IMF And The World Bank: Bad For Development

Andrew Hamlin

7th February 2017

IMF and World Bank: Bad for Development On paper, economic development, is a fairly straightforward process. Establish an organized government free of corruption and capable of enforcing a well written, and all encompassing legal code. Next ensure that infrastructure and public sectors are modern enough for global trade. Finally, ensure that your labor force is well educated, healthy, and well paid for their services. By following these steps, any country should be able to modernize relatively quickly. Sadly there are many complications which arise in the “real world” that lead developing countries astray. The main forces at work being corruption, greed, and capitalism. The IMF and the World Bank stand as marquee

A conference which saw the allied nations discretely assure their place at the top of the global system. While there were over 40 countries present during the Bretton Woods conference, the major economic powers of the time were far and away the most successful at advancing their national interests. Both the World Bank and the IMF are controlled by the United States, that is, the United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF and has the most weighted voting power in the World Bank. Furthermore, European nations, account for half of the permanent seats on the IMF executive board, and 3 out of 5 permanent seats on the World Bank board of directors. Any policy written by either institution is heavily influenced by European and American ideals. Since America and Europe share many similar views, there is very little resistance to ideas that benefit both parties and very much resistance to ideas that inconvenience either party regardless of the effect the idea has on the rest of the world. In short, the IMF and World Bank were intentionally designed to ensure that Europe and the United States controlled global fiscal

With technological improvements such as more effective pesticides, better mining equipment, and improves transportation networks; Bolivia was able to increase production and decrease labor costs significantly in each industry. “The parties” (America and Europe) now had a cheap source of food and minerals for their own production needs. To make the resources cheaper, “the parties”, took the industry away from the Bolivian government and placed it into the hands of a private corporations. Quickly after the industry was privatized, “the parties” made a shady deals with the owners of the corporations. In other words, “the parties” took what they wanted away from the an entity that had the people of Bolivia’s interests in mind, and gave it to an entity that had their best interests in mind. As long as the United States maintain their stranglehold on the IFI’s, there is no possibility of an unbiased global