donderdag 31 december 2015

Transcript lecture Dean Muraya

The I.M.F and The World Bank: Tools of Neoliberal Imperialism

By: Dean Muraya

Transcript from a lecture given on November 30th 2014.

Introduction

The Third World[1] appeared as a ‘project’ during the struggle against colonialism (Prashad, 2008, pg. xv). In fact the term Third World was coined in Europe in the 19th Century (Prashad, 2008, pg. 6). A derogatory term to signify the inferior status of the global south, nonetheless it spurned into a word of resistance, a concept of the liberation from colonial rule. The term Third World formed a common solidarity among former colonized nations as they stood up to imperialism in the numerous national­liberation struggles in the 1950’s and 1960’s. This was further personified with the establishment of the Non­Aligned Movement, and the forming of the United Nations (Prashad, 2008, pg. xvi). It is commonly regarded that the Third World completed their project of emancipation and wrestled free from their colonial masters. This was evident as colonized nations gained independence one after the other. With the liberation of colonized nations complete, it was assumed that imperialism had met its end. However imperialism survived and in the cold ashes of greed, violence and destruction it was able –like a phoenix­ to recreate itself albeit in a different image but the inextinguishable desire for wealth still burned in its heart. 
This new form of imperialism has its roots in the neoliberal project that was started in the 1970’s. Two institutions should gain special mention for the existence and the persistence of this neo­imperialism. These two institutions are the World Bank and the I.M.F. How these two institutions have managed to fulfil imperial desires despite the devastation and destitution it leaves in its wake will be the discussion for tonight. 
Imperialism seems to be somewhat of an abstract concept it has many faces that are difficult to identify and works in multiple layers that makes it difficult to detect. Especially in its neoliberal form. 
However Hannah Arendt in her brilliant work: ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ has given us something to work, with. She has successfully been able to define imperialism by identify its two characteristics. Which makes it easier to detect even if it engages in its historic act of shape­shifting. 
Arendt explicitly states that:
 “imperialism is not empire building and expansion is not conquest (Arendt, 1951, pg. 130)”
So what is it?
Well imperialism can be defined by two processes: Imperialism is the perpetual accumulation of capital (wealth) through the perpetual accumulation of power. 
Why is power necessary in the pursuit of perpetual capital? This is because power defies all laws, including economic ones. 
“Money could finally beget money because power, with complete disregard for all laws­economic as well as ethical­could appropriate wealth” (Arendt, 1951, pg 137).
Now the elite class in the 19th century had a problem, they were confined to the boundaries of their nation and could not accumulate perpetual capital because of this (Arendt, 1951, pg. 130). They could export their capital to other markets through investments so that money could beget money as they put it, but they would have to face economic laws that would result in the slow and limited accumulation of capital or they would be barred fully through economic laws referred to as protectionism. Thus imperialism was their savings grace, through the export of power in the form of colonialism they could bend the economic laws and export their capital and would be able to accumulate huge sums of wealth (Arendt, 1951, pg. 136­137). However as we talked about in the beginning the national­liberation struggles of colonial nations won independence and imperialism was defeated. This did not quell the elite classes desire for money once again to beget money, especially since the world was becoming more and more globalized, meaning that capital was not restricted to the boundaries of the nation state but it still had to contend with economic laws. But through the actions of the World Bank and the I.M.F in the 1980’s economic laws that barred the perpetual accumulation of capital were removed, through the export of power, but this is not power as we are used to seeing it. This was the export of soft power. The results of this neoliberal imperial project implemented by the World Bank and the I.M.F in the 1980’s has had spectacular results that have lasted 34 years.
     2/3 of economies in the world are controlled or have been controlled by the World Bank and the I.M.F (Pieper and Taylor, 1996, pg. 1). The lack of control a nation has over its own economy seriously undermines its national sovereignty, but national sovereignty is a foolish concept when your country is regarded as territory. 
If we look at the case of the African continent we can see the fruits of imperial ambitions:
     In a multi­participatory report conducted by credible social justice organizations such as the jubilee debt campaign, the tax justice network and the world development movement entitled ‘Honest Accounts? The
True Story of Africa’s Billion Dollar Loses’ concluded that;
     134 billion dollars flows into Africa whilst, 192 billion flows out (Honest Accounts, 2014, pg. 6).
     That means for every 100 euros given in aid 640 euros is given back to the wealthy nations (Honest Accounts, 2014, pg. 5). 
     The biggest outflow is attributed to multi­national corporations who extract 46.3 billion in profits (Honest Accounts, 2014, pg. 6). Africa is not an isolated case, there are many Third World countries who are being plundered by multi­national corporations. This wouldn’t be possible without the I.M.F and the World Bank forcing Third World nations to remove restrictions on the activities of multi­national corporations.; to give you an idea of how damaging the activity of unrestrained multi­national corporations can be we can take the case of Uganda. The Government of Uganda lost 400 million dollars in capital gains tax (which is a tax levied on the profits from the sale of property or an investment) when one mineral company sold its license. The 400 million dollars that was lost due to one company was larger than the budget allocated to Uganda’s Health Care (Honest Accounts, 2014, pg. 11). (this matter is being resolved in court).

