IMF management of the financial crises
10 years after the Asian crisis, we're not out of the woods yet
Source: Global Policy
In this article Joseph Stiglitz recalls the 1997 East Asian financial crisis and analyzes how people and governments have not learned two important lessons from the crisis which affected not only Asian nations but the whole world. July, 2007[see more]
 
Imprimir print   Enviar send   Correct 
ADD YOUR COMMENT >>

One of the most important (and original) missions of the IMF is to help out countries with short-term balance-of-payment difficulties. Although it is widely acknowledged that an official lender is necessary in times of a global financial crisis, the way the IMF managed the last crises is very controversial. The three main operations of the Fund in the 1990s - the so-called shock-therapy for the new market economies of Eastern Europe, and the way the IMF handled the Mexican and Asian crisis - all drew criticism from academics, politicians and NGOs, representing a range of political views.

The Fund's role in the transition of the former Soviet Union to a market economy was criticized for establishing "shock-therapy" capitalism in countries without functioning political and economic institutions. With little knowledge of Russian history and ignoring the political realities of the independence movements in the former Soviet republics, the IMF persistently recommended a single ruble bloc for the Commonwealth of Independent States. Moreover, the Fund's demands for rapid privatization of industry and floating exchange rates allowed a small group of oligarchs to take over former state enterprises, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organized crime.

In the 1994-95 Mexican crisis, the rapid reaction of the Fund and the US Government prevented a possible breakdown of the international financial markets, unlike in the 1982 debt crisis where their reaction was slow and inappropriate. But, the so-called operation peso-shield was also interpreted as a bailout for financial speculators, which shifted the costs to Western taxpayers, bypassing any democratic controls and in this case even IMF regulations. Supported by the US Government, IMF Managing Director, Michel Camdessus, decided that the Fund would provide Mexico with additional 10 billion dollars to prevent the fall of the peso. According to IMF guidelines, the 7.7 billion dollars previously approved by the IMF Board were strictly speaking the maximum Mexico could receive.

In the 1997 Asia crisis the IMF was again the target of criticism. This time it was not only accused of bailing out rich investors but also of adopting the wrong approach to tackling the crisis. Critics said that the IMF was using the same remedy as it had applied in earlier crises in Mexico and elsewhere, even though the symptoms in this case were very different. The Asian crisis was due to a heavily-indebted private sector rather than mismanaged state budgets. The IMF, however, forced countries to cut public expenditure in order to restore financial credibility, thereby worsening the crisis. As some economists argued, these countries did not need economic austerity, but expansionary policies that could have prevented the financial crisis from becoming a deeper social and economic crisis. The IMF ignored this basic economic argument and also ignored the realities of the countries' fragile political and social systems, for instance in Indonesia. Moreover, the IMF bailout in Asia did not stop the financial panic, rather the crisis deepened and spread to other countries.

Although, IMF internal reviews accepted some of the criticism directed at it, the Fund again failed to impress in its management of the recent crisis in Argentina. The country had been under close IMF supervision for ten years before its currency collapsed without the Fund giving any prior warnings. Additionally, the IMF-imposed austerity measures were blamed for the country's economic problems.

As a response to its various critics, the Fund continues to argue that debtor countries are better off with its loans than they would be borrowing from private-sector creditors, who it says would inflict far harsher conditions in times of economic crisis.




share:  
Imprimir print   Enviar send   correct 
ADD YOUR COMMENT >>

 
In-depth reports
Detailed reports on key issues.
International Monetary Fund - IMF
The IMF is one of the most powerful international organizations. Its policies change the lives of millions of people in developing countries.
 
 
 The transformation of a socialist economy: The Russian case
ver listado de enlaces relacionados
 
 The failure of the showcase: The financial crisis in Asia
ver listado de enlaces relacionados
 
 The trouble with the peso: Latin America and the IMF
ver listado de enlaces relacionados
 
 The post default scenario: the Argentinian case
ver listado de enlaces relacionados
  • Challenges posed by an Argentinian post-default scenario
    Source: Choike
    In spite of all the pessimistic predictions, the Economy Minister Roberto Lavagna announced the end of Argentina's external debt swap. This announcement closes a three-year default period and opens up an interesting space for negotiation for Argentina, in spite of the pressure exerted by developed countries on the Argentinian government will continue to be on the table in future negotiations. In this article the author analizes some of the many challenges Argentina should face in its road towards economic recovery and the increase of its capacity in terms of autonomy and sovereign decision-making with regards to the development model to be followed. March 2005
  • Argentina: "International arbitration is not above the Constitution" says Justice Minister
    Source: Third World Institute
    Roberto Bissio
    "The public service policy of a country cannot be decided by a litigation at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)" said yesterday the Argentinian Justice Minister Horacio Rosatti in an interview with the local newspaper La Capital. The ICSID was created in 1966 to arbitrate conflicts between States and foreign investors, and it is frequently invoked as the conflict resolution instance in bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. April 2005.
  • Argentina and Brazil: challenges of the cancellation of debt to the IMF
    Source: IFIs Latin American Monitor
    The Latin American and global scenario was astonished by recent announcements made by Brazil and Argentina with regards to their cancellation of debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The crises both countries went through at the end of the 20th century and early 21st century forced governments to resort to the IMF and thus increase their degree of indebtedness as well as the exposure of their economies. At the present time, the prevailing strategy in the region, earnestly supported by the IMF, is that of “dis-indebtedness”. December, 2005
  • Bargaining and sustainability: the Argentine debt swap of 2005
    Source: CSGR - Warwick University
    When Argentine sovereign default in December 2001 led to a collapse of the peso, the burden of dollar debt became demonstrably unsustainable. But it was not clear what restructuring was feasible, nor when. Eventually, in 2005 after a delay of more than three years, a supermajority of creditors accepted a swap implying a recovery rate of around 37 cents in the dollar. In this paper a bargaining approach is used to explain both the settlement and the delay. Factors not explicit in the formal framework are also considered - heterogeneity of creditors, for example, and the role of third parties in promoting “good faith” bargaining. (pdf format) Enero, 2006
 
 IMF responses to its critics
ver listado de enlaces relacionados

Choike is a project of the Third World Institute supported by Hivos
www.choike.org | Contact | Phone / Fax: +598 (2) 412-4224 | Dr. Juan Paullier 977, Montevideo URUGUAY