Considering the goals and the criticisms of the IMF and the World Bank, I strongly believe that they unfairly threaten the sovereignty of certain nations due to the following points:
i. The way the World Bank and the IMF are governed limits their fairness in giving out assistance to countries especially poorer countries in Africa who needs assistance most. According to Woods (2007), while the World Bank represents 188 countries, it is run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These countries (which also provide most of the institution 's funding) choose the leadership and senior management of the World Bank, and so their interests dominate the bank. They impose their interests as conditions for granting assistance and some of these conditions threaten the sovereignty of Nations who accept them. ii. The 1979 energy crisis plunged many countries into economic crisis (deVries, 1996). The World Bank responded with structural adjustment loans which distributed aid to struggling countries while enforcing policy changes in order to reduce inflation and fiscal imbalance. Some of these policies included encouraging production, investment and
…show more content…
By the late 1980s, international organizations began to admit that structural adjustment policies were worsening life for the world 's poor. The World Bank changed structural adjustment loans, allowing for social spending to be maintained, and encouraging a slower change to policies such as transfer of subsidies and price rises (deVries, 1996). In 1999, the World Bank and the IMF introduced the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach to replace structural adjustment loans. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach has been interpreted as an extension of structural adjustment policies as it continues to reinforce and legitimize global inequities. Neither approach has addressed the inherent flaws within the global economy that contribute to economic and social inequities within developing countries. (Tan,