The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are very important engines in the greater machine of globalization. Depending on the perspective, their operations over their existence Africa can be seen as a success, or a series of failures. I believe that ultimately they have failed Africa. The problems lie with the greater capitalist system of globalisation that ostensibly sends funds to help developing countries, but places conditions and demands that benefit hegemonic political and economic powers. Flawed systems spread themselves. We in the West export problems when we try to help. I will use Zambia as an example of these problems. There are multiple projects from both the World Bank and the IMF that have caused issues in Zambia
…show more content…
Quite simply, the money and aid programs come with too many strings attached. Funds and development programs always demand austerity measures, and monitoring that these countries, including Zambia, simply don 't have the ability to absorb. The Western perspective of the institutions usually also demand privatisation of government systems. They attempt to pull these countries into the Western systems of economics and almost always on an unreasonable schedule. It leads to upheaval and disorder and arguably in the end just adds to the debt and poverty of these countries.
According to Newsrescue (2016) structural adjustment programs (SAP 's) implemented by the World Bank and the IMF had "placed severe hardship on the population while failing to lead to the promised economic recovery and reduced unemployment...Zambia took the most dramatic steps to fully implement ESAP 's and has seen whole industries disappear as protective measures were …show more content…
Or a conservative. I believe in a free market. But I would like to see one. Our current system encourages a wealth of cheating; take your pick- crony capitalism, companies keeping large profits in offshore tax havens, overpaid CEO 's heading up companies with poor incentive structures keeping wealth in the hands of the few where it does little good for the general economy. Perhaps some advanced form of peer-to-peer micro lending or banking can help with some of these problems in the future. But the World Bank and the IMF are 20th century dinosaurs with the baggage of nation states, old outdated forms of banking, and old discredited theories and forms of political organisation. I 'll say they are better than nothing, but not by
Quite simply, the money and aid programs come with too many strings attached. Funds and development programs always demand austerity measures, and monitoring that these countries, including Zambia, simply don 't have the ability to absorb. The Western perspective of the institutions usually also demand privatisation of government systems. They attempt to pull these countries into the Western systems of economics and almost always on an unreasonable schedule. It leads to upheaval and disorder and arguably in the end just adds to the debt and poverty of these countries.
According to Newsrescue (2016) structural adjustment programs (SAP 's) implemented by the World Bank and the IMF had "placed severe hardship on the population while failing to lead to the promised economic recovery and reduced unemployment...Zambia took the most dramatic steps to fully implement ESAP 's and has seen whole industries disappear as protective measures were …show more content…
Or a conservative. I believe in a free market. But I would like to see one. Our current system encourages a wealth of cheating; take your pick- crony capitalism, companies keeping large profits in offshore tax havens, overpaid CEO 's heading up companies with poor incentive structures keeping wealth in the hands of the few where it does little good for the general economy. Perhaps some advanced form of peer-to-peer micro lending or banking can help with some of these problems in the future. But the World Bank and the IMF are 20th century dinosaurs with the baggage of nation states, old outdated forms of banking, and old discredited theories and forms of political organisation. I 'll say they are better than nothing, but not by