Okay not globalization. The IMF, actually. This is part of a project for a university course on globalization, which is a word that meant nothing to me six weeks ago except "the name of that course I still have to force myself to take". Part of the project is a "creative element that is action-oriented" and I have spent the last six weeks either racking or wracking my brains (depending on how that is meant to be spelled) trying to figure out what sort of call to action was going to result from my research into the IMF.
And then I remembered that information is power, and even though my approach to politics and global concerns is still to suddenly have to be in the other room when they come up, maybe there's someone who will read this and find it mildly interesting and go look up stuff about the IMF's involvement in low or middle income countries and find themselves outraged and holding a sign outside a politician's office. And more power to you.
For the uninitiated - here's what I know that I didn't know six weeks ago. Do with it what you will. (Let me first say that every article I read talked about the empirical nature of the data they were about to present, and let me also say that every single person I have ever met has their own interpretative opinion of just about any piece of empirical data.)
1. What is the IMF?
I think I'd likely heard of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and heard the words and thought "oh nice, some kind of something in place to give financial aid to poor countries. What a nice idea."
So that's not really what the IMF is. The IMF's mandate is to provide short-term relief of macroeconomic problems arrived at by poor countries borrowing money from rich countries and then finding themselves unable to make a payment. (Kind of like Lower Slobovia can't make its car payment in June, so it borrows money from Transylvania. Only then it still can't make its car payment *and* pay Transylvania back, so it goes and asks the IMF to loan it money so it can make all its payments).
2. Isn't that a good thing?
Sure. Maybe. Or not. The IMF doesn't just say "sure, here's the money, pay me back when you can." The IMF says "well, LS, you got yourself into this position by spending too much money on movies and popcorn, so unless you put some kind of governable process in place that limits your movie and popcorn money, we're not lending you this money." Only when it's real countries involved, the controls are somewhat more over-arching.
3. OKAY but fiscal responsibility is STILL a good thing, isn't it?
Sure. Maybe. Or not. The IMF isn't really accountable to anyone, and there's this really fine line between economics and politics (yes, I used that word, on this blog. It may never happen again.) so really, the IMF is saying "well I will tell you how to run your country and nobody is going to make me accountable if that all goes wrong." ( Kind of like if you are somehow addicted to popcorn and the IMF makes you quit cold turkey and your quality of life takes a sudden serious nosedive but they don't pick up the phone to talk you through it).
And here's where it gets tricky. We're all secretly convinced we've got the right answer, on a personal level, on a community level, on a political level. And right now, there's this massive neo-liberal agenda that is being promoted on a global level. (Neoliberal in this context is characterized by the extreme devaluation of labour, supply-side economics, and privatization of just about everything.)
And many of the conditions attendant upon borrowing from the IMF are conditions that equate to little more than the imposition of neoliberal values on countries where they may or may not work. If you've read this far, and you actually find this interesting, check out this article:
And if you're really interested, just type "IMF good or bad" into your search engine and read to your heart's content. (And if you become an activist for IMF reform, could you just send me a quick note so I can let my professor know?)
