In a Wikipedia article regarding the debt crisis of Latin America, it is stated that countries in Latin America garnered a debt at a "cumulative annual rate of 20.4 percent". Then, as the interest rates in the US and Europe increased they were required to make higher payments towards their debt as their respective countries were trying to get back on their feet. As it became clearer and clearer that they would be unable to pay back their debts, lending stopped and caused a dramatic decline in their employment rates, income, and an increase in poverty levels. These changes left an opening for the crime rate to increase and left Latin America in an unfavourable light. When the IMF stepped in, it asked Latin America to put in place austerity plans in an attempt to lower the debt by lowering overall spending. Because of austerity plans the growth rate and living standards fell which caused much anger and hatred from the people towards the IMF.
Personally I feel that the IMF's actions in this scenario were irresponsible. I feel that the requirements that they impose onto their borrowers are harsh and pose a threat to the country
…show more content…
First, decreasing funding in government programs can adversely affect impoverished peoples. Many government programs cover spending in areas such as healthcare, education, and assistance to the agricultural sector. If a nations people are sickly, uneducated, and hungry they will not be a productive nation. During the Latin American debt crisis investments that might have been used to address social issues and poverty was instead being used to pay the debt (Wikipedia 2016). Next, we will cover the privatization of the government owned businesses. In Mexico, they have privatized Pemex which was at one time a contributor to the finances of the country. Now that they have been privatized,their production rate has dropped 25% when Mexico is dependent on the oil trade for 1/3 of their income. (Amadeo