Penyesuaian Struktural Penyebab Utama Kemiskinan Penulis dan Informasi Page Utang adalah alat yang efisien. Ini memastikan akses ke bahan baku dan infrastruktur orang lain dengan persyaratan yang paling murah. Puluhan negara harus bersaing memperjuangkan pasar ekspor yang menyusut dan hanya dapat mengekspor produk-produk terbatas karena proteksionisme Utara dan kurangnya uang mereka untuk berinvestasi dalam diversifikasi. Kejenuhan pasar terjadi, mengurangi pendapatan eksportir hingga minimum sementara Utara menikmati penghematan yang sangat besar. IMF tampaknya tidak mengerti bahwa berinvestasi pada populasi yang sehat, cukup makan, melek huruf adalah pilihan ekonomi paling cerdas yang bisa dibuat oleh suatu negara. Susan George, Nasib Lebih Buruk Daripada Utang, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), hlm. 143, 187, 235 Banyak negara berkembang berhutang dan miskin sebagian karena kebijakan institusi internasional seperti Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF) ) Dan Bank Dunia. Program mereka telah banyak dikritik selama bertahun-tahun karena berakibat pada kemiskinan. Selain itu, untuk negara berkembang atau negara-negara dunia ketiga, telah terjadi peningkatan ketergantungan pada negara-negara kaya. Ini terlepas dari IMF dan Bank Dunia yang mengklaim bahwa mereka akan mengurangi kemiskinan. Mengikuti ideologi yang dikenal sebagai neoliberalisme, dan dipelopori oleh institusi ini dan institusi lain yang dikenal sebagai Konsensus Washington (untuk berbasis di Washington D. C.), Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) telah diterapkan untuk memastikan pembayaran hutang dan restrukturisasi ekonomi. Tapi cara yang telah terjadi mengharuskan negara-negara miskin mengurangi pengeluaran untuk hal-hal seperti kesehatan, pendidikan dan pembangunan, sementara pembayaran hutang dan kebijakan ekonomi lainnya telah dijadikan prioritas. Akibatnya, IMF dan Bank Dunia telah menuntut agar negara-negara miskin menurunkan taraf hidup rakyat mereka. Halaman web ini memiliki subbagian berikut: Ras Spiral ke Bawah Seperti yang dijelaskan lebih rinci di bawah, IMF dan Bank Dunia memberikan bantuan keuangan kepada negara-negara yang mencarinya, namun menerapkan ideologi ekonomi atau agenda neoliberal sebagai prasyarat untuk menerima uang tersebut. Sebagai contoh: Mereka meresepkan pemotongan, liberalisasi ekonomi dan ekstraksi sumber daya berorientasi pada pasar terbuka sebagai bagian dari penyesuaian struktural mereka. Peran negara diminimalkan. Privatisasi didorong sekaligus mengurangi perlindungan industri dalam negeri. Kebijakan penyesuaian lainnya juga mencakup devaluasi mata uang, kenaikan suku bunga, fleksibilitas pasar kerja, dan penghapusan subsidi seperti subsidi makanan. Agar menarik bagi investor asing berbagai peraturan dan standar dikurangi atau dihapus. Dampak dari prasyarat ini terhadap negara-negara miskin bisa sangat menghancurkan. Faktor-faktor seperti berikut ini menyebabkan kesengsaraan lebih lanjut bagi negara-negara berkembang dan membuat mereka bergantung pada negara maju: Negara-negara miskin harus mengekspor lebih banyak untuk mengumpulkan cukup uang guna melunasi hutang mereka pada waktu yang tepat. Karena ada begitu banyak negara yang diminta atau dipaksa masuk ke pasar global sebelum mereka stabil dan siap secara ekonomi dan sosial dan diminta berkonsentrasi pada komoditas dan komoditas sejenis seperti yang lain, situasinya menyerupai perang harga berskala besar. Kemudian, sumber daya dari daerah miskin menjadi lebih murah. Yang lebih menyukai konsumen di Barat. Pemerintah kemudian perlu meningkatkan ekspor hanya untuk menjaga agar mata uang mereka tetap stabil (yang mungkin juga tidak berkelanjutan) dan mendapatkan devisa untuk membantu melunasi hutang. Oleh karena itu pemerintah harus: menghabiskan lebih sedikit pengurangan konsumsi untuk menghapus atau mengurangi peraturan keuangan dan sebagainya. Seiring waktu kemudian: nilai tenaga kerja menurunkan arus modal menjadi semakin fluktuatif dalam perlombaan spiral ke bawah kemudian dimulai, yang menghasilkan keresahan sosial. Yang pada gilirannya menyebabkan kerusuhan dan protes IMF di seluruh dunia. Negara-negara ini kemudian diminta untuk memasukkan uang mereka ke dolar. Tapi menjaga agar nilai tukar tetap stabil mahal karena tindakan seperti kenaikan suku bunga. Investor jelas-jelas khawatir aset dan minat mereka dapat menarik diri dengan sangat mudah jika keadaan menjadi sulit. Dalam kasus terburuk, pelarian modal dapat menyebabkan keruntuhan ekonomi. Seperti yang kita lihat dalam krisis keuangan Asianglobal tahun 19979899, atau di Meksiko, Brasil, dan banyak tempat lainnya. Selama dan setelah krisis, media arus utama dan ekonom perdagangan bebas menyalahkan negara-negara berkembang dan kebijakan pemerintah mereka yang membatasi atau tidak efisien, kapitalisme kroni, dan lain-lain yang merupakan ironi yang kejam. Ketika donor IMF menjaga nilai tukar yang menguntungkan mereka. Seringkali berarti bahwa negara-negara miskin tetap miskin, atau bahkan lebih miskin lagi. Bahkan krisis keuangan global 19979899 sebagian dapat disalahkan atas penyesuaian struktural dan deregulasi awal yang terlalu agresif untuk negara-negara berkembang. Jutaan anak akhirnya meninggal setiap tahunnya. Persaingan antar perusahaan yang bergerak di bidang manufaktur di negara berkembang seringkali kejam. Kami melihat apa yang digambarkan Korten sebagai perlombaan ke bawah. Dengan berlalunya hari, semakin sulit untuk mendapatkan kontrak dari salah satu pengecer mega tanpa mempekerjakan pekerja anak, menipu pekerja dengan upah lembur, menjatuhkan kuota tanpa ampun, dan menerapkan praktik yang tidak aman. John Madeley, Bisnis Besar Orang Miskin Dampak Korporasi Transnasional terhadap Kaum Miskin Dunia, (Zed Books, 1999) hal. 103 Ini adalah salah satu tulang punggung todays yang disebut perdagangan bebas. Dalam bentuk ini, sebagai hasilnya, dilihat oleh beberapa orang sebagai tidak adil dan satu arah, atau ekstraksi. Ini juga berfungsi untuk menjaga perdagangan bebas yang tidak setara seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh J. W. Smith. Akibatnya, kebijakan seperti Structural Adjustments telah, seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Smith, berkontribusi pada perpindahan kekayaan masa damai terbesar dari pinggiran ke pusat kekaisaran dalam sejarah. Yang bisa kita tambahkan, tanpa banyak perhatian media. Mempertahankan Ketergantungan dan Kemiskinan Salah satu dari banyak hal yang dapat dilakukan oleh negara-negara kuat (melalui IMF, Bank Dunia, dll) adalah bahwa negara berkembang harus membuka untuk memungkinkan lebih banyak impor dan ekspor lebih banyak komoditas mereka. Namun, inilah yang berkontribusi terhadap kemiskinan dan ketergantungan. Jika sebuah masyarakat menghabiskan seratus dolar untuk memproduksi produk di dalam perbatasannya, uang yang digunakan untuk membayar bahan, tenaga kerja dan biaya lainnya bergerak melalui ekonomi karena setiap penerima menghabiskannya. Karena efek multiplier ini, produksi utama seratus dolar dapat menambahkan beberapa ratus dolar ke Produk Nasional Bruto (GNP) negara tersebut. Jika uang dihabiskan di negara lain, peredaran uang itu ada di negara pengekspor. Inilah alasan mengapa negara pengimpor produkproduksi-impor secara industrial adalah negara kaya dan negara pengimpor produk pengekspor komoditas yang tidak berkembang miskin. Penekanan Ditambahkan Negara maju tumbuh kaya dengan menjual produk padat modal (dengan harga murah) dengan harga tinggi dan membeli produk padat karya (dengan harga mahal) dengan harga murah. Ketidakseimbangan perdagangan ini memperluas kesenjangan antara kaya dan miskin. Orang kaya menjual produknya untuk dikonsumsi, bukan alat untuk diproduksi. Ini mempertahankan monopoli alat produksi, dan menjamin pasar produk yang berkelanjutan. Kontrol alat alat produksi semacam itu adalah strategi proses merkantilis. Kontrol itu sering membutuhkan kekuatan militer. J. W. Smith, The Worlds Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), hlm. 127, 139. Seperti yang terlihat di atas, salah satu efek penyesuaian struktural adalah bahwa negara-negara berkembang harus meningkatkan ekspor mereka. Biasanya komoditas dan bahan baku diekspor. Namun seperti yang dicatat Smith di atas, negara-negara miskin kehilangan komoditi ekspor mereka (yang harganya lebih murah daripada produk jadi) ditolak atau diblokir secara efektif dari modal industri dan transfer teknologi riil, dan produk jadi impor (yang lebih mahal karena kerja tambahan untuk Membuat produk dari komoditas dan sumber daya lainnya) Hal ini menyebabkan kurang sirkulasi uang dalam perekonomian mereka sendiri dan efek multiplier yang lebih kecil. Namun, ini bukan hal baru. Secara historis, ini merupakan alasan parsial bagi ekonomi dependen dan negara-negara miskin. Ini juga peran yang ditegakkan di negara-negara bekas di bawah pemerintahan kekaisaran atau kolonial. Negara-negara dunia ketiga yang sama menemukan diri mereka dalam situasi yang sama. Hal ini juga dapat digambarkan sebagai perdagangan yang tidak setara: Sepintas mungkin terlihat bahwa pertumbuhan dalam pengembangan barang ekspor seperti kopi, kapas, gula, dan kayu, akan bermanfaat bagi negara pengekspor, karena menghasilkan pendapatan. Sebenarnya, ini merupakan jenis eksploitasi yang disebut pertukaran yang tidak setara. Sebuah negara yang mengekspor bahan mentah atau yang belum diproses dapat memperoleh uang untuk penjualan mereka, namun mereka kehilangan jika mengimpor barang olahan. Alasannya adalah bahwa goodsgood diproses yang membutuhkan tenaga kerja tambahan lebih mahal. Dengan demikian sebuah negara yang mengekspor kayu namun tidak memiliki kapasitas untuk mengolahnya kemudian harus mengimpornya kembali dalam bentuk produk kayu jadi, dengan biaya yang lebih besar dari harga yang diterima untuk produk mentah tersebut. Negara yang memproses bahan mendapat tambahan pendapatan yang disumbangkan oleh buruhnya. (Penekanan adalah asli) Richard Robbins, Masalah Global dan Budaya Kapitalisme, (Allyn dan Bacon, 1999), hal. 95 Mengekspor komoditas dan sumber daya dipandang menguntungkan untuk membantu memperoleh devisa untuk melunasi hutang dan menjaga agar mata uang tetap stabil. Namun, sebagian karena skenario