What have you learned about the topic?
I learned about how the World Bank and IMF came about and how they changed over time. I have a better understanding of the World Bank and IMF in the context of global economic history. For example, I learned about how global inequity only started when European colonists forced capitalism on other countries. Also, I learned about how "developed" countries did not use neoliberal policies (that the World Bank and IMF currently prescribe for developing countries) to reach their current level of development. I learned about how the World Bank and IMF works- or rather, how it fails to work. I've also realized how hard it is to find information about the World Bank and IMF, and how hard it is to understand the scare information there is available. This shows how these institutions are not transparent. It shows how apathy on the part of those who live in the west, are not necessarily their own fault, but a systemic problem. I learned about the large role financial and commerical representatives play in the World Bank and IMF. By reading Stiglitz's insightful dissection of these two global institutions, I learned that not all international bureaucrats are evil.
Did your perspective on your topic change from the beginning to the end of the research process?
My perspective as a whole did not change. However, I realized that proposed solutions must be realistic. For example, abolishing the World Bank and IMF would not be feasible because they are such an entrenched part of the global economic system. I realized that a solution needs to have support from the top as well as the bottom. We have to convince those who currently have power that a fairer system is better for everyone in the long run. I realized that a more moderate approach will gain support from the top and provide faster results for those at the bottom. I realized that I can't just sit here in front of a computer screen in the developed world and formulate an appropriate, workable, and sustainable solution for third world countries. Policy makers have to have on the ground experience, and must consult with the people who are affected by their policies. Better yet, policies should be shaped by people who live in third world countries.
To what extent has your investigation helped your understanding of politics?
I realized how the political sphere is greatly curtailed by the economic sphere in the current economic order; capitalism corrodes democracy. From reading about the protests in third world countries, I realized that democracy is more alive in poorer countries which are not necessarily labelled "democratic", than in our own apathetic rich countries. I learned that the economic protests which have become popular in the developed world in recent years, have been going on for a long time in developing countries. I realized that political realism is still very much the philosophy of our current global order. But I also learned about a new kind of internationalism which is being formed as a result of the oppression created by neoliberalism.
My Works Cited page can be found under "Sources" in blog post number 2, "Independent Study Proposal for Ms. Lewis".
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
An American Perspective
Source #3: "Reshaping the World Order: How Washington Should Reform International Institutions" by Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth in the March/ April 2009 Foreign Affairs
Brooks and Wohlforth are Professors of Government at Dartmouth College, and thus are valid experts on this subject. However, they write about reforming the international order exclusively in terms of how it may advance US interests. While this will not be the approach that I take in my essay, this is an important perspective to consider, as Brooks and Wohlforth do bring up the valid point that in terms of resources and power, the US is the largest worldpower. Without American consent and support, reform will not be as feasible and attempts at reform will not be as productive. Brooks and Wohlforth subscribe to the idea of political realism which assumes that power is and should be the main goal of political action, that might is right. For example, in their examination of the US's legitimacy to lead institutional reform, they write that "legitimacy is not necessarily about normative approval: one may dislike the United States but think its leadership is natural under the circumstances or the best that can be expected" (p 58). I disagree with this point of view. I think that this ideology assumes that this world is "an anarchic world of self-interested states" (p 49): an assumption that I believe is becoming and will become less and less valid as our world becomes increasingly interconnected and one country's interests becomes inseparable from another country's. I think Brooks and Wohlforth's assumption that international reform can only be feasible when a hegemon takes the lead and their belief that the US is "the only contender for such a role today" (p 49) is wildly off the mark because it misses what I consider the main problem with current international institutions: that they are completely dominated by the interests of the powerful and are anti-democratic. I think US policy makers must realize not only, as Brooks and Wohlforth write: that reform of international institutions is in the best interests of the US, but that US interests (the interests of any nation) are tied to the welfare and success of all global players.