Its no wonder the New York Times in a 2004 publication refers to the
World bank and the I.M.F as ‘The Overlords of Africa[2]


Imperial ambitions seem to be in the logic of the bank, in an internal memo Chief economist of the World Bank Larry Summers had this to say:
“Just between you and me should, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDC’s [Less­developed countries]?... I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that… I’ve always thought that underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly under­polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City.. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand… the problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDC’s (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets etc) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization”3.

About the organization

The I.M.F and the World bank were set up in 1944 at the Bretton woods conference (Ismi, 2004, pg. 7). This conference was set up to establish the new global economic system. Since the United States emerged as the sole economic superpower after World War II, the new economic system was crafted to its liking (Ismi, 2004, pg.7).
The I.M.F was set up to facilitate deficits with short term loans, whilst the World bank would focus on long term loans for economic development and infrastructure. 
The U.S has de facto control over both the World Bank and the I.M.F, this is because in the I.M.F it has 17.16% voting shares and in the World Bank it has 16.41% voting shares, this gives the United States exclusive veto power in the areas that need 85% majority, which happen to be in the areas of administering voting quotas and the article of agreement, basically allowing it to veto any mandate it doesn’t like without anyone to challenge its position now or in the future (Ismi, 2004, pg. 7). 
However mandates are not important to both the bank or the fund, as both violate their mandate which explicitly states that neither the bank or fund will engage in political activity, yet it constantly violates its own mandates starting in the 1980’s and continuing today, all in the name of neo­imperialism[3]
How did the bank­fund gain control over 2/3 of the world’s economy? In 1982 Third World countries were crushed by the oil shocks of the 1970’s and entered into a debt crisis, just about being able to swim and needing serious help the World Bank and later the I.M.F stepped in to help (Ismi, 2004, pg.8). They issued loans to these heavily indebted countries but at a price, besides the interest rate the loans came with conditions. Known as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s) (Ismi, 2004, pg.8).

Structural Adjustment Program

Structural adjustment programs are the conditions attached to the loans given to the Third World countries who were being ravaged by the debt crisis of 1982. 
These conditions are meant to restructure a countries economy to fit the neoliberal ideology where open markets paired with deregulation, privatisation and minimal government interference are the factors that lead to economic growth (Ismi, 2004, pg 8). They were also used to restructure the economies of Third World countries so that they become export­led economies, where the main driver of the economy is the exportation of primary commodities. 
Structural adjustment programs consisted of the following policies:
     Devaluing the currency
     Cuts in Social Spending­ like Healthcare, Education.
     Shrinking of Government ● Increase on interests rates ● Privatization
     Investment liberalization
     Trade liberalization
     Elimination of subsidies of basic goods
     Lowering of wages
     Increase the price of public services
     Re­orientation to export economy.

These measure have led to the impoverishment of Third World countries, rendering them as territory for the exploitation of multi­national corporations and the whims of foreign investment. It has deprived the people of the Third World of the high living standards often taken for granted in wealthy nations. Health Care is virtually non­existent, Education guaranteed for every child is non­existent, access to clean water and electricity for all is non­existent, wages allowing one to live a decent life is continually slashed. It has created export processing zones were corporations enjoy tax free­status and where labour regulations don’t apply. It has left domestic producers unable to compete with the multi­national corporations, allowing multi­national corporations to dominate in every sector you could think of, leaving the Third World in a state of colonial dependency. It has restructured the economies of the Third World so their main focus is exportation of primary commodities, leading to the environmental degradation of the Third World, the displacement of indigenous peoples, and the sad fact that the Third World has enough resources that contribute to most high quality goods but are unable to process them themselves due to the technological gap imposed on them ad infinitum, it leads to the sad fact that the Third World exports enough to feed other nations but cannot feed itself. 
For example in the year 1970­1997, Sub­Saharan Africa was the only region in the world to face a decrease in domestic food production, calories supply and protein supply for the population. Despite being an export led economy of primary commodities such as food (Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 7). 
These policies are so unpopular that Since 1976, over a 100 protests have occurred in countries dealing with the World Bank and the I.M.F (Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 3).
Structural Adjustment programs have been a complete failure, not only on the African continent. If we look at Latin America, after 15 years of following the advice of the World Bank and the I.M.F by 1999 it had suffered its worst period of socio­economic deprivation, with 60 million people rendered poor in 10 years (Ismi, 2004, pg.9). 
Even to the Banks own admission their policies have been a failure, during the year 1994­2003 when Sap’s were in full effect until their revocation in 2002, the bank admitted that during this period the poverty level in the Third World had increased by 75% (Ismi, 2004, pg. 11)
I want to give you a sense of how pervasive Structural Adjustment policies have been around the globe and the devastation it leaves in its wake. So I’ll be giving you few cases of countries who have involved themselves with the bank­fund and have followed their policies to the tee, and the results such policies have derived. In each case, it is clear that the clients the bank­fund purport to serve, i.e the poor are the ones that suffer the most while the clients the Bank­Fund actually serve which are the elite class benefit the most. 
Haiti has had a long history with the World bank and the I.M.F starting in the
1980’s and as a result of following their policies:
     70% of Haitians are unemployed
     4 in 10 have access to drinking water
     The local population is virtually dependent on imported food, U.S
Subsidized rice accounts for 75% of the rice market in Haiti
     The I.M.F has insisted that wages be kept at poverty level and any increases in wages has to be offset by firings­ at the same time the I.M.F has encouraged the Haitian Govt to offer bonuses to foreign investors. 
(Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 12)
A more illuminating example would be Mexico.
Mexico suffered from the debt crisis of the 1980’s, the World Bank and the I.M.F stepped in to help and attached Structural Adjustment policies to the loans given to the Mexican Government. 
In a span of 9 years from 1981­1990
     Real wages fell by 75%
     Worker share of national income went from 49% to 29%
(Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 4)
Yet the World Bank praised Mexico for being a ‘model student’.
The bank also imposed the following conditions, that are literally an attack on the poor:
     Slashed regulation regarding severance pay
     Prohibited collective bargaining
     Prohibited obligatory benefits to workers
     Prohibited Company sponsored training
     Prohibiting Social Security
     Prohibiting Government housing
(Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 5)
The World Bank in the Same period as a condition of their loan called for Mexico’s telecommunications network to be privatized. To make the deal sweeter for foreign investors the bank insisted that the telephone rate increase from 16 pesos to 115 pesos (Global Exchange, 2001, pg.4). 
Stable prices and subsidies for basic food such as rice and corn were a lifesaver for many Mexican farmers. The I.M.F forbids the Mexican government to deliver subsidies so they were revoked at the same time subsidized U.S corn could flood the market and reduce the local price by 45%, effectively rendering Mexican farmers unemployed (Global Exchange, 2001, pg. 4). 
The I.M.F was not done, it insisted that the Mexican Government devalue its currency and increase interest rates, the result was that Mexico experienced the worst depression in 60 years (Global Exchange, 2001, pg.4­5).
After The World Bank and I.M.F were finished infant deaths due to malnutrition tripled. Less than half of its population before Sap’s lived in poverty, after Sap’s 2/3 of the population live in poverty (Ismi, 2004, pg. 10).