perang harga di atas, harga komoditas juga turun. Lebih jauh lagi, ketergantungan hanya pada beberapa komoditas membuat negara-negara bahkan lebih rentan terhadap kondisi pasar global dan pengaruh politik dan ekonomi lainnya. Seperti yang dilaporkan oleh Kantor Berita Gemini, berbicara dengan Bank Dunia: Lebih dari 50 negara berkembang bergantung pada tiga atau lebih komoditas selama lebih dari setengah dari pendapatan ekspor mereka. Dua puluh negara bergantung pada komoditas untuk lebih dari 90 persen dari total pendapatan devisa mereka, kata Bank Dunia. Ken Laidlaw, Obat Pasar yang Diusulkan untuk Petani Dunia Ketiga. Gemini News Service, 4 Desember 2001 (Link adalah untuk memposting ulang versi di situs web ini) Hampir empat tahun setelah penulisan di atas, Oxfam mengungkapkan bahwa hal-hal yang tidak berubah menjadi lebih baik: lebih dari 50 persen pendapatan ekspor Africas berasal Dari satu komoditas banyak negara bergantung pada dua komoditas untuk sebagian besar pendapatan ekspor mereka dan ada sejumlah negara lain di Afrika yang sangat bergantung pada sedikit komoditas. Sebagai tambahan, seperti yang dijelaskan Celine Tan dari Third World Network: Jatuh harga komoditas berarti bahwa kenaikan volume ekspor yang besar oleh produsen komoditas belum menghasilkan pendapatan ekspor yang lebih besar, yang menyebabkan turunnya tingkat perdagangan bagi banyak negara penghasil komoditas. Ketika daya beli ekspor negara menurun, sebuah negara tidak dapat membeli barang dan jasa impor yang diperlukan untuk rezeki, dan juga menghasilkan pendapatan untuk pelaksanaan program pembangunan berkelanjutan. Sebagian besar negara berkembang bergantung pada komoditas sebagai sumber pendapatan utama. Komoditas utama mencakup sekitar setengah dari pendapatan ekspor negara-negara berkembang dan banyak negara berkembang terus bergantung pada satu atau dua komoditas utama untuk sebagian besar pendapatan ekspor mereka. Tan juga menyoroti dalam artikel di atas bahwa penurunan harga komoditas juga menyebabkan kenaikan hutang yang tidak berkelanjutan. Kurangnya pendapatan yang lebih besar dari ekspor memiliki efek knock-on, seperti yang dijelaskan di atas. Ironisnya, penyesuaian struktural ditentukan oleh IMF dan Bank Dunia karena masalah pembayaran hutang. Sebagai keringanan utang dan perdagangan menjadi topik diskusi utama selama KTT G8 2005. Yaya Orou-Guidou, seorang ekonom dari Benin (sebuah negara Afrika kecil), juga mencatat bahwa mengekspor bahan mentah dan produk pertanian tidak akan membantu memerangi kemiskinan. Bahan baku tersebut harus diolah di negara miskin yang sama untuk membantu menciptakan efek multiplier: Orou-Guidou yakin Benin harus mulai memproses bahan mentah yang dihasilkannya jika ingin melepaskan diri dari jebakan kemiskinan. Bahan utama yang disimpan di Afrika untuk diproses di pabrik kami adalah satu hal yang kurang bagi pabrik-pabrik Barat untuk mendapatkan uang, katanya. Tapi, jika kita puas dengan penjualan produk pertanian dan pertambangan kita di negara-negara mentah mereka, mereka akan selalu memberi makan pabrik-pabrik Barat yang menyediakan lapangan kerja bagi orang-orang Barat sendiri. Perhatian ini juga berlaku untuk ekonomi yang lebih besar. Krisis keuangan global yang dimulai pada tahun 2008 mengakibatkan ekspor Brasil ke AS turun sekitar 42, sementara meningkat dengan China pada tahun 23. Namun, hampir 75 ekspor Brasil ke AS adalah produk industri, sedangkan yang berlawanan dengan 25 adalah untuk China. Wakil Presiden Asosiasi Perdagangan Luar Negeri Brasil menjelaskan mengapa ini menjadi perhatian IPS: Ketika menangani komoditas, importir memutuskan dan mengendalikan kuantitas dan harga, membuat pasar yang tidak stabil, berbeda dengan situasi dengan barang-barang manufaktur. Komoditi juga menghasilkan pekerjaan bermutu rendah, sementara manufaktur mempekerjakan tenaga terampil untuk upah lebih tinggi, menciptakan multiplier effect pada lapangan kerja karena rantai produksi lebih panjang, dan memperluas pasar domestik. Kekhawatiran ini bukan hal baru. Ekonom politik Adam Smith juga memberikan beberapa wawasan dalam bukunya tahun 1776 klasik, The Wealth of Nations. Yang dianggap sebagai Alkitab kapitalisme. Dia sangat kritis terhadap praktik merkantilis dari negara-negara kaya, sementara dia menyadari nilai industri lokal dan dampak produk manufaktur impor terhadap industri lokal: Meskipun dorongan ekspor dan keputusasaan impor adalah dua mesin hebat yang digunakan untuk Sistem perdagangan mengusulkan untuk memperkaya setiap negara, namun berkenaan dengan beberapa komoditas tertentu tampaknya mengikuti rencana yang berlawanan: untuk mencegah ekspor dan untuk mendorong impor. Namun, objek utamanya, bagaimanapun, berpura-pura, selalu sama, untuk memperkaya negara dengan keseimbangan perdagangan yang menguntungkan. Ini menghambat ekspor bahan-bahan pembuatan, dan instrumen perdagangan, untuk memberi keuntungan kepada pekerja kita sendiri, dan untuk memungkinkan mereka menghalangi perusahaan-perusahaan dari negara lain di semua pasar luar negeri dan dengan menahan, dengan cara ini, Ekspor beberapa komoditas tanpa harga bagus, ia mengusulkan untuk mengekspor barang lain yang jauh lebih besar dan lebih berharga. Ini mendorong impor bahan-bahan pembuatan agar orang-orang kita sendiri dimungkinkan untuk memperbaikinya dengan lebih murah, dan dengan demikian mencegah impor komoditas manufaktur yang lebih besar dan lebih berharga. (Penekanan Ditambahkan) Adam Smith, Kekayaan Bangsa-Bangsa, Buku IV, Bab VIII, (Everymans Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), hal.577 Membaca di atas, dapat kita katakan bahwa kebijakan penyesuaian struktural juga merkantilis. Kita terus-menerus mengatakan bahwa kita hidup dalam dunia kapitalisme global, namun kita melihat bahwa sementara pasar bebas diberitakan (dalam nama Adam Smith), mercantilisme masih dipraktekkan Tentu saja, hari ini juga sedikit lebih rumit. Kami memiliki, misalnya, produk yang diekspor dari negara-negara miskin (walaupun ada yang menghadapi rintangan tinggi di negara-negara kaya). Tapi mengekspor daripada menciptakan dan mengembangkan industri dan ekonomi lokal, berarti negara berkembang kehilangan dalam jangka panjang, (hampir tidak berkembang) karena ada sedikit efek pengganda uang yang beredar di dalam negeri, seperti yang disebutkan di atas. Selanjutnya, dengan upah buruh yang dibayar kurang dari upah wajar mereka di negara-negara miskin, kekayaan masih terkumpul dan terkonsentrasi di negara-negara kaya. The Luckiest Nut In The World adalah video berdurasi 8 menit (maaf, tidak ada transkrip yang tersedia, sejauh yang saya tahu), diproduksi oleh Emily James. Ini adalah animasi kartun yang menjelaskan efek pinjaman, penyesuaian struktural dan cashcrops, dan dampaknya terhadap negara-negara miskin. Ini menelusuri bagaimana Senegal didorong untuk menanam kacang untuk diekspor. Singkatnya, Sebagai negara miskin tanpa banyak sumber daya, ia mengeluarkan pinjaman untuk membantu pengembangan industri ini. Negara lain melihat ini berjalan dengan baik, jadi mereka mengikutinya. Harga kacang mulai turun dan Senegal menghadapi masalah pembayaran hutang. Kebijakan penyesuaian struktural dilakukan, mengurangi pengeluaran dan mengurangi keterlibatan pemerintah dalam industri kacang-kacangan dan di tempat lain. Namun, keadaan semakin memburuk. Pada saat yang sama, negara-negara kaya, seperti Amerika Serikat, mensubsidi industri kacang (dan lainnya) mereka sendiri, yang memungkinkan mereka meraih pangsa pasar di seluruh dunia. Negara-negara kaya memiliki peralatan seperti tarif perdagangan dan ancaman sanksi yang mereka miliki untuk membantu industri mereka jika diperlukan. Kacang paling beruntung di dunia. Jadi, kita berada dalam situasi di mana orang kaya mempromosikan sistem perdagangan bebas agar diikuti orang lain, sementara merkantilisme sering dipraktikkan untuk mereka sendiri. Perdagangan bebas dipromosikan oleh orang kaya dan berpengaruh sebagai sarana bagi semua bangsa untuk mencapai kemakmuran dan pembangunan. Kekayaan yang diakumulasikan oleh negara-negara kaya di masa lalu dikaitkan dengan kebijakan ini untuk memperkuat gagasan ini. Kekayaan luar biasa seperti itu diakumulasikan tidak begitu banyak dari perdagangan bebas tapi juga dari merkantilisme yang kejam dan kuno atau monopoli kapitalisme diabaikan. Sistem seperti itu dipraktekkan lagi hari ini, dan meskipun mereka mengklaim sebagai perdagangan bebas gaya hidup Adam-Smith, sistem inilah yang selalu dikritik dan diserang oleh Adam Smith. Pada tahun 1991 Larry Summers, yang saat itu menjabat sebagai Kepala Ekonom untuk Bank Dunia (dan Sekretaris Jenderal AS, di Pemerintahan Clinton, sampai George Bush dan partai Republik berkuasa), telah menjadi pendukung kebijakan penyesuaian struktural yang kuat. Dia menulis dalam memo internal: Hanya antara Anda dan saya, tidakkah seharusnya Bank Dunia mendorong lebih banyak migrasi industri kotor ke negara-negara kurang berkembang LDC Logika ekonomi di balik pembuangan limbah beracun di negara dengan upah terendah tidak ada, dan kami Harus menghadapi kenyataan bahwa negara-negara berpenduduk kurang di Afrika sangat kurang tercemar, kualitas udara mereka mungkin jauh tidak efisien dibandingkan dengan Los Angeles atau Mexico City. Keprihatinan atas agen yang menyebabkan satu dari satu juta perubahan kemungkinan kanker prostat. Jelas akan jauh lebih tinggi di negara di mana orang bertahan hidup untuk mendapatkan kanker prostat daripada di negara di mana angka kematian di bawah lima tahun adalah 200 per seribu. Lawrence Summers, Biarkan mereka makan polusi, The Economist, 8 Februari 1992. Dikutip dari Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000) hal.65 Lihat juga Richard Robbins, Masalah Global dan Budaya Kapitalisme (Allyn and Bacon , 1999), hal. 233-236 untuk melihat lebih rinci tentang ini. Bila dilihat dalam situasi ini, kemiskinan lebih dari sekedar masalah ekonomi sederhana, ini juga merupakan konstruksi ideologis. Dapatkan Lebih Banyak, Makan Kurang Setengah dunia dari Zambia di Washington, para arsitek dari bencana manusia ini menikmati kenyamanan dan pengasingan, menghabiskan lebih banyak makanan daripada istri dari Masauso Phiris dalam setahun menjual roti di daerah kumuh mereka. Meskipun sebagian besar