Brooks and Wohlforth are Professors of Government at Dartmouth College, and thus are valid experts on this subject. However, they write about reforming the international order exclusively in terms of how it may advance US interests. While this will not be the approach that I take in my essay, this is an important perspective to consider, as Brooks and Wohlforth do bring up the valid point that in terms of resources and power, the US is the largest worldpower. Without American consent and support, reform will not be as feasible and attempts at reform will not be as productive. Brooks and Wohlforth subscribe to the idea of political realism which assumes that power is and should be the main goal of political action, that might is right. For example, in their examination of the US's legitimacy to lead institutional reform, they write that "legitimacy is not necessarily about normative approval: one may dislike the United States but think its leadership is natural under the circumstances or the best that can be expected" (p 58). I disagree with this point of view. I think that this ideology assumes that this world is "an anarchic world of self-interested states" (p 49): an assumption that I believe is becoming and will become less and less valid as our world becomes increasingly interconnected and one country's interests becomes inseparable from another country's. I think Brooks and Wohlforth's assumption that international reform can only be feasible when a hegemon takes the lead and their belief that the US is "the only contender for such a role today" (p 49) is wildly off the mark because it misses what I consider the main problem with current international institutions: that they are completely dominated by the interests of the powerful and are anti-democratic. I think US policy makers must realize not only, as Brooks and Wohlforth write: that reform of international institutions is in the best interests of the US, but that US interests (the interests of any nation) are tied to the welfare and success of all global players.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Abolition?
Source #2: 10 Reasons to Abolish the IMF & World Bank by Kevin Danaher.
Danaher is an anti-globalization activist (please note that anti-globalization does not mean isolationist, rather it means that he objects to the unjust, undemocratic nature of historical and contemporary globalization). The extremely leftist anti-globalization perspective is an important one to my research because these protestors are the ones who most consistently, courageously, and truthfully expose the many and severe problems of global economic institutions and their practices. Admittedly, they are often so angry at the injustices (which is understandable) that they forget that for reform to be practical, it must connect to the current order. As the title of his book suggests, Danaher proposes that we abolish the World Bank and IMF. However, he does not prove that this is a feasible option or that this is the best option. He assumes after listing the problems with the IMF and World Bank that no amount of reform will shape the World Bank and IMF into democratic, just, accountable institutions. I believe that while his heart is in the right place, abolition is not the best option because it is not feasible given the current state of affairs. While the injustices of the current order also make me very angry, I believe that we cannot use force to overthrow it, that for a solution to be sustainable, we must still consider all interests and not only the interests of the oppressed.
I agree with Danaher that the key problem of current international economic institutions is that they are undemocratic. He points out that they empower large corporations (whose primary aim, we must remember, is profit) to influence every aspect of our lives and to shape our governments agendas (whose primary aim, in theory, is the welfare of its people), yet these same large corporations cannot be held accountable by governments or citizens. I believe this speaks to a general and disturbing trend that more and more important decisions that directly affect people's lives are shifting from the political sphere to the economic sphere. I believe that the economic sphere needs to be politicized so that economic decisions can be democratic and accountable to the people they affect.
Danaher is an anti-globalization activist (please note that anti-globalization does not mean isolationist, rather it means that he objects to the unjust, undemocratic nature of historical and contemporary globalization). The extremely leftist anti-globalization perspective is an important one to my research because these protestors are the ones who most consistently, courageously, and truthfully expose the many and severe problems of global economic institutions and their practices. Admittedly, they are often so angry at the injustices (which is understandable) that they forget that for reform to be practical, it must connect to the current order. As the title of his book suggests, Danaher proposes that we abolish the World Bank and IMF. However, he does not prove that this is a feasible option or that this is the best option. He assumes after listing the problems with the IMF and World Bank that no amount of reform will shape the World Bank and IMF into democratic, just, accountable institutions. I believe that while his heart is in the right place, abolition is not the best option because it is not feasible given the current state of affairs. While the injustices of the current order also make me very angry, I believe that we cannot use force to overthrow it, that for a solution to be sustainable, we must still consider all interests and not only the interests of the oppressed.
I agree with Danaher that the key problem of current international economic institutions is that they are undemocratic. He points out that they empower large corporations (whose primary aim, we must remember, is profit) to influence every aspect of our lives and to shape our governments agendas (whose primary aim, in theory, is the welfare of its people), yet these same large corporations cannot be held accountable by governments or citizens. I believe this speaks to a general and disturbing trend that more and more important decisions that directly affect people's lives are shifting from the political sphere to the economic sphere. I believe that the economic sphere needs to be politicized so that economic decisions can be democratic and accountable to the people they affect.