In Ghana 3/4 of the loans are from the World Bank and the I.M.F (Honest
Accounts, 2014, pg.9). In the course of their relationship with the bank and fund, Ghana went from being fully self­sufficient in rice production to being totally dependent on U.S rice that I must stress again is subsidized (Ismi, 2004, pg. 16). 
Sap’s Led to the privatization of Ghana’s mining sector, as well as allowing up to 95% of profits to be transferred into foreign accounts tax free so that the Ghanaian people won't see a penny, it also resulted in the abolition of income tax (Ismi, 2004, pg. 16). Furthermore due to restructuring Ghana into an export led economy it went from being an exporter of timber now to an importer of timber, you can imagine the environmental degradation as a result of this (Ismi, 2004, pg. 17). 

In Nicaragua as part of the SAP’s conditions the bank and the fund insisted on the privatisation of the electricity sector in 1998, in 2000 the entire electricity sector was privatized. Following true neoliberal dogma, the bank maintained the stance that the privatisation of the electricity sector would lead to increased electrical output and lower tariffs (Aseed Report, 2008, pg.27­28). 
Well Spanish corporation Union Fenosa won the bid and had a complete monopoly of the energy sector. The results were staggering electrical efficiency decreased so badly that the people of Nicaragua experienced 12 hour power cuts, daily and tariffs increased by 300% in 5 years (Aseed Report, 2008, pg.27­28). 
These were only brief examples to illustrate the destructive nature of SAP’s, advocated by the Bank and the Fund. Its interesting to note that in the 1980’s 70 countries initiated SAP’s, 40 of them are now in the poorest of the poor club, entitled the HIPC­ Heavily Indebted Poor Nations (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.5). In fact according to Cambridge economist Ha­joon Chang when the Third World was practicing ‘bad economics’, as described by the bank because they did not adhere to neoliberal policies they were doing better and their economies were growing at such a speed that has not been recaptured yet (Chang, 2007 pg. 27). 
Perhaps the failure of SAP’s are best captured by A 3 year­ multi country study released in 2002 by the Structural Adjustment participatory review International Network in collaboration with the World bank had this to say: 

“SAP’s have been expanding poverty, inequality and insecurity around the world…torn at the heart of economies and the social fabric. Increased tensions among different social strata, fuelling extremist movements and de­legitimizing democratic principles. Their effects particularly on the poor are so profound and pervasive that no amount of targeted social investment can begin to address the social crisis they have engendered (Ismi, 2004, pg. 5­6)”
Although Structural Adjustment programs technically ended in 2002, in reality this is not the case. The bank and the fund still impose the same principles on developing countries. All they’ve done is put a new dress on the same bad set of policies. Which we shall discuss later. 
Now why on earth would Governments accept such a lethal dose of policies that have been impoverishing their nation up until today? Remember I mentioned that imperialism is the perpetual accumulation of capital through the perpetual accumulation of power. I said the bank and the fund employ soft power to facilitate the perpetual accumulation of capital. They do this by capitalizing on crisis like the debt crisis of the 1980’s when nations are desperate for credit the only institutions that can provide an adequate size of credit and relatively quickly are the I.M.F and the World Bank. Furthermore The I.M.F acts as a seal of approval, if the I.M.F revokes its seal of approval from a nation that nation cannot receive credit from any other lending institution (Ismi, 2004, pg.9). Therefore Nations are forced to comply with I.M.F demands. Furthermore sometimes employing the demands of the firm can allow nations to be included into the WTO, as was the case with Vietnam (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg. 16­17) which we shall discuss later. To give you an idea of the importance of being a member of the WTO it is widely considered that removal from the WTO is considered to be economic suicide. Due to the fact that you cannot trade with the 160 nations that are part of the WTO. 
Apart from stifling economic development; acting contrary to their supposed mission, the World Bank and the I.M.F disregard their own mandates and article of agreement in order to fulfil neo­imperial desires. 

