United Nations, International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, UNICEF, World Health Organization, and the list goes on... These are international organizations that we often hear or read about. For most of us, our only concern and knowledge about these organizations is that they help in the process of raising the standards of living across the world. End of story. We never really delve into details on what they do, what they promote and what they stand for. And since we don't show much interest on these organizations, we usually view them as powerful, effective and necessary. We have high regards for them because we think that what they do is good for humanity. We think that what they do is out of altruism and that we benefit from it especially those who are in more vulnerable states. Hence, we tend to be skeptical with the criticisms against these organizations because we only know little about them.
Not surprisingly, I am one of those many people who often look up to these international organizations because I thought that they are doing a good job in helping out countries in need. I really didn't give that much attention to them because I'm not really interested with topics related to globalization or international relations. But since I took up Development Studies as a course, I have no choice but to study and learn about these topics. And ever since I was introduced to how international organizations really work, what used to be my perceptions about them changed instantly. My mind welcomed the reality of seeing and understanding the two faces of these international organizations. And it actually helped in reshaping my viewpoints about them. Not to be biased or anything, but after I've read the criticisms against these international organizations by different authors, I think I have to agree with them. Here are some of the criticisms that the authors have noted:
Based on the book written by Joseph Stiglitz (2002) entitled "Globalization and its discontents", he discussed the flaws that he have witnessed against international organizations such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO. The first criticism that he tried to explain is the problem of governance among these international institutions. He mentioned that the seats in these international organizations are dominated by the wealthiest industrial countries. Hence, the commercial and financial interests of these countries usually have a great influence in determining the actions taken by international organizations. Moreover, the IMF is usually headed by a European while the World Bank is headed by an American. The voting process of these heads is done behind closed doors and that the chosen heads are not required to have an expertise with the developing world.
Another problem with governance of these institutions is "who speaks for the country". The IMF is usually led by finance ministers and central bank governors while WTO are represented by trade ministers. And more often than not, these ministers serve their own clients within their countries. Trade ministers usually reflect the concerns of businessmen who want to push through with trade policies that can be beneficial for them. While financial ministers manifest the concerns of the financial community who usually work for the government and then return to their financial firms after their term.
Another criticism pointed out is the unending support of these international organizations to the free market ideology which stems from the Bretton Woods agenda. The Ecologist (2000) cited that these organizations were not created solely for poverty alleviation. They were also created to push for other agendas. In an example provided by Stiglitz (2002), the IMF ignored all the lessons that they could have acquired from their mistakes because they firmly believe that the free market ideology knew all the answers. Any disputes or contradictions against the ideology are quickly rejected because they wanted to prove that their policies and recommendations are accurate and beneficial. Moreover, Stiglitz (2002) also mentioned that because of their market ideology, these international institutions have used the 'one-size-fits-it-all' approach when it comes to giving out their policies and recommendations. This kind of approach neglects the certain condition of a country in need because international institutions believe that their recommendations are suited for all. These institutions do not want to hold public discussions and insisted on discussing policies behind closed doors. Global Envision (2006) also affirmed this criticism noting that the actions of these inernational organizations toward promoting free-market policies always cause undesirable market distortions that often leads to causing more harm than good. In their example, institutions such as the IMF and World Bank provide low interest loans to countries experiencing economic downturns in order to prevent any global economic crisis. However, these loans often come with conditions that an imperiled government must follow by making reforms in its economy to reduce any chances of creating global economic crisis. But what these organizations do not know is that these imperiled countries are not equipped with institutions that properly regulate a market economy than found in developed economies. Hence, forcing a market economy on these unprepared countries result to a 'combination of wealth disparity, increasing poverty and environmental exploitation' (Global Envision, 2006).
Mistakes in sequencing and pacing is also another criticism to be pointed out about these international institutions. Based on Stiglitz (2002), the policies implemented by international organizations usually disregard the broader social context of a country because of their mistakes in sequencing and pacing. An example of this would be the IMF pushing for liberalization before even implementing safety nets, before formulating adequate regulatory framework and before countries could even endure the negative impact of changes in the market.
In an editorial written by The Ecologist, the author noted that although these international organizations aim to alleviate poverty, their policies have done otherwise. It has been argued that over a fifth of the world's population is now poorer. Moreover, the prescriptions given by the World Bank, IMF and WTO have worsen the lives of the citizens in poor countries.
From all the criticisms that some of the authors noted, would it be better if these international organizations are abolished? Would it do any good for any developing country if these organizations are no longer seen as powerful enough to provide and force a country with their failed policies? Would countries be better off without them and would abandoning these organizations will result to the complete eradication poverty? I say, we cannot assume that we're better off without these organizations. They have failed miserably yet there are still benefits shared by our society that were brought about by these organizations. Hence, in a continuing globalized world, we cannot just do away with these organizations because they have already become part of the process of globalization. What must be done is to reshape these organizations in such a way that they would realize their own potentials and would adjust to the changing aspects of the twenty-first century.
References:
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York, NY: Norton & Company, Inc.
"EDITORIAL - Criticism of World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund - Editorial". Ecologist, The. FindArticles.com. 10 Mar, 2012. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_6_30/ai_65653637/
Global Envision ( 27 December 2006). The IMF and the World Bank- An Overview. Retrieved from http://www.globalenvision.org/library/3/1395
No comments:
Post a Comment