staf Bank Dunia bekerja di kantor pusat Washington-nya, orang-orang yang tidak beruntung yang diposkan di Dunia Ketiga menerima banyak kompensasi atas kemalangan mereka. Ini termasuk perumahan bersubsidi (lengkap dengan perabotan gratis), sebuah pemberian tugas diperpanjang sebesar 25.000 dan premi mobilitas untuk membiayai biaya pendidikan anak. Gaji bebas pajak dan rata-rata 86.000 pada tahun 1995, menurut sebuah laporan Kantor Akuntan Umum kepada Kongres. Namun, tidak ada penyesuaian struktural untuk pesta bankir dan analis kebijakan istimewa ini. Sementara di Afrika, genosida tersembunyi menyia-nyiakan benua. Tidak tepat bagi bank untuk menjalankan seluruh dunia, kata Fred Mmembe, editor dari Zambia Post. Mereka tidak mewakili orang lain selain negara-negara yang mengendalikan mereka. Apa artinya ini dalam praktiknya adalah bahwa Amerika Serikat menjalankan negara kita. Dia melanjutkan: Lihatlah negara Afrika mana pun hari ini, dan Anda akan mendapati bahwa angka tersebut berayun turun. Standar pendidikan menurun, standar kesehatan turun dan infrastruktur benar-benar putus. Mark Lynas, surat dari Zambia Nation, 14 Februari 2000 Di beberapa negara, lebih banyak yang dihabiskan untuk membayar hutang daripada pendidikan. Misalnya, bahkan di bekas negara komunis yang mencoba menjalani reformasi ekonomi yang cepat. Pendidikan diberi jok belakang. Sebenarnya, organisasi pembangunan dan bantuan yang berbasis di Inggris, Oxfam, mengatakan bahwa kebijakan IMF menolak pendidikan anak-anak. Sejak berakhirnya Perang Dingin, bahkan negara-negara kaya pun telah melihat kemunduran pemerintah dalam beberapa fungsi, serupa dengan penyesuaian struktural. John McMurtry menangkap sumur ini, sangat kritis terhadap dampak penyesuaian tersebut terhadap persyaratan hidup: Kebutuhan hidup sistematis yang sistematis sekarang jelas terlihat dari masyarakat paling maju di dunia yang paling maju. Dalam kasus Kanada, sekali lagi, angka kematian bayi, indikator kesehatan sosial klasik, meningkat 43 persen pada angka Statistik Kanada 1995, kenaikan tercatat pertama dalam lebih dari tiga puluh satu tahun, sementara kemiskinan anak meningkat sebesar 46 Persen sejak tahun 1989. Di Afrika diperkirakan 500.000 lebih anak meninggal akibat restrukturisasi ekonomi negara mereka yang dipaksakan untuk memastikan peningkatan arus uang ke bank eksternal, sementara pengeluaran untuk perawatan kesehatan turun 50 persen dan pada pendidikan sebesar 25 persen sejak ini Program penyesuaian struktural dimulai. John McMurtry, Unequal Freedoms Pasar Global sebagai Sistem Etika, (Kumarian Press, 1998), hal.305. Dan saat krisis AIDS semakin memburuk di Afrika, tindakan yang mengurangi anggaran kesehatan di negara-negara miskin telah berkontribusi terhadap masalah tersebut. (Lihat bagian situs ini tentang AIDS di Afrika untuk informasi lebih lanjut tentang masalah itu.) Apa Resep Bank Dunia IMF Seperti yang dikemukakan ekonom Robin Hanhel: IMF telah memberi resep obat yang sama untuk ekonomi dunia ketiga yang bermasalah selama lebih dari dua dekade: penghematan moneter. Kencangkan jumlah uang beredar untuk meningkatkan tingkat suku bunga internal ke ketinggian apa pun yang diperlukan untuk menstabilkan nilai mata uang lokal. Penghematan fiskal Tingkatkan koleksi pajak dan kurangi pengeluaran pemerintah secara dramatis. Privatisasi Jual dari perusahaan publik ke sektor swasta. Liberalisasi Keuangan. Hapus pembatasan aliran masuk dan arus keluar modal internasional serta pembatasan pada bisnis dan bank asing yang diizinkan untuk membeli, memiliki, dan mengoperasikannya. Hanya ketika pemerintah menandatangani perjanjian penyesuaian struktural ini, IMF setuju untuk: Meminjam cukup banyak untuk mencegah default pinjaman internasional yang akan datang karena dan sebaliknya tidak dapat dilakukan. Mengatur restrukturisasi hutang negara di antara kreditur internasional swasta yang mencakup janji pinjaman baru. Robin Hanhel, Aturan Panik. (South End Press, 1999) hal. 52.Joseph Stiglitz adalah salah satu ekonom paling banyak dikutip di dunia. Mantan pemenang hadiah Nobel untuk bidang ekonomi dan profesor di Columbia University. Dia juga mantan kepala ekonom di Bank Dunia, yang mengundurkan diri karena mendapat tekanan dari kritik yang dia buat tentang IMF dan Bank Dunia. Dia juga anggota kabinet Presiden AS Bill Clintons dan ketua Dewan Penasihat Ekonomi Presiden AS. Wawasan dan kritiknya patut diperhatikan. Dia mencatat bahwa: IMF suka menjalankan bisnisnya tanpa orang luar yang mengajukan terlalu banyak pertanyaan. Secara teori, dana tersebut mendukung institusi demokratis di negara-negara yang dibantunya. Dalam prakteknya, ini merongrong proses demokrasi dengan menerapkan kebijakan. Secara resmi, tentu saja, IMF tidak memaksakan apapun. Ini menegosiasikan kondisi untuk menerima bantuan. Tapi semua kekuatan dalam negosiasi ada pada satu sidethe IMF dan dana tersebut jarang memberi waktu yang cukup untuk membangun konsensus yang luas atau bahkan konsultasi luas baik dengan parlemen atau masyarakat sipil. Kadang-kadang IMF membagi-bagikan dalih keterbukaan sekaligus menegosiasikan perjanjian rahasia. Pada bulan April 2001, Greg Palast melakukan wawancara dengan Joseph Stiglitz yang dimuat di surat kabar Inggris Observer and Guardian. Bank Dunia membicarakan strategi bantuan untuk setiap negara miskin yang menggunakan negara yang hati-hati berdasarkan investigasi negara. Namun, seperti dilaporkan dalam artikel tersebut, menurut orang dalam Stiglitz, penyelidikan Bank Dunia hanya sedikit melibatkan pemeriksaan jarak dekat dari hotel bintang lima. Ini diakhiri dengan sebuah pertemuan dengan seorang menteri keuangan mengemis, yang menyerahkan sebuah kesepakatan restrukturisasi yang telah dirancang sebelumnya untuk penandatanganan sukarela. Stiglitz kemudian mengatakan kepada Palast bahwa setelah setiap ekonomi negara dianalisis, Bank Dunia menyerahkan setiap menteri program empat langkah yang sama (penekanan ditambahkan), yang dijelaskan dalam artikel sebagai berikut: Privatisasi. Stiglitz mengatakan kepada Palast bahwa beberapa politisi cukup korup untuk terus maju dengan beberapa aksi jual negara. Dari pada menolak menjual industri negara, dia mengatakan bahwa pemimpin nasional yang menggunakan the World Banks menuntut untuk membungkam kritikus lokal dengan susah payah mencambuk perusahaan listrik dan air mereka. Anda bisa melihat mata mereka melebar pada prospek 10 komisi yang dibayarkan ke rekening bank Swiss karena hanya mencukur beberapa miliar dari harga jual aset nasional. Menurut Palast, Stiglitz menegaskan bahwa pemerintah AS tahu tentang, setidaknya dalam satu kasus: penjualan Rusia 1995: Pandangan Treasury AS adalah hal yang hebat karena kami ingin Yeltsin terpilih kembali. Kami tidak peduli jika pemilihannya korup. (Penekanan ditambahkan) Liberalisasi pasar modal. Menurut Palast, Stiglitz menggambarkan arus modal yang menghancurkan yang dapat menghancurkan ekonomi sebagai hal yang dapat diprediksi, dan mengatakan bahwa ketika arus keluar modal terjadi, untuk merayu spekulan untuk mengembalikan dana modal negara sendiri, IMF meminta agar negara-negara tersebut menaikkan suku bunga menjadi 30, 50 dan 80. Harga berbasis pasar. Palast menulis bahwa pada saat inilah IMF menyeret negara yang terengah-engah ke titik ketiga ini, yang digambarkan sebagai istilah bagus untuk menaikkan harga pada makanan, air dan gas memasak yang, Palast terus, dapat, diperkirakan, ke Langkah-Tiga-dan - a-Setengah: apa yang disebut Stiglitz, kerusuhan IMF. Kerusuhan ini, yang diklarifikasi oleh artikel tersebut adalah demonstrasi damai yang dibubarkan oleh peluru, tank dan gas air mata, menyebabkan arus keluar modal lebih lanjut, situasi yang, seperti yang ditunjukkan Palast, bukan tanpa sisi terang: perusahaan asing kemudian dapat memilih aset yang tersisa, seperti Konsesi pertambangan aneh atau pelabuhan, dengan harga jual api. Perdagangan bebas . Tapi versi yang didominasi oleh peraturan Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia dan Bank Dunia, yang menurut Palast, Stiglitz menyamakan Perang Opium: Itu juga tentang membuka pasar. dia berkata. Palast menulis bahwa Pada abad kesembilan belas, orang Eropa dan Amerika saat ini menendang penghalang penjualan di Asia, Amerika Latin dan Afrika, sementara menggalang pasar kita sendiri melawan pertanian Dunia Ketiga. (Perhatikan bahwa sementara bahkan Presiden Bush akan mengklaim bahwa kita menginginkan mekanisme global berbasis peraturan, media arus utama sering tidak menanyakan apa peraturan itu sendiri, dan apakah kebijakan tersebut sesuai.) Palast menyoroti masalah Stiglitz dengan rencana Bank Dunia IMF, merencanakannya Artikel tersebut digambarkan sebagai dirancang dalam kerahasiaan dan didorong oleh ideologi absolutis. Pertama, mereka tidak terbuka terhadap wacana dan perbedaan pendapat, dan kedua, bahwa mereka tidak bekerja. Palast menulis bahwa Di bawah bantuan bantuan struktural IMF, pendapatan Africas turun 23. Dalam klip video 5 menit (tersedia dalam transkrip), Martin Khor yang terhormat, direktur Third World Network mencatat kekhawatiran yang sama terhadap Stiglitz dan menambahkan bahwa Negara-negara kaya bersikap munafik dan agresif dengan Melindungi industri mereka sendiri saat mencoba memaksa pasar terbuka negara-negara miskin Menjual produk buatan yang lebih murah di negara-negara miskin, merongrong produsen lokal Menjanjikan lebih banyak bantuan sementara pembangunan ekonomi riil menderita: Martin Khor, Structural Adjustment Explained. 