The Record of the Bank and Fund

Imperialism is the perpetual accumulation of capital through the perpetual accumulation of power. I mentioned earlier during the brief history of SAP’s that the Bank­fund rely on soft power, in order to facilitate imperial ambitions. But soft power is power nonetheless and power is necessary to ensure the perpetual accumulation of capital and is coveted by the elite class. For two reasons as previously stated power defies all laws including economic laws. Second power is not impeded by the constraints of morality. The bank­fund display these two characteristics quite well, they have effectively denied natural economic laws and second their actions are devoid of any moral considerations. The bank­fund are agencies that ensure the prosperity of the wealthy elite, this role is supervised by the United States. The overt control the United States exercises on the bank­fund have been dismissed as conspiracy theories. A useful tactic to discredit dissidents, and suppress information that otherwise should be taken seriously. The trouble is that these supposed conspiracy theories unlike other conspiracy theories are grounded in fact. For example in a 2002 report reviewing the horrendous results of structural adjustment programs, the bank lamented that: ‘Safety nets should be in place before market reforms are pushed onto the Third World’. However the U.S Treasury wanted that little snippet of common sense omitted from the publication and they got their way, leading to several members who authored the report quitting the bank in protest (Nordiska Afrika Institutet, 2007, pg. 18). 

Ironically the only conspiracy theory is the notion that the bank­fund actually obey their own articles of agreement­ which clearly stipulate what the bank­fund can or cannot do. One such agreement is that both the bank and the fund cannot engage in political activity, and that political considerations should not affect the lending practices of the bank or the fund. History has proven that the bank­fund are above the law, any law including their own. A perfect example would be the case of Chile and the tragic fate of Salvador Allende. Salvador Allende was democratically elected president of Chile in 1970, he immediately began to implement policies that would help the working class and the poor, his overall aim was to convert Chile into a socialist state. Allende in 3 years managed to:
     Nationalize 91 key industries, putting a lot of multi­national corporations out of business[4].
     He redistributed around 59% of Chile’s agricultural land, so that landless working class and the Chilean population could move towards self­sufficiency and cut down on the importation of basic foods[5]
     Rent reduction was implemented as well as Government housing for the most vulnerable[6]
     Malnutrition reduced by 20%[7]
     Real wages increased by 56%
His actions not only angered the financial elite in Chile, but Uncle Sam. The
United States government was so angered by Allende’s reform particularly the nationalization of key industries its corporations had a grip over that in 1972,
Nixon called on the World Bank to: “Make the Chilean economy scream” (Ismi, 2004, pg.8). The Bank complied and withheld Financial aid to the Chilean economy destabilizing the economy whilst the C.I.A effectively festered a coup. The coup ensued and with it ended Allende’s presidency and his life. The dictator General Pinochet came into power and in his 17 year reign of terror killed 130,000 Chileans (Ismi, 2004, pg.8). Did the Bank cut aid to Pinochet’s Government? Quite the contrary they rewarded him for his murderous spree by dishing out 350 million dollars, 13 times more than they gave Allende (Ismi, 2004, pg.8). 
The World Bank and The I.M.F are full of contradictions, so much so that it has resorted to scapegoating in order to deflect attention from the results of their economic policies. The Bank­Fund have often taken on a patronizing tone with Third World Countries often blaming them and their culture for the failure of neoliberal policies. The bank­fund often blame corruption and bad governance for the failure of their policies. Ironically it is the bank­fund that assist and tolerate corrupt regimes, their affinity for bad governance goes so far that the more corrupt a regime is the higher the financial rewards it receives from the bank­fund. 
Transparency International listed the top 3 most corrupt politicians[8]:
1.    Mohamed Suharto President of Indonesia from 1967­1998 (31 years)
2.    Ferdinand Marcos President of the Philippines from 1972­1986 (14 years)
3.    Mobutu Sese Seko President of Zaire (Now the DRC) from 1965­1997 (32 years)
The World Bank and The I.M.F have had special relationships with all 3.
Lets start with number 1.
Suharto was named president in 1967 and stayed until 1998. Walt Rostow special advisor to Lyndon Johnson told the World Bank president Robert McNamara that “The World Bank’s support is essential if Suharto is to stay afloat” (Hanlon, 2007, pg.42). The Bank complied and gave him 30 billion between 1966­1998 (Hanlon, 2007, pg.42). 10 billion was stolen with the banks full knowledge. In an internal memo dated 1997, it stated:
“We estimate that at least 20­30% of development budget funds are diverted through informal payments to Indonesian Government officials and staff
(Hanlon, 2007,pg.42)”. This did not seem to deter the Bank in the slightest. The bank also Sent 1 billion to Suharto to finance the transmigration program (Hanlon, 2007 pg.42) that resulted in the massacre of 200,000 East Timorese. 
Number 2.
Ferdinand Marcos was president of the Philippines from 1965­1986. He stole 5­10 billion dollars. During his reign the Philippines incurred the largest single debt derived from a bogus infrastructure scheme approved by the World Bank (Hanlon, 2007, pg. 46). The project was to build a nuclear power plant called the Baatan Nuclear power station to the tune of 2 billion dollars (Hanlon, 2007, pg. 46). The plant was built but was never used, because it was built on an earthquake fault at the foot of a volcano. Not a single Watt of electricity has been produced by the plant, but the Filipino people still have to pay 170,000 dollars a day until the year 2018 (Hanlon, 2007, pg. 46­47). The bank has the largest budget for research with top economists, experts and academics at their disposal, this was not a mistake but a calculated scheme to make a profit off of the Filipino people.
Number 3
Mobuto Sese Seko, was president of Zaire, now the DRC from 1965­1997. When Mobutu came into power the I.M.F put their own man Ian Blumenthal in a key position in the Central bank of Zaire. He resigned within a year citing unfathomable corruption (Hanlon, 2007, pg. 47). After his resignation the I.M.F granted Mobutu the largest loan had ever given to an African country which was 700 million (Hanlon, 2007, pg. 47). 
The Bank­Fund are quite happy to shelter, appease and provide for Dictators or corrupt regimes, like I said previously the bank­fund are not restricted by morals. It is why they make such an effective agency of neo­imperialism. It was the same case with 19th Century Imperialism when the elite classes were all too happy to back fascist regimes like the nazi’s[9]. As long as politicians comply with the golden rule of profit over people the bank­fund are all to happy to assist them financially, as soon as a leaders disobey the golden rule and start implementing policies that help their people to the detriment of the financial elite the bank steps in and cuts of aid and communication.
 In all 3 cases the bank­fund knew that these leaders were pocketing cash, but the bank­fund continued to lend these countries huge sums money, money that went into the facilitation of human rights abuses, money that went into bogus infrastructure projects, money that didn’t improve the living standard of the people under the corrupt regimes. How can the bank­fund have the audacity to purport that they care about economic development, good governance, or the poor? Because the fact of the matter is the bank fund haven’t cancelled illegitimate debts incurred countries like the
Philippines, they still insist that the poor pay for the negligence of the Bank and fund. This insistence for the repayment of loans the bank­fund gave in bad faith, is a testament to the state of the banks moral conscious and reaffirms whose interests the bank­fund actually serve. 

