What I've learned

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".

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.