15 Juli 2005, TV Gambar Besar sebagai bagian dari proses globalisasi yang lebih luas, kebijakan ini, menurutnya dalam klip lain (2 menit, transkrip), menciptakan jaket lurus untuk negara-negara miskin dalam hal ruang kebijakan untuk membuat keputusan sendiri: Afrika Aksi, sebuah organisasi yang bekerja untuk keadilan politik, ekonomi dan sosial di Afrika sangat kritis terhadap SAPS. Perhatikan bahwa, Asumsi dasar di balik penyesuaian struktural adalah bahwa peran yang meningkat untuk pasar akan memberi manfaat bagi orang miskin dan kaya. Di dunia pasar internasional Darwin, yang terkuat akan menang. Hal ini akan mendorong orang lain mengikuti teladan mereka. Perkembangan ekonomi pasar dengan peran yang lebih besar bagi sektor swasta oleh karena itu dipandang sebagai kunci untuk merangsang pertumbuhan ekonomi. Berfokus pada Afrika, artikel tersebut menunjukkan bahwa masalahnya adalah bahwa negara-negara Afrika tidak memerlukan reformasi korektif, namun apakah SAP merupakan jawaban yang tepat. Masalah utama dengan penyesuaian semacam ini, bagaimanapun, adalah apakah mereka membangun kapasitas untuk pulih dan apakah mereka mempromosikan pembangunan jangka panjang. Penyesuaian yang didiktekan oleh Bank Dunia dan IMF tidak melakukan keduanya. Dengan cara ini, IMF dan Bank Dunia mendorong negara-negara miskin untuk membuka perdagangan luar negeri terlalu agresif dengan alasan bahwa kebijakan ini akan membantu menciptakan lapangan kerja tingkat tinggi dengan negara-negara kaya hampir berlawanan dengan apa yang telah terjadi pada kenyataannya dalam banyak kasus. Mungkin salah satu dampak yang paling serius adalah bahwa kebijakan eksternal ini secara tidak langsung merongrong demokrasi dan akuntabilitas demokratis, tidak hanya IMF dan Bank Dunia (setelah semua, jika kebijakan mereka gagal, siapa mereka bertanggung jawab) tetapi juga pemerintah orang miskin Negara sendiri, yang melihat pengurangan kemampuan mereka untuk membuat keputusan penting bagi rakyat mereka. Dalam beberapa kasus, pemerintah yang lebih korup dapat menggunakan penyesuaian struktural sebagai alasan untuk tidak melayani semua orang mereka. Oxfam International memperkirakan bahwa, di Filipina saja, pemotongan obat pencegahan yang dipaksakan oleh IMF akan menghasilkan 29.000 kematian akibat malaria dan meningkat 90.000 dalam jumlah kasus TB yang tidak diobati. Tribunal yang menyelidiki kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan mencatat Jeremy Brecher, Panic Rules: Segala sesuatu yang Anda ingin ketahui tentang Ekonomi Global, oleh Robin Hahnel (South End Press, 1999). Karena beberapa negara miskin tidak begitu agresif dalam privatisasi dan persyaratan lainnya seperti yang diinginkan IMF atau Bank Dunia, mereka menghadapi penundaan penundaan hutang yang terus-menerus. Model pembangunan ini, dimana Korea Utara (atau negara maju) memberlakukan kondisi mereka di Selatan (negara-negara berkembang) mendapat banyak kritik dari LSM dan kelompok masyarakat lainnya. Mungkin modelnya perlu direvisi dan didekati dari berbagai sudut, seperti yang disarankan oleh kertas Oxfam ini. True, in some cases corrupt governments have borrowed money from these institutions andor directly from various donor nations and ended up using that money to pursue conflicts, for arms deals, or to divert resources away from their people. However, in most cases that has been done knowingly, with the support of various rich nations due to their own national interests. especially during the Cold War. As Oxfam says. it would be wrong to hold civilians to ransom by placing stringent conditions on humanitarian relief because of the way their government spends its money. Furthermore, it has been argued that Structural Adjustments encourage corruption and undermine democracy. As Ann Pettifor and Jospeh Hanlon note, top-down conditionality has undermined democracy by making elected governments accountable to Washington-based institutions instead of to their own people. The potential for unaccountability and corruption therefore increases as well. As the article from Africa Action above also mentions, African countries require essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they can compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead required countries to reduce state support and protection for social and economic sectors. They insisted on pushing weak African economies into markets where they were unable to compete with the might of the international private sector. These policies further undermined the economic development of African countries. What is also of note here is that African countries, before SAPs, were making some progress in things like health, though economic reform of some sort was needed. But SAPs have appeared to made the problem worse, as the following, quoted at length, summarizes: Health status is influenced by socioeconomic factors as well as by the state of health care delivery systems. The policies prescribed by the World Bank and IMF have increased poverty in African countries and mandated cutbacks in the health sector. Combined, this has caused a massive deterioration in the continents health status. The health care systems inherited by most African states after the colonial era were unevenly weighted toward privileged elites and urban centers. In the 1960s and 1970s, substantial progress was made in improving the reach of health care services in many African countries. Most African governments increased spending on the health sector during this period. They endeavored to extend primary health care and to emphasize the development of a public health system to redress the inequalities of the colonial era. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized the importance of primary healthcare at the historic Alma Ata Conference in 1978. The Declaration of Alma Ata focused on a community-based approach to health care and resolved that comprehensive health care was a basic right and a responsibility of government. These efforts undertaken by African governments after independence were quite successful. While the progress across the African continent was uneven, it was significant, not only because of its positive effects on the health of African populations. It also illustrated a commitment by African leaders to the principle of building and developing their health care systems. With the economic crisis of the 1980s, much of Africas economic and social progress over the previous two decades began to come undone. As African governments became clients of the World Bank and IMF, they forfeited control over their domestic spending priorities. The loan conditions of these institutions forced contraction in government spending on health and other social services. The relationship between poverty and ill-health is well established. The economic austerity policies attached to World Bank and IMF loans led to intensified poverty in many African countries in the 1980s and 1990s. This increased the vulnerability of African populations to the spread of diseases and to other health problems. The deepening poverty across the continent has created fertile ground for the spread of infectious diseases. Declining living conditions and reduced access to basic services have led to decreased health status. In Africa today, almost half of the population lacks access to safe water and adequate sanitation services. As immune systems have become weakened, the susceptibility of Africas people to infectious diseases has greatly increased. Even as government spending on health was cut back, the amounts being paid by African governments to foreign creditors continued to increase. By the 1990s, most African countries were spending more repaying foreign debts than on health or education for their people. Health care services in African countries disintegrated, while desperately needed resources were siphoned off by foreign creditors. It was estimated in 1997 that sub-Saharan African governments were transferring to Northern creditors four times what they were spending on the health of their people. In 1998, Senegal spent five times as much repaying foreign debts as on health. Across Africa, debt repayments compete directly with spending on Africas health care services. The erosion of Africas health care infrastructure has left many countries unable to cope with the impact of HIVAIDS and other diseases. Efforts to address the health crisis have been undermined by the lack of available resources and the breakdown in health care delivery systems. The privatization of basic health care has further impeded the response to the health crisis. The World Bank has recommended several forms of privatization in the health sector. Throughout Africa, the privatization of health care has reduced access to necessary services. The introduction of market principles into health care delivery has transformed health care from a public service to a private commodity. The outcome has been the denial of access to the poor, who cannot afford to pay for private care. For example user fees have actually succeeded in driving the poor away from health care while the promotion of insurance schemes as a means to defray the costs of private health care is inherently flawed in the African context. Less than 10 of Africas labor force is employed in the formal job sector. Beyond the issue of affordability, private health care is also inappropriate in responding to Africas particular health needs. When infectious diseases constitute the greatest challenge to health in Africa, public health services are essential. Private health care cannot make the necessary interventions at the community level. Private care is less effective at prevention, and is less able to cope with epidemic situations. Successfully responding to the spread of HIVAIDS and other diseases in Africa requires strong public health care services. The privatization of health care in Africa has created a two-tier system which reinforces economic and social inequalities. As health care has become an expensive privilege, the poor have been unable to pay for essential services. The result has been reduced access and increased rates of illness and mortality. Despite these devastating consequences, the World Bank and IMF have continued to push for the privatization of public health services. With the other ills, corruption too has soared, so challenges in improving things like health care are even greater. The article also comments on recent increases in funds to tackle HIVAIDS and other problems and concludes that because some underlying causes and issues are not addressed, these steps may not have much effective impact: The World Bank has also increased its funding for health, and for HIVAIDS programs in particular. While the shift in focus towards prioritizing social development and poverty eradication is welcome, fundamental problems remain. New lending for health and education can achieve little when the debt burden of most African countries is already unsustainable. Debt