Neo­Liberal Agenda Continued.
After World Wide dissent the World Bank and the I.M.F officially ended their Structural Adjustment program. The Bank­Fund like all other powerful institutions that are caught with their pants down, promised to clean up their act. Sadly powerful institutions are good at portraying ‘business as usual’ as ‘reform’ or ‘change’. The bank­fund are no different, and have successfully managed to put a new dress on Structural adjustment policies and continue to further the neoliberal agenda, with three programs. 
1.    Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
2.    Doing Business Ranking 
3.    Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers were introduced in 1999 (Malaluan and
Guttal, 2003, pg. 1). The idea is that the paper is drawn up together with the
World Bank and the I.M.F and a country government for concessional loans[10]. The papers are supposedly meant to address poverty explicitly and deal with it accordingly to the nature of the country and come up with strategies to address them. 
The Bank­Fund like to talk about PRSP’s as much as they can because they claim that it serves as proof that they have learnt from their mistakes and have turned a new leaf by:
     Abandoning the one size fits all method implemented with SAP’s now
PRSP’s are tailor made on a country to country basis. 
     The Papers are drawn up together with governments and civil servants giving it the veneer of democracy.
(Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg. 2)
Poverty Reduction Strategies came about through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.2). These consist of countries who are heavily indebted due to SAP’s and are extremely poor due to SAP’s and which have to draft a paper detailing the methods that will alleviate poverty. The papers are drawn up by country governments and civil servants through a platform of national dialogue where the poor get to participate. But the truth is there is no national dialogue, the papers are drafted behind closed doors without the knowledge of the poor let alone their input (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg. 9­10). Furthermore the papers are drafted under the supervision of the bank­fund, anything that is outside the neoliberal paradigm of thought is excluded (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.7). Absurdly anything remotely social is revoked from the papers, which happens to be exactly what the poor in these Heavily indebted poor countries would want, just like everybody else they want free healthcare, they want free education, they want welfare, they want subsidized basic foods so that they don’t starve to death, they want cheap access to water and electricity, they want multi­national corporations to pay taxes, they want labor rights, they want environmental protection,  they want an increase in minimum wage­ but its not what the bank wants so the Governments don’t ask for them. Its imperative to understand the power the bank­fund have over Third World countries, they control 2/3 of the planets economies, they act as the seal of approval for other donors, donor countries and lending institutions base their loans on PRSP’s (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg. 3). Therefore if a government would like to adhere to the wants and needs of their people and  implement social policies they can’t find a donor who would finance them. Therefore you can see how the Bank­fund undermines national sovereignty and how Third World countries are run by a virtual unelected parliament whose constituents are corporations and the financial elite. If you would like to know what a plutocracy is, this is it. 
A few examples:
     In 2003, the World Bank withheld 1 billion dollars from the Zambian Government because they refused to privatize the state­owned Zambian National Commercial Bank. The President, Parliament and the Public refused to sell citing the grounds that it would lead to millions being without easy access to credit that would stifle economic development (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.3). 
     In 2002 in Nicaragua the bank­fund demanded that they privatize their water resources, this request came after parliament passed a law stating that water privatization would be halted until a national debate is conducted, the bank­fund have refused to recognize this law
(Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.4). 
     In Pakistan in the year 2002, NGO’s, Consumer Rights Groups, Journalists unions, Research Institutes and the Human Rights Commissions, published an open letter to the Ministry Of finance denouncing PRSP’s on the grounds that it is another form of SAP’s that undermine development and democratic processes (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg. 4).

