismanagement.
> >
> >
> > Korsan Y. Arif
> > M.A. Graduate Student
> > University of Waterloo
> > Waterloo, Ontario
> > Canada
> > kyarif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> While it is debatable as to the 'conspiracy' theory about the World Bank,
> can it not be acknowledged that the question of 'on whose terms?' is
> still an angst for the developing states?
> 
> Canada, for example, responds to  international pressures for fiscal
> restraint, debt reduction, etc., it is  on its own terms. The Globe and
> Mail's (one of Canada's national newspapers) article on Canadian Finance
> Minister Paul Martin's future  possibility as PM noted that last year's
> proclaimed cuts were done slowly
> and not as deep as this years. Canada was not forced into an austerity
> program or structural adjustment program. Consider that in the late
> 80's many developing nations faced huge debt crunches and were forced to
> take on programs regardless of the short-term impact on the poor, and
> especially women, etc.  Okay: they, like any state, could choose not to
> comply but maneouvering  room was severely limited and choice was an
> illusion. Meanwhile, Canada  amassed huge debts and it's richest
> province, Ontario, elected two  successive spending governments (Liberal
> [centrist] and NDP [socialist]). Now Ontario has a  fiscally-driven
> government that is  focussed on reducing the debt, cutting  public
> employees, busting the unions and
> reducing government social  services expenditures. Not to debate the
> merits here, just to show that this is on our own terms with a
> democratically elected government, not because an international body's
> terms of loan.
> 
> So what does this have to do with the World Bank? Simply that the
> developed states are largely able to largely maneouver through the IPE on
> their own terms and timelines responding to the changes. Many developing
> nations are reliant on the World Bank and IMF to survive in the IPE, and
> these two bodies often are involved in setting the economic agenda for
> states. In India, with the coming of elections in April, the World Bank
> is waiting to see who comes into power before proceeding with further
> projects and economic reform options. What will happen if an
> anti-reformist, pro-nationalist, Delhi-socialist, import-substitution tilt
> re-emerges there? The  government would have a very tough time at the IMF
> and World Bank because the international financial agenda is one of free
> trade and reducing barriers.
> 
> The angst of the developing states about the developed
> states control of the international financial system is not new (NIEO), and
> the differential impact of financial shocks in the international system
> is not new (oil shocks). But admittedly, the fact that the developed
> states can be dictated to because they need development aid/financial
> assistance is a legitimate gripe. If a developed state were told by an
> international body that one of the terms for international financial
> assistance was that it needed to increase export levies on a product
> that other states did not want competition in the global marketplace for,
> what would be the response?
> 
> Nigmendra Narain, MA, Univ of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, CANADA