cancellation should be the first step in enabling African countries to tackle their social development challenges. Additional resources to support health and education programs should be conceived as public investment, not new loans. The new spin on the World Bank and IMF priorities fails to change the basic agenda and operations of these institutions. Indeed, it appears to be largely an exercise in public relations. The conditions attached to World Bank and IMF loans still reflect the same orientation prescribed over the past two decades. The recent moves towards promoting poverty reduction have actually permitted these institutions to increase the scope of their loan conditions to include social sector reforms and governance aspects. This allows an even greater intrusion into the domestic policies of African countries. It is highly inappropriate that external creditors should have such control over the priorities of African governments. And it is disingenuous for such creditors to proclaim concern with poverty reduction when they continue to drain desperately needed resources from the poorest countries. The free market fundamentalism of the World Bank and IMF has had a disastrous impact on Africas health. The all-out pursuit of market-led growth has undermined health and health care in African countries. It has forced governments to sacrifice social needs to meet macroeconomic goals. This approach to development is fundamentally flawed. The failure to prioritize public health denies its significance in promoting long-term economic growth. As the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health recently concluded, health is more than an outcome of development, it is a crucial means to achieving development. Furthermore, there is the phenomena of brain drain whereby the poor countries educate some of their population to key jobs such as medical areas and other professions only to find that some rich countries try to attract them away. The prestigious journal, British Medical Journal (BMJ) sums this up in the title of an article: Developed world is robbing African countries of health staff (Rebecca Coombes, BMJ. Volume 230, p.923, April 23, 2005.) Some countries are left with just 500 doctors each with large areas without any health workers of any kind. A shocking one third of practicing doctors in UK are from overseas. for example, as the BBC reports. And yet, this is not just a problem Africa faces, but many other poor countries, such as various Asian countries, Central and Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, etc. Other industries also suffer this issue. Yet, at the same time, it is understandable that individuals would want to escape the misery of poverty and corruption in their own country. A lot of the poverty and corruption results from these same structural adjustment programs, which then contributes to this brain drain, thus twisting the knife in the back, so to speak, as some of what little is allowed to be spent on health is now lost to the already rich, and the poor have to bear the burden. Also note that the illegal drug trade has increased in countries that are in debt (because of the hard cash that is earned), as Jubilee 2000 points out. Growing such illegal crops also diverts land away from meeting local and immediate needs, which also leads to more hunger. Debts chain reactions and related effects are enormous. (For more information on debt in general, see this web sites section on debt related issues .) These policies may be described as reforms. adjustments. restructuring or some other benign-sounding term, but the effects on the poor are the same nonetheless. Some even describe this as leading to economic apartheid . The U. S. uses its dominant role in the global economy and in the IFIs International Financial Institutions to impose SAPs on developing countries and open up their markets to competition from U. S. companies. SAPs are based on a narrow economic model that perpetuates poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. The growing civil society critique of structural adjustment is forcing the IFIs and Washington to offer new mitigation measures regarding SAPs, including national debates on economic policy. Carol Welch, Structural Adjustment Programs amp Poverty Reduction Strategy. Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol 5, Number 14, April 2000In a more cynical or harsher description, structural adjustments and other trade related policies could also be seen as a weapon of mass destruction as Raj Patel hints, (commenting on the Doha WTO conference in November, 2001. Although this is a different context, the overall aspect remains the same): A fertilizer bomb that kills hundreds in Oklahoma. Fuel-laden civil jets that kill 4000 in New York. A sanctions policy that kills one and a half million in Iraq. A trade policy that immiserates continents. You can make a bomb out of anything. The ones on paper hurt the most. Indeed, consider the following: According to UNICEF, over 500,000 children under the age of five died each year in Africa and Latin America in the late 1980s as a direct result of the debt crisis and its management under the International Monetary Funds structural adjustment programs. These programs required the abolition of price supports on essential food-stuffs, steep reductions in spending on health, education, and other social services, and increases in taxes. The debt crisis has never been resolved for much of sub-Saharan Africa. Extrapolating from the UNICEF data, as many as 5,000,000 children and vulnerable adults may have lost their lives in this blighted continent as a result of the debt crunch . The Welfare State has Helped Todays Rich Countries to Develop The era of globalization can be contrasted with the development path pursued in prior decades, which was generally more inward-looking. Prior to 1980, many countries quite deliberately adopted policies that were designed to insulate their economies from the world market in order to give their domestic industries an opportunity to advance to the point where they could be competitive. The policy of development via import substitution, for example, was often associated with protective tariffs and subsidies for key industries. Performance requirements on foreign investment were also common. These measures often required foreign investors to employ native workers in skilled positions, and to purchase inputs from domestic producers, as ways of ensuring technology transfers. It was also common for developing countries to sharply restrict capital flows. This was done for a number of purposes: to increase the stability of currencies, to encourage both foreign corporations and citizens holding large amounts of domestic currency to invest within the country, and to use the allocation and price of foreign exchange as part of an industrial or development policy. Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen, The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress. Center for Economic Policy and Research, July 11, 2001 As J. W. Smith notes, every rich nation today has developed because in the past their governments took major responsibility to promote economic growth. There was also a lot of protectionism and intervention in technology transfer. There was an attempt to provide some sort of equality, education, health, and other services to help enhance the nation. The industrialized nations have understood that some forms of protection allow capital to remain within the economy, and hence via a multiplier effect, help enhance the economy. Yet, as seen in the structural adjustment initiatives and other western-imposed policies, the developing nations are effectively being forced to cut back these very same provisions that have helped the developed countries to prosper in the past . The extent of the devastation caused has led many to ask if development is really the objective of the IMF, World Bank, and their ideological backers. Focusing on Africa as an example: The past two decades of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment in Africa have led to greater social and economic deprivation, and an increased dependence of African countries on external loans. The failure of structural adjustment has been so dramatic that some critics of the World Bank and IMF argue that the policies imposed on African countries were never intended to promote development. On the contrary, they claim that their intention was to keep these countries economically weak and dependent. The most industrialized countries in the world have actually developed under conditions opposite to those imposed by the World Bank and IMF on African governments. The U. S. and the countries of Western Europe accorded a central role to the state in economic activity, and practiced strong protectionism, with subsidies for domestic industries. Under World Bank and IMF programs, African countries have been forced to cut back or abandon the very provisions which helped rich countries to grow and prosper in the past. Even more significantly, the policies of the World Bank and IMF have impeded Africas development by undermining Africas health. Their free market perspective has failed to consider health an integral component of an economic growth and human development strategy. Instead, the policies of these institutions have caused a deterioration in health and in health care services across the African continent. While the phrase Welfare State often conjures up negative images, with regards to globalization, most European countries feel that protecting their people when developing helps society as well as the economy. It may be that for real free trade to be effective countries with similar strength economies can reduce such protective measures when trading with one another. However, for developing countries to try to compete in the global market place at the same level as the more established and industrialized nationsand before their own foundations and institutions are stable enoughis almost economic suicide. An example of this can be seen with the global economic crisis of 19979899 that affected Asia in particular. A UN report looking into this suggested that such nations