This open letter would be useful if the bank cared about economic development or human rights. One of the ways of alleviating poverty is for a country to form an export processing zone, this is an area where labor rights don’t apply multi­national corporations get special benefits and everything produced is exported. E.g in Kenya Multinational corporations operating in EPZ get a 10 year tax free holiday, which they can renew if they simply change ownership of the company (Tax Justice Network, 2012, pg. 4), EPZ like Kenya are dotted everywhere in Africa and contribute to the 35.6 billion dollars that leaves Africa every year in illicit capital flows, derived from policies such as tax free holidays (Honest Accounts, 2014, pg. 5). 
On the issue of human rights the I.M.F is quite clear During the 25th meeting of the U.N Sub­Commission on Human Rights, the I.M.F claimed that it did not have to abide by human rights standards and is not bound by human right declarations or conventions because human rights is not included in their article of agreements (Malaluan and Guttal, 2003, pg.12). 

The Bank through these new policies are truly showing their true colors the days of subtlety are gone. The Bank created the doing Business ranking in 2003, this ranks countries based on how easy it is to do business for a foreign investor[11]. It is index based, with the regulating laws of the economy taken into account the more regulation the lower the country is ranked. The doing Business index is hugely popular almost all investors use the index in order to make decisions on their investment. The doing Business Ranking is the epitome of neoliberal imperialism, it forces countries to compete against each other in order to reduce their regulatory laws so that multi­national corporations and foreign investors benefit at the expense of the nation’s population (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 7). Effectively creating a race to the bottom. It streamlines the avenues for exploitation, resulting in perpetual accumulation of capital, and countries cannot help but abide by the rules of neoliberalism even if its to the detriment of majority of their own people because they are bound by the soft power of the bank­fund that became so great due to years of perpetual accumulation of power that started in the 1980’s. 
 Liberia and Sierra Leone were rated as good performers in 2008, with
Liberia making the top 10 ranking (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 8). This is because both Sierra Leone and Liberia relaxed regulations that made it easier for multi­national corporations to enter the country and enjoy tax breaks. Well 6 years later where do they score on the living standard index? Where does making business easier for foreign investors translate into making life easier for the citizens of Liberia and Sierra Leone? Sierra Leone and Liberia are being ravaged by Ebola due to an inadequate health care system. You have to ask yourselves, why there isnt a functioning health care system? why don’t they have enough revenue to build more hospitals, train more doctors, buy protective gear and for God’s sake purchase decent chlorine? Well they could if they didn’t have to give tax breaks in order to attract foreign investors and be lauded as ‘good performers’.

The Bank­Fund are not done with the plunder of the Third World.  In 2008 at the insistence of the G­8 the bank was instructed to create a doing business ranking for agriculture. 
The bank complied and devised the program entitled: Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 5). This was created with the aim of strengthening agribusiness globally and enable farmers to participate in the market (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 5).
The bank purports to protect the small scale farmer but has strongly advocated for large­scale industrial agribusiness as they way out of poverty, but large scale­ industrial agribusiness is a euphemism for the displacement and exploitation of the farmer, in a process that renders a country dependent when it used to be self­sufficient. In fact the program of the bank has led to land grabs by MNC in
Uganda 2011, Honduras 2012 and Cambodia in 2014 (Oakland
Institute, 2014, pg. 6). 

The Bank has devised contract framing as the avenue for economic growth and prosperity (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 7). Contract farming is when a firm makes a contract with a farmer to produce certain foods which the firm will buy. It is lauded by the bank as a win­win scenario, the farmer no longer can be outcompeted by MNC because it works for them. However they are two problems:
     It leads to export oriented cash crops­ that does degrades the food security of a nation.
     It leads to the intensifies use of fertilizers and genetically modified seeds.
     (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 7)
Most farmers cannot afford the fertilizers or the seeds, and therefore spend more money on buying inputs than feeding themselves. Furthermore the fertilizers degrade the environment, making it harder to create the same yield as last year except if you buy more fertilizers and more genetically modified seeds.
This leaves farmers in a state of dependency on the cartel consisting of Monsanto, Dupoint and Syngeta which control 50% of the worlds modified seeds. This leaves farmers more vulnerable than ever (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 8).
As was the case in India where 250,000 farmers committed suicide in the last
10 years for being too heavily indebted due to the cost of fertilizers and seeds (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg.8). 
By following the neoliberal policies of the Bank it leads to the degradation of the farmers and the nation, it doesn’t improve food security but destroys it, it doesn’t lead to economic development but regression. By following the neoliberal policies of the bank a nation is transformed into an export processing zone, and leads to the paradoxical state where by a nation can feed other’s but cannot feed itself. 
As is the case of Guatemala which used to be self­sufficient in grain production before the World Bank I.M.F involvement. Now it is mainly an importer, importing 750,00 tons of corn in 2013, 630,00 of which is imported from the United States, corn which again is subsidized. Unfathomably Guatemala is the 5th largest exporter of Sugar, Coffee and Bananas but its Government has to dish out food rations (Oakland Institute, 2014, pg. 9). It defies logic and it defies economic development, what the Bank and the I.M.F are prescribing to Third World countries is their death sentence by neoliberal injection. 

