The Pros And Cons Of IMF And World Bank

443 Words1 Page

I am fairly certain that yes, the IMF and World Bank do in fact threaten the sovereignty of some nations. There is much more negative sentiment surrounding the IMF and World Bank’s activities than positive from the countries that receive their loans. The World Bank’s stated mission is the attainment of two goals: “end extreme poverty within a generation and boost shared prosperity” (About, 2015). The IMF or International Monetary Fund’s primary objective “is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system” (About the IMF, 2015). There are many incidents in the history of both organizations where extreme poverty has been increased and the stability of the host monetary systems have been put in jeopardy. Furthermore, the structural …show more content…

What would they have to gain by a country defaulting on its loans though? Well as it turns out, there is much that the IMF could gain, but first let’s look at the austerity measures that are a factor of dealing with the IMF and World Bank. These policies include, but are not limited to: wage cuts for worker, privatization of public municipalities such as water and gas, economic market liberalization, and decreases in social spending on things like schools and roads (structural Adjustment, …show more content…

With repercussions like these, I think it is safe to say that the IMF and World Bank employ measures that keep poor countries poor or make them even more destitute. Their mission statements are great ideas at the core, but very poorly executed. If the governing bodies of the IMF and World Bank moved slower, implemented one or two strategies or practices at a time, and worked closely with member countries to get them out of debt the programs could sway public opinion back in their favor and producer more positive and consistent

Open Document