should rely on domestic roots for growth, diversifying exports and deepening social safety nets. For more about this economic crisis and this UN report, go to this web sites section on debt and the economic crisis . The type of trade is important. As the UN report also suggested, diversification is important. Just as biodiversity is important to ensure resilience to whatever nature can throw at a given ecosystem, diverse economies can help countries weather economic storms. Matthew Lockwood is worth quoting in regards to Africa: What Africa needs is to shake off its dependence on primary commodity exports, a problem underlying not only its marginalization from world trade but also its chronic debt problems. Many countries rely today on as narrow a range of agricultural and mineral products as they did 30 years ago, and suffer the consequences of inexorably declining export earnings. Again, the campaigners remedyto improve market access for African exports to Europe and Americais wide of the mark. Matthew Lockwood, We must breed tigers in Africa. The Guardian, June 24, 2005 Asia too has seen development where policies counter to neoliberalism have been followed, as Lockwood also notes. To see more about the relationship of protectionism with free trade, check out this sites section on Free Trade. which also discusses protectionism and its pros and cons. Structural Adjustment in Rich Countries As the global financial crisis which started in the West around 2008 has taken hold, many rich nations themselves are facing economic problems. Perhaps surprisingly many have prescribed to themselves structural adjustment and austerity programs. Some have been pressured onto them by others. For example, in Europe, Germany is influential in requiring austerity measures if countries want bailouts from Germany or the European Union. For more about the austerity measures being put in, and how some of it seems ideologically based in fact of evidence that it is not working or even making the economy worse see this sites section on the global financial crisis . IMF and World Bank The IMF and World Banks policies are very different now from their original intent, as summarized here by the John F. Henning Center for International Labor Relations: The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were conceived by 44 nations at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 with the goal of creating a stable framework for post-war global economy. The IMF was originally envisioned to promote steady growth and full employment by offering unconditional loans to economies in crisis and establishing mechanisms to stabilize exchange rates and facilitate currency exchange. Much of that vision, however, was never born out. Instead, pressured by US representatives, the IMF took to offering loans based on strict conditions, later to be known as structural adjustment or austerity measures, dictated largely by the most powerful member nations. Critics charge that these policies have decimated social safety nets and worsened lax labor and environmental standards in developing countries. The World Bank (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was created to fund the rebuilding of infrastructure in nations ravaged by World War Two. Its vision too, however, soon changed. In the mid 1950s, the Bank turned its attention away from Europe to the Third World, and began funding massive industrial development projects in Latin American, Asia, and Africa. Many scholars and activists contend that the Banks aggressive dealings with developing nations, which were often ruled by dictatorial regimes, exacerbated the developing worlds growing debt crisis and devastated local ecologies and indigenous communities. Both IMF and World Bank policies remain a source of heated debate. John F. Henning Center for International Labor Relations. Institute for Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley Although their goals are slightly different, the IMF and World Bank policies complement each other: World Bank and IMF adjustment programs differ according to the role of each institution. In general, IMF loan conditions focus on monetary and fiscal issues. They emphasize programs to address inflation and balance of payments problems, often requiring specific levels of cutbacks in total government spending. The adjustment programs of the World Bank are wider in scope, with a more long-term development focus. They highlight market liberalization and public sector reforms, seen as promoting growth through expanding exports, particularly of cash crops. Despite these differences, World Bank and IMF adjustment programs reinforce each other. One way is called cross-conditionality. This means that a government generally must first be approved by the IMF, before qualifying for an adjustment loan from the World Bank. Their agendas also overlap in the financial sector in particular. Both work to impose fiscal austerity and to eliminate subsidies for workers, for example. The market-oriented perspective of both institutions makes their policy prescriptions complementary. But economics is often driven by politics. As a result of policies by the IMF, World Bank and various powerful nations, basic human rights have been severely undermined in many countries, as also noted sharply by Global Exchange: By insisting that national leaders place the interests of international financial investors above the needs of their own citizens, the IMF and the World Bank have short circuited the accountability at the heart of self-governance, thereby corrupting the democratic process. The subordination of social needs to the concerns of financial markets has, in turn, made it more difficult for national governments to ensure that their people receive food, health care, and educationbasic human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Banks and the Funds erosion of basic human rights and their perversion of the democratic process have made the institutions a clear and present threat to the well being of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. For decades, the IMF and World Bank have been largely controlled by the developed nations such as the USA, Germany, UK, Japan etc. (The IMF web site has a breakdown of the quotas and voting powers .) The US, for example, controls 17 of the voting power at the IMF. Until November 2010, an 85 majority was required for a decision. so the US effectively had veto power at the IMF. In addition, the World Bank is 51 funded by the U. S. Treasury . The global financial crisis from 2008 onwards has resulted in some shifts in power, such that some leading developing countries have finally managed to break some of the control at the IMF and get more seats and votes. While some say that parts of Europe have resisted giving up some share which would be appropriate, the changes also mean the US no longer has veto power that it had for decades. Journalist John Pilger also provides a political aspect to this: Under a plan devised by President Reagans Secretary to the Treasury, James Baker, indebted countries were offered World Bank and IMF servicing loans in return for the structural adjustment of their economies. This meant that the economic direction of each country would be planned, monitored and controlled in Washington. Liberal containment was replaced by laissez-faire capitalism known as the free market . John Pilger, Hidden Agendas, (The New Press, 1998), p.63 The IMF and World Banks policies have indeed been heavily criticized for many years and are seen as unhelpful and sometimes, unaccountable. as they have led to an increased dependency by the developing countries upon the richer nations, as also mentioned at the top of this page. At the same time, the different cultures are not respected when it comes to prescribing structural adjustment principles, either. In Africa, the effects of policies such as SAPs have been felt sharply. As an example of how political interests affect these institutions, Africa Action describes the policies of the IMF and World Bank, but also hints at the influences behind them too: Over the past two decades, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have undermined Africas health through the policies they have imposed. The dependence of poor and highly indebted African countries on World Bank and IMF loans has given these institutions leverage to control economic policy-making in these countries. The policies mandated by the World Bank and IMF have forced African governments to orient their economies towards greater integration in international markets at the expense of social services and long-term development priorities. They have reduced the role of the state and cut back government expenditure. The World Bank and IMF were important instruments of Western powers during the Cold War in both economic and political terms. They performed a political function by subordinating development objectives to geostrategic interests. They also promoted an economic agenda that sought to preserve Western dominance in the global economy. Not surprisingly, the World Bank and IMF are directed by the governments of the worlds richest countries. Combined, the Group of 7 (U. S. Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan) hold more than 40 of the votes on the Boards of Directors of these institutions. The U. S. alone accounts for almost 20. (The U. S. holds 16.45 of the votes at the World Bank, and over 17 of the votes at the International Monetary Fund.) But it is not just health. Basic food security has also been undermined. An example in 2002 at least made it to mainstream media attention in UK. As Ann Petifor, head of debt campaign organization, Jubilee Research noted, the IMF forced the Malawi government to sell its surplus grain in favor of foreign exchange just before a famine struck. This was explicitly so that debts could be repaid. 