Kicking away the ladder

“Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate." –Edward Said. (2003)
It is a tactic the World Bank and the I.M.F have told the World and themselves, that they are here to help bring economic development to the Third World, that they are here to ensure prosperity to end poverty, to show the ignorant Third World how it’s done. Their honesty is as distasteful as their actions. The only thing the World Bank and the I.M.F have succeeded in doing is fulfilling neo­imperial ambitions, the trans­national actors that have formed the new dominant economic class in the era of globalization, have used the bank and the fund, to ensure the perpetual accumulation of capital. I use the word perpetual because the World bank and the I.M.F have rendered nations of the Third World into territories for exploitation ad infinitum, they have rendered Third World countries into a state of colonial dependency, relying on MNC to sustain their economy, relying on the approval of the Bank­Fund in order to gain access to any form of credit, depriving them of any form of national sovereignty. These are the effects of neo­imperialism, you could say the project that started in the 1970’s is now complete. 
One of the aspects of imperialism is destroying any form of alternative to the established order. The bank­fund have managed to do this quite effectively by a process Ha­Joon Chang Economics professor at Cambridge terms: “Kicking away the ladder”.
Neoliberal economists have been asserting without any empirical evidence that free­trade is the only way to economic development. That the market will solve everything as long as it is unrestricted. They have denounced Government intervention of any sort, and have lauded privatization, capital and trade liberalization as the 3 steps to prosperity. They have completely re­written history. They maintain that all developed nations practiced free trade, and it was their adoption of free trade that resulted in them acquiring their huge sums of wealth and led to them being the prosperous nations they are today. They cite the examples of Britain and the United States who are the champions of free trade. If developed nations did why can't the rest of the World? The problem is that these statements made by free market economists that litter the bank­fund are based on zero historical evidence. 
In his astounding book by Ha­Joon Chang entitled ‘Bad Samaritans’, Chang meticulously details how none of the developed nations practiced free trade on their route to development. All of them practiced protectionism and state led intervention, methods which are denied to the Third World, hence the term kicking away the ladder. To give you an example the bank­fund prohibits the Third World from using subsidies, especially subsidies directed at basic foods, such as corn rice etc. Yet the rich countries give a 100 billion dollars’ worth of subsidies to the agricultural sector every year[12]
The hypocrisy only gets worse. The Bank and the fund consistently deny the Third World the very practices that the developed nations themselves used in order to develop economically. 
Free­trade economists will tell you that Britain and the U.S got rich from free trade and everyone else who did the same reaped the same rewards. Yet historically Britain and the United States were the two most protectionist countries in the World.
Britain started its protectionist course when Walpole regarded as the first British prime minister implemented protectionist policies in order to protect its vulnerable industries in 1721, many of the methods denied to Third World countries such as tariffs on imported manufactured goods and export subsidies were used by Britain (Chang, 2007, pg. 44). Britain remained a highly protectionist country up until the mid­19th century, with tariffs on imported manufactured goods peaking at 45­55% in 1820’s as compared to 12% in Germany and 20% in protectionist France (Chang, 2007, pg. 45). Britain were so protectionist that they banned exports from colonies that would compete with its products at home, it banned cotton textile imports from india, and others through the Wool Act (Chang, 2007, pg. 45). It forced its colonies to adopt policies that would render it primary commodity exporter so that they would never compete with British manufacturing­ this is reminiscent of the World Bank­I.M.F policy that render their economies into export led economies specializing in primary production, and restricting them from setting up protectionist measures so they cannot develop industries that would compete with the industries of the developed nations. It wasn’t until Britain gained economic dominance through protectionism that it started championing free trade (Chang, 2007, pg. 47) and effectively kicking away the ladder for everyone else, as Economist Friedrich List put it: 
“It is a very common clever device that when anyone, has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him. In this lies the secret in the cosmopolitical doctrine of Adam Smith, and of the cosmopolitical tendencies of his great contemporary William Pitt and of all his successors in the British Government Administration.
Any Nation, which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free trade with her, can do nothing wiser than throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations, the benefit of free trade and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in paths of error and now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth (Chang, 2003, pg. 5)”

The United States followed the same route. Alexander Hamilton the first Treasury Secretary of the United States coined the term Infant industry, he argued that the U.S should protect its local industries using protectionist measures so that they don’t get outcompeted, once they can stand on their own two feet they can open up the market and introduce free trade (Chang, 2007, pg.49). Thus the United States became the most protectionist country in the World, at the same time it became the fastest growing economy in the world (Chang, 2007, pg. 55), from 1820’s up until the end of the Second World War tariffs remained on an average of 40% (Chang, 2007, pg. 51­54). It was only until the end of the second world war when the United States emerged as the dominant economic power that it started championing free trade; and it was predicted. Ulysses Grant President of the United States from 1868­1876 stated:
“For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks protection can no longer offer it anything, very well then, Gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer it too will adopt free trade (Chang, 2003, pg. 6)”