Friday, March 6, 2009
White Man's Burden?
Source #1: Globalization and Its Discontents Joseph E. Stiglitz
I am two chapters into Stiglitz’s Globalization and Its Discontents. Stiglitz offers remarkably clear and balanced insights into the two of the largest engines of globalization: the World Bank and IMF. His perspective is an interesting one: a Nobel Prize winning academic, he also has substantial policy experience: he served as one of Clinton's economic advisors when Russia began its transition from communism and he served as Chief Economist and Senior VP of the World bank during the financial crises of the late 90s. Through studying the failures of both governments and markets, he has come to believe that neither are sufficient on their own. Through his work with the World Bank, he’s visited many countries, spoken to thousands of government officials, finance ministers, central bank governors, academics, development workers, people at NGOs, bankers, business people, students, political activists and farmers. As a result of his experiences, he has a strong aversion to ideological dogmatism, and advocates solutions based on what works in the real world. He has witnessed first hand how globalization policies have devastated developing countries, and he is highly critical of the current economic system. He denounces market fundamentalism, expresses frustration at how dogmatic and unfair many globalization policies are, and recognizes that the poorest and weakest have not benefited from globalization at all. He points out how Western countries have been hypocritical in their claims to fight poverty, because the policies that they've pursued are predictably detrimental to poorer countries to the benefit of Western nations. He points out how global institutions like the World Bank and IMF are not transparent, accountable, or democratic (they are dominated by the commercial and financial interests of the wealthiest industrial countries). Yet, he is not blindly critical (a rather refreshing change from the often angry, extremely leftist perspectives that I’ve become accustomed to absorbing). He still believes that globalization may be a force for good and recognizes that globalization has led to some improvements in some areas of the world. He understands the motivations of those against globalization but points out that some protestors have gone to excesses and completely overlooked the benefits of globalization. However, he recognizes and applauds the protestors for putting reform on the global agenda. His descriptions have brought home the message that economic policies have a very real effect on actual people; we should emulate his cool-headed but compassionate approach to reforming economic policies.
I am two chapters into Stiglitz’s Globalization and Its Discontents. Stiglitz offers remarkably clear and balanced insights into the two of the largest engines of globalization: the World Bank and IMF. His perspective is an interesting one: a Nobel Prize winning academic, he also has substantial policy experience: he served as one of Clinton's economic advisors when Russia began its transition from communism and he served as Chief Economist and Senior VP of the World bank during the financial crises of the late 90s. Through studying the failures of both governments and markets, he has come to believe that neither are sufficient on their own. Through his work with the World Bank, he’s visited many countries, spoken to thousands of government officials, finance ministers, central bank governors, academics, development workers, people at NGOs, bankers, business people, students, political activists and farmers. As a result of his experiences, he has a strong aversion to ideological dogmatism, and advocates solutions based on what works in the real world. He has witnessed first hand how globalization policies have devastated developing countries, and he is highly critical of the current economic system. He denounces market fundamentalism, expresses frustration at how dogmatic and unfair many globalization policies are, and recognizes that the poorest and weakest have not benefited from globalization at all. He points out how Western countries have been hypocritical in their claims to fight poverty, because the policies that they've pursued are predictably detrimental to poorer countries to the benefit of Western nations. He points out how global institutions like the World Bank and IMF are not transparent, accountable, or democratic (they are dominated by the commercial and financial interests of the wealthiest industrial countries). Yet, he is not blindly critical (a rather refreshing change from the often angry, extremely leftist perspectives that I’ve become accustomed to absorbing). He still believes that globalization may be a force for good and recognizes that globalization has led to some improvements in some areas of the world. He understands the motivations of those against globalization but points out that some protestors have gone to excesses and completely overlooked the benefits of globalization. However, he recognizes and applauds the protestors for putting reform on the global agenda. His descriptions have brought home the message that economic policies have a very real effect on actual people; we should emulate his cool-headed but compassionate approach to reforming economic policies.