7 million of the total 11 million population were severely short of food. But its sic worse than that, said Petifor. Because Malawi is indebted, her economic policies are effectively determined by her creditorsrepresented in Malawi by the IMF. Malawi spent more than the budget the foreign creditors set. As a result the IMF withheld 47 million in aid. Other western donors, acting on advice from IMF staff, also withheld aid, pending IMF approval of the national budget. (Emphasis added). To add to the humiliation of the Malawian government, the IMF has also suspended the debt service relief for which she was only recently deemed eligiblebecause she is off track. That is not the end of the story unfortunately. As Petifor also mentioned, under the economic program imposed by her creditors, Malawi removed all farming and food subsidies allowing the market to determine demand and supply for food. This reduced support for farmers, leading many to go hungry as prices increased. As she also noted, the rich countries, on the other hand, do not follow their own policies Europe and the US subsidize their agriculture with billions of dollars. But the US, for example, sees this situation as exploitable. Petifor again: US Secretary for Agriculture, Dan Glickman, illustrates well the US attitude to countries suffering famine and in need of food aid: Humanitarian and national self interest both can be served by well-designed foreign assistance programs. Food aid has not only met emergency food needs, but has also been a useful market development tool. (OXFAM report: Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty by Kevin Watkins and Penny Fowler) It is not just the US that uses aid in this way. Most rich countries do this. And it isnt just food aid, but aid in general that is often used inappropriately. The Guardian reported (August 29, 2005) how 700,000 (about 400,000) of 3 million in British aid to Malawi was mis-spent on US firms hotel and meal bills. Even notebooks and pens were flown in from Washington rather than purchased locally. See this sites section on foreign aid for more details about the issue of foreign aid and its misuse. IMF and World Bank Reform Throughout the period of structural adjustment from the 80s, various people have called for more accountability and reform of these institutions, to no avail. Following the IMF and World Bank protests in Washington, D. C on April 16, 2000, and coinciding with the Meltzer Report criticizing the IMF and World Bank, there has been more talk about IMF reforms. At first thought the reforms sound like the protests and other movements efforts are paying off. However, as Oxfam noted, some of the reform suggestions may not be the way to go and may do even more harm than good. In their own words: While some of the reform proposals now being debated are sensible, the thrust of the reform agenda is a source of concern for the following reasons: It reflects a growing disenchantment with multilateralism It threatens to replace inappropriate IMF conditions with inappropriate conditions dictated by the G7 countries It fails to address the real policy issues at the heart of the IMFs failure as a poverty reduction agency It does not address the politicization of IMF loans, especially with regard to the US Treasurys influence It does not adequately consider the democratic deficit which prevents poor countries from having an effective voice in the IMF Reforming the IMF. Oxfam International Policy Paper, April 2000On the one hand it seems appropriate to demand an end to the IMF. However, such an abrupt course of action may itself lead to a gaping hole in international financial policies without an effective alternative. And that is another topic in itself Into 2008, and the global financial crisis has been so severe that rich countries have been affected. Calls for reform have therefore increased, even from within some of these institutions themselves. These calls have included more transparency and accountability as well as specifics such as creating a more stable financial system, and cracking down on tax havens. This time, however, developing countries are demanding more voice, and have more power that in past years to try and affect this. In April, the IMF conceded just 3 of rich country votes to the developing countries, but developing countries rightly want more. Historically democracy and power have not gone well together, and as journalist John Vandaele has found, The most powerful international institutions tend to have the worst democratic credentials: the power distribution among countries is more unequal, and the transparency, and hence democratic control, is worse. If change is to be effective, these fundamental issues will need resolving. Powerful countries may try to reshape things only in so far as they can get themselves out of trouble and if they can avoid it, they will try to limit how much power they concede to others. And perhaps a sad reality of geopolitics will be that any emerging nations that become truly influential and powerful in this area will one day try to do the same. For now, however, developing countries generally have a common agenda of more voice and will therefore champion common principles of better democracy and accountability. IMF and World Bank Admit Some of Their Policies Do Not Work Recently, we have heard members of the World Bank and IMF entertain the possibility that maybe their structural adjustment policies did have some negative effects. The report doesnt really look in detail at why the poor benefit less from adjustment. Instead it speculates that they may be ill-placed to take advantage of new opportunities created by structural adjustment reforms because, as the Bretton Woods Project insinuates, the report implies that the poor have neither the skills or financial resources to benefit from high-technology jobs and cheaper imports. Now, it may not have been the intent of the report to do so, but one cant help but notice how it almost seems as though while they may admit that structural adjustment didnt benefit the poor, it is almost as though the Bank tries to subtly absolve itself by subtly blaming the poor for not benefiting from this. When structural adjustments have required cut backs in health, education and so on, then what would one expect In March 2003, the IMF itself admitted in a paper that globalization may actually increase the risk of financial crisis in the developing world. Globalization has heightened these risks since cross-country financial linkages amplify the effects of various shocks and transmit them more quickly across national borders the IMF notes and adds that, The evidence presented in this paper suggests that financial integration should be approached cautiously, with good institutions and macroeconomic frameworks viewed as important. In addition, they admit that it is hard to provide a clear road-map on how this should be achieved, and instead it should be done on a case by case basis. This would sound like a move slightly away from a one size fits all style of prescription that the IMF has been long criticized for. As mentioned further above, and as many critics have said for a long time, opening up poorer countries in an aggressive manner can leave them vulnerable to large capital volatility and outflows. Reuters. reporting on the IMF report also noted that the IMF sounded more like its critics when making this admission. In theory there may indeed be merit to various arguments supporting global integration and cooperation. But politics, corruption, geopolitics, as well as numerous other factors need to be added to economic models, which could prove very difficult. As suggested in various parts of this site, because economics is sometimes separated from politics and other major issues, theory can indeed be far from reality. Sitglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, is worth quoting a bit more to give an insight into the power that the IMF has, and why accusations of it and its policies being colonial-like are perhaps not too far off: The IMF is not particularly interested in hearing the thoughts of its client countries on such topics as development strategy or financial austerity. All too often, the Funds approach to the developing countries has had the feel of a colonial ruler. A picture can be worth a thousand words, and a single picture snapped in 1998, shown throughout the world, has engraved itself in the minds of millions, particularly those in the former colonies. The IMFs managing director, Michel Camdessus (the head of the IMF is referred to as its Managing Director ), a short, neatly dressed former French Treasury bureaucrat, who once claimed to be a Socialist, is standing with a stern fact and crossed arms over the seated and humiliated president of Indonesia. The hapless president was being forced, in effect, to turn over economic sovereignty of his country to the IMF in return for the aid his country needed. In the end, ironically, much of the money went not to help Indonesia, but to bail out the colonial powers private sector creditors. (Officially, the ceremony was the signing of a letter of agreement, an agreement effectively dictated by the IMF, though it often still keeps up the pretense that the letter of intent comes from the countrys government) Defenders of Camdessus claim the photograph was unfair, that he did not realize that it was being taken and that it was viewed out of context. But that is the pointin day-to-day interactions, away from cameras and reporters, this is precisely the stance that the IMF bureaucrats take, from the leader of the organization on down. To those in the developing countries, the picture raised a very disturbing question: Had things really changed since the official ending of colonialism a half century ago When I saw the pictures, images of other signings of agreements came to mind. I wondered how similar this scene was to those marking the opening up of Japan with Admiral Perrys gunboat diplomacy or the end of the Opium Wars or the surrender of maharajas in India. Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents, (Penguin Books, 2002), pp. 4041 The above passage is from Stiglitzs book, Globalization and its Discontents. In it, he highlights many, many more issues, criticisms and aspects of IMFWashington Consensus ideological fanaticism that have hindered development, and in many cases, as he points out, worsened situations. It is surprising and also quite illuminating to get the insider image of the workings of some large institutions in this way. Into mid-2005, and though not as vocal as Stiglitz, others at the IMF are also questioning the institutions strict adherence to the free market doctrine. as Bretton Woods Project reveals. One of the authors of a paper from the IMF concedes the failure of IFI policies for the poorest countries saying that Much of sub-Saharan Africa has been under IMF and World Bank programmes during the last three decades, and while a modicum of macroeconomic stability has been achieved, progress has been spotty at best. Another working paper from the IMF suggests that trade liberalization has crippled some governments of poorer countries, and that prospects for further trade liberalization in poor countries may be troubling. PSRPs replace SAPs but still SAP the poor The IMF in 1999 replaced Structural Adjustments with Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (PRGP) and Policy Framework Papers with Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PSRP) as the new preconditions for loan and debt relief. However, the effect is still the same as the preceding disastrous structural adjustment policies, as the World Development Movement reported. Many civil society organizations are increasing their critique of the PSRPs. The PRSP process is simply delivering repackaged structural adjustment programmes (SAPs). It is not delivering poverty-focused development plans and it has failed to involve civil society and parliamentarians in economic policy discussions. As Jubilee Research (formerly Jubilee 2000, the debt relief campaign organization) adds: Joint World BankIMF papers (39) on the PRSP stress poverty reduction and that the paper must be country-driven with the broad participation of civil society. But the IMF in its own papers stresses that this is in addition to everything that was required in the past none of the old Washington consensus policies have been removed. In a paper for a meeting of African finance ministers, 18-19 January 2000, to explain the new PRGF, (40) the IMF stresses that it will demand of all countries a more rapid privatisation process and a faster pace of trade liberalization the conditions criticized by Joseph Stiglitz when he was chief economist of the World Bank. James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, commented that it is also clear to all of us that ownership is essential. Countries must be in the drivers seat. The theory is fine, but the practice distorts the meaning of these words. Countries are in the driving seat only as the chauffeur of the Washington Consensus limousine. And as Angela Woods and Matthew Lockwood comment, all too often ownership relates to persuading the public that reforms are necessary and good in order to minimize political opposition to them . The implication is that governments wishing to take an alternative economic approach must expect to forgo aid and debt relief. But Wood and Lockwood note that not only does the Bank define a good policy environment very narrowly, the consensus on what defines good policies is subject to change. What may have been regarded as a good policy yesterday may not be today. It is impossible to ignore the sweeping critique, by the second most important man in the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz, of policies still being imposed on poor countries as a condition of debt cancellation and aid. And it must be remembered that these are being imposed in the names of good governance. sound policies and poverty reduction . Stiglitz notes that had the US followed IMF policy it would have not achieved its remarkable expansion. Additionally, as this book reports (see pages 37-38 of the PDF online version), A senior World Bank official described the PRSP-PRGF as a compulsory programme, so that those with the money can tell those without the money what they need in order to get the money. It would be worth additionally noting the cruel irony that nations that are those with the money today have largely accumulated it through plunder via imperialism and colonialism upon those very nations who today are without the money. Prescribing how to get the money, in that context, is dubious indeed. For additional information and critique, you can see the following links as well: The Asian Development Bank Like the IMF and World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has also fallen under much criticism for its policies, which also require structural adjustments for loans. Through its policies it encourages export-driven, capital and resource-intensive development, just like the other international financial institutions. The largest financing and influence of the bank comes from Japan and the United States. The escalating dependence of developing countries in the Asia region on debt-financed development has a number of negative consequences. These include: the neglect of domestic savings as a source of development finance cuts in government expenditure for basic social services and basic infrastructure in order to meet debt servicing requirements an escalation of export-oriented resource extraction to generate hard currency receipts for debt servicing a reorientation of agricultural production from meeting local needs to production for export in highly skewed regional and global markets increased dependence on imported, capital intensive technologies as a consequence of tied procurement and project design processes led by foreign consulting companies increased dependence on and influence of international financial institutions such as the ADB and the World Bank, particularly through the imposition of debt-induced structural adjustment programs and policy based lending. Also, as with the IMF and World bank, and mentioned in the above link, governments are using the rubric of poverty reduction to channel taxpayer funds to their private sector companies via the ADB. This is occurring with little or no pubic scrutiny although government representatives will, if necessary, appeal to commercial self-interest to justify continued contributions to the ADB and other multilateral development banks. As with the IMF for example, loans by the IMF are guaranteed by the creditor country. In essence then, tax payers from the lending countries will bail out the IMF and ADB if there are problems in their policies. (For more details, statistics etc. the above link is a good starting place.) The ADB has mentioned its desires to promote good governance. However, Aziz Choudry is highly critical in terms of whom this governance would actually be good for: It has nothing to do with democratization, humanitarianism or support for peoples rights. It is a euphemism for a limited state designed to service the market and undermine popular mandates. The term is explicitly linked to the kinds of structural adjustment measures promoted by the ADBmeasures for which there is little popular support and which are rapidly increasing economic inequalities. Structural adjustment policies have therefore had far-reaching consequences around the world. Yet, this is just one of the mechanisms whereby inequality and poverty has been structured into laws and institutions on a global scale. Where nextSystem Integrations: SAP. Integrated Fulfillment for SAP Our outsourced EDI Service integrates directly into your companys SAP application, creating a universal, reusable connection to your valued trading partners. Our solution enables suppliers using SAP to exchange sales orders, advance ship notices, invoices, warehouse shipments and other required documents with trading partners all over the globe. Also check out our pre-built solution for SAP Business One . Industry-leading functionality, seamless integration We have extensive expertise in SAP integration, and a deep understanding of iDoc segments and file formats. SPS Commerces enterprise cloud EDI service for SAP can be integrated to your SAP system via the SPS Commerce Universal Network certified iDoc, as a Retail Standard iDoc solution or as a custom solution based on your unique fulfillment requirements. One connection, endless opportunities SPS Integrated Fulfillment for SAP will take your business to the next level, allowing you to cut costs and increase efficiency. With our enterprise cloud EDI service, you can: Integrate to the SPS platform once and enable rapid onboarding of future trading partners without additional mapping. Use a standardized iDoc per transaction type to normalize data integration using native SAP tools without additional software. Take advantage of SPSs extensive SAP partner community to support your integration requirements. Ensure reliability with proven maps used by thousands of suppliers daily. Deploy new customers faster with a system already connected to more than 2,000 retailers, 3PLs, factors and manufacturers. Reduce initial and ongoing costs with cloud EDI solution. SPS Case Study: Callaway Callaway Golf Company is synonymous with high-performance golf equipment around the world. The company has accelerated its growth through several initiatives in recent years, including bringing several components of its apparel product line in-house. In 2009, Callaway sought a new EDI partner that would work collaboratively with them to support the increasing global demand for Callaways products. DOWNLOAD CASE STUDYFujitsu Technology and Service Vision Introducing the Fujitsu Technology and Service Vision Fujitsu Technology and Service Vision sets out our vision and provides insights to leaders of business and the public sector about how they can use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to create innovation and build a different future. The theme of this year is Human Centric Innovation: Driving Digital Transformation. Human Centric Innovation is Fujitsus unique approach to creating business and social innovation by empowering people. We set out the business agenda to leverage digital transformation, and how our approach can help organizations achieve it. The Key to Digital Transformation Discover how you can drive innovation and digital transformation President Tanakas thoughts on digital and Fujitsus human centric approach How are digital technologies impacting business and society
No comments:
Post a Comment