Therefore as Chang astutely put it:
Historically it has been proven that liberalization, free trade has been the outcome of economic development not the cause.
Neoliberalism does not lead to economic growth, it stifles it. 
Mexico after adopting the pill of neoliberalism resulted in a 0.1 % growth in GDP per Capita. During the years of 1985­1995, before I.M.F World Bank involvement it had a per capita income growth of 3.1% per year (Chang, 2007, pg.68).
Mexico is not an anomaly, during the 1960’s and the 1970’s when Third World countries were not shackled by neoliberal policies, or policed by the World Bank and the I.M.F they had a per capita income growth of 3% annually (Chang, 2007, pg.27). After 1980’s up until the present day it has not managed to recapture that rate of prosperity, in fact their economies have regressed with capita per income only growing 1.7% (Chang, 2007, pg.27).
Neoliberalism that the Bank and the I.M.F insist that Third World countries adopt, leads to economic regression, lead to destitution, lead to impoverishment, lead to the increase of human rights abuses, leads to the undermining of democracy, leads to the increase in extremism, leads to environmental degradation, leads to an increase in malnutrition, leads to an increase in inequality, leads to a lowering of wages, leads to a disregard of labour rights, leads to land grabbing and displacement and leads to a state of colonial dependency ad infinitum. And unlike neoliberal dogma, such a statement is grounded in empirical evidence, all you have to do is to look at the state of all the countries who have adopted policies prescribed by the World Bank and the I.M.F since the 1980’s. 
Why do the World Bank and the I.M.F continue to insist on such policies? How can the most well­funded organization with the most extensive research teams, academics and economists at their disposal commit such blunders? Why is there a failure to change policies or cancel the debt of Third World countries? Why the hubris? Why the arrogance? Where is the shame? Where is the guilt?
Why the unending faith in an ideology that is completely detached from reality? Surely an institution with such a horrendous track record would be decommissioned? Well it isn’t for good reason, the bank­fund are doing the job it was intended to do, it wasn’t meant  to help the poor, it couldn’t care less about economic development, the bank­fund are agencies of neo­imperialism, that sought to and successfully managed to  globalize neoliberalism. Since the 1980’s the bank­fund  have been fulfilling neo­imperial ambitions, ensuring the perpetual accumulation of capital for the financial elite and ensuring the creation and maintenance of a system of plutocracy ruled by the new dominant trans­national class that governs us all. 

Bibliography:
     Prashad, Vijay. 2008. ‘The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World’.
     Arendt, Hannah. 1951. ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’. 
     Nordiska Afrika Institutet. 2007. ‘African Agriculture and the World Bank: Development or Impoverishment?’
     Ismi, Asad. 2004. ‘Impoverishing A Continent: The World Bank and The
I.M.F in Africa’
     Honest Accounts: ‘The True Story of Africa’s Billion Dollar Loses’. 2014. ● Pieper, Ute and Taylor, Lance. 1996. ‘The Revival of the Liberal Creed:
The I.M.F, The World Bank and Inequality in a Globalized Economy’.
     Global Exchange. 2001. ‘How The International  Monetary Fund and World Bank Undermine Democracy and Erode Human Rights’.
     Malaluan J. Jenina and Guttal, Shalmali. 2003. ‘Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers: A Poor Package for Poverty Reduction’.
     Chang, Ha­Joon. 2003. ‘Kicking Away the Ladder: The Real History of Free Trade.
     Chang, Ha­Joon. 2003. ‘Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism’.
     Tax Justice Network. 2012. ‘Tax Competition in East Africa: A Race To The Bottom’.
     Aseed Report. 2008. ‘World Bank and Conditionalities: Poor Deal for Poor Countries’.
     Oakland Institute. 2014. ‘Unfolding Truth: Dismantling the World Bank’s
Myths on Agriculture and Development’.
     Oakland Institute. 2014. ‘Wilful Blindness: How World Bank’s Country Rankings Impoverish Smallholder Farmers. 




[1] The use of the term Third World is not meant to be derogatory. It is used in memory and in solidarity of the nations that have fought and are still fighting imperialism. These nations make up what is known as the ‘LDC’s’, ‘the emerging countries’, and the ‘developing nations’. 
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/20/world/in-poor-decolonized-africa-bankers-are-new-overlords.html 3 http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html
[3] https://www.I.M.F.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/
[4] http://www.thenation.com/article/true-verdict-allende
[5] For further reading: Bellissario, Antonio. 2007. ‘The Chilean Agrarian Transformation’.
[6] https://www.opendemocracy.net/senan-fox/remembering-salvador-allende
[7] http://spartacus-educational.com/COLDallende.htm
[8] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921295.html
[9] For a brief overview watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJjuotD534
[10] https://www.I.M.F.org/external/np/exr/facts/prsp.htm
[11] http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank%E2%80%99s-doing-business-rankings-relinquishing-sovereignty-go od-grade
[12] http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba547 

1 opmerking:

  1. Julius Nyerere- The Stupidity of Globalization and the interests of Private Enterprise
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pEZ2h8UJpQ

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen