The theories which guide the IMF's policies are empirically flawed. Free market, neoclassical, and neoliberal are all essentially euphemisms for the disastrous laissez-faire economics of the late 19th century. This approach seeks to minimize the role of government—arguing that lower wages solve problems of unemployment, and relying upon trickle-down economics (the belief that growth and wealth will trickle down to all segments of society) to address poverty. Stiglitz finds no evidence to support this belief, and considers the 'Washington Consensus' policy of free markets to be a blend of ideology and bad science. Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (shared with George Akerlof and Michael Spence) for demonstrating how information affects markets. Without equal access to information between employer and employee, company and consumer, or (in the IMF's case) lender and debtor, there is no chance of "free" markets operating efficiently. (This explanation also owes much to the earlier Nobel work of Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu.) Stiglitz explains that globalization could be either success or failure, depending on its management. There is a success when it is managed by national government by embracing their characteristics of each individual country; however, there is a failure when it is managed by international institutions such as IMF. Globalization is beneficial under the condition that the economic management operated by national government and the example is East Asian countries. Those countries (especially South Korea and Taiwan) were based on exports through which they were able to close technological, capital and knowledge gaps. By managing national pace of change and speed of liberalization on their own, those countries were able to achieve economic growth. The countries who received the benefits from the globalization shared their profits equally. However, Stiglitz believes that if the national economy regulated by international institutions there could be an adverse effect. It is because the international institutions such as IMF, WTO, and World Bank lack transparency and accountability. Without government oversight, they reach decisions without public debate and resolve trade disputes involving "uncompetitive" or "onerous" environmental, labor, and capital laws in secret tribunals—without appeal to a nation's courts. In East Asia's financial crisis, Russia's failed conversion to a market economy, failed development in sub-Saharan Africa, and financial meltdown in Argentina, Stiglitz argues that IMF policies contributed to a disaster: It failed to promote productive investment opportunities and demand for credit of quality; only well-planned loans, based on high quality economic and sector work, lead to improved design, effective implementation, and lower cost. It is better to spend more time getting the program right than to lend prematurely. However, none of these was done.[3] As a result, loans came with extensive conditions that subverted the growth of democracy, hampered local economic growth, and enriched multinational corporations. To evaluate his conclusion, it is instructive to look at those cases where Third World development actually succeeded: South Asia and China are the world's two greatest emerging markets. South Asia repeatedly resisted IMF conditions (especially South Korea and Malaysia) and China declined any IMF money whatsoever. According to Stiglitz, IMF interventions all followed a similar free market formula. The IMF strongly advocated "shock therapy" in a rush to market economies, without first establishing institutions to protect the public and local commerce. Local social, political, and economic considerations were largely ignored. Privatization without land reform or strong competitive policies resulted in crony capitalism, large businesses run by organized crime, and neo-feudalism without a middle class. There is no doubt that monetary aid/lending could have an important and effective role in advocating country efforts to sustain external shocks and improve economic status but without strong forefront progress on the policy, the aid of balance of payments help could very well be counterproductive. The consequence will be escalated levels of debt, weakened policy credibility and a lot more difficult task of adjustment in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents Image By Fir0002 [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons

• published: 24 Nov 2015
• views: 568