Pros And Cons Of The World Bank And IMF

While researching the World Bank and IMF during this week’s reading and online, I came across a very interesting article. The article titled “The World Bank and IMF in Africa”. This article details how The World Bank and IMF (The International Monetary Fund) exploited the African people for riches and raw material and most of all, debt repayment. Did you know, the U.S. holds roughly 17% of the vote in the World Bank and the 48 sub-Saharan African countries together only hold less than 9% of the total votes as of 2008 when this article was written. The seven richest countries control 45% of the World Bank votes. This system ensures that the World Bank acts in the best interest of the richest countries promoting economic growth that only benefit the richest countries. While reading about the IMF and World Bank it …show more content…
The simple but yet complex answer is yes. The World Bank and IMF could have had conditions in the details to simply state, take care of your population’s healthcare and poverty and then make repayments to the World Bank and IMF. This though is not a smart business plan. Any business needs to make money in order to continue to serve its customers. It’s a fine balance in my opinion. I am a humanitarian and not a business man. The next question is can these international financial institutions lend in an unbiased, objective and responsible manner. The answer is No. How can a financial institution lend to a third world country and impose all of these measures, by cutting government money to its people just to repay the principal and debt of the loan. Where do these billions of dollars go in Africa? The last time I checked Africa is improving but there are areas still poor that have been receiving aid from IMF and the World Bank. These countries are taking money away from providing healthcare, food, shelter, and the basics to repay the loan in the interest of the top powers of these