Independent Study Proposal for Ms. Lewis
Topic: The World Bank and IMF
Thesis: The World Bank and IMF must be democratized and made accountable to all citizens so that they can be more effective in fulfilling their stated goals of reducing poverty and promoting economic stability.
Sources
1) Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.
Nobel Prize winning economist gives an insider's analysis of the World Bank and IMF; describes the major economic events of the last decade; describes his disillusionment with how the IMF puts financial and commericial interests ahead of the interests of developing nations; offers a reform agenda
2) Danaher, Kevin. 10 Reasons to Abolish the IMF & World Bank. Toronto: Publishers Group Canada, 2004.
Shows how institutions of "free trade" are widening the gap between the rich and poor and undermining basic democratic values; calls for the IMF and World Bank to be replaced with new international economic institutions based on democratic, sustainable, just and humane values.
3) Blustein, Paul. The Chastening: Inside the Crisis That Rocked the Global Financial System and Humbled the IMF. Cambridge: PublicAffairs, 2003.
Behind-the-scenes look at the role of the IMF in the economic crises of the 90s; exposes the flaws in the IMF which prevent it from effectively promoting eocnomic stability
4) Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. "Reshaping the World Order: How Washington Should Reform International Institutions." Foreign Affairs Mar. 2009: 49-63.
Reform recommendations for out-of-date international institutions; the role of the US
5) Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Capital-Market Liberalization, Globalization and the IMF." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20 (2004): 57-71.
Why market liberalization often leds to increased economic instability
6) Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Democratizing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank: Governance and Accountability." Governance 16 (2003): 111-39.
The IMF's system of governance has lead to predictably counter-productive policies; the World Bank reformed its agenda to more effectively reduce poverty; the lessons that the IMF can learn from the World Bank; recommendations for IMF reforms
Thesis: The World Bank and IMF must be democratized and made accountable to all citizens so that they can be more effective in fulfilling their stated goals of reducing poverty and promoting economic stability.
Sources
1) Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.
Nobel Prize winning economist gives an insider's analysis of the World Bank and IMF; describes the major economic events of the last decade; describes his disillusionment with how the IMF puts financial and commericial interests ahead of the interests of developing nations; offers a reform agenda
2) Danaher, Kevin. 10 Reasons to Abolish the IMF & World Bank. Toronto: Publishers Group Canada, 2004.
Shows how institutions of "free trade" are widening the gap between the rich and poor and undermining basic democratic values; calls for the IMF and World Bank to be replaced with new international economic institutions based on democratic, sustainable, just and humane values.
3) Blustein, Paul. The Chastening: Inside the Crisis That Rocked the Global Financial System and Humbled the IMF. Cambridge: PublicAffairs, 2003.
Behind-the-scenes look at the role of the IMF in the economic crises of the 90s; exposes the flaws in the IMF which prevent it from effectively promoting eocnomic stability
4) Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. "Reshaping the World Order: How Washington Should Reform International Institutions." Foreign Affairs Mar. 2009: 49-63.
Reform recommendations for out-of-date international institutions; the role of the US
5) Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Capital-Market Liberalization, Globalization and the IMF." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20 (2004): 57-71.
Why market liberalization often leds to increased economic instability
6) Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Democratizing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank: Governance and Accountability." Governance 16 (2003): 111-39.
The IMF's system of governance has lead to predictably counter-productive policies; the World Bank reformed its agenda to more effectively reduce poverty; the lessons that the IMF can learn from the World Bank; recommendations for IMF reforms
Welcome!
Welcome to Mimi's CPW4U The World Bank and IMF Uncovered blog. Since their inception at the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have played important roles in shaping the global economic order. The purpose of this blog is threefold. First, I hope to gain a basic understanding of the structure and history of both institutions, and examine how they have shaped our international economic system. Second, I plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the institutions in fulfilling their stated goals of reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. Third, I hope to explore recommendations and develop my own recommendations for reworking the World Bank and IMF to create a more just, democratic and sustainable world. Greater awareness of how the global economy works is critical, especially as we are in the greatest economic crisis in recent times. We must become more informed and active citizens and use this crisis to reform the economic system to create a better future for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
