ETVT The institutions formed by Bretton Woods have been effective

T1 – Bodies that lend/invest money, effective

Both IMF and WB give loans and invest money for different purposes, have experience various successes that suggest effectiveness.

IMF has been effective in resolving financial crises with attempt at long term solution with SAPs that help states reform to successful economic model. E.g. SKorea given $58.4B loan package during Asian financial crisis. Complying with privatisation, financial deregulation let country rebound quickly, consistent GDP growth from 1999-present (excluding 2020).

IMF conditional loans help avoid severe economic recession and facilitate growth, therefore effective.

WB provide loans and investment to developing countries with SAPs as incentive to keep developing (thus receiving packages). E.g. $700M investment to Ghana for developing offshore natural gas resources, conditional on involvement of private sectors, has help bring electrification rate to 90%.

T1 – Bodies that lend/invest money, ineffective

While both have different goals, formation under BWC leads to shared weaknesses.

Both share flawed voting system where weighted on contribution, gives USA 16% (thus disproportionate power given 85% majority vote for motion to pass, exclusively US with veto power).

Enforces the idea of propagation of western liberalism e.g. SAPs for Pakistan req 68 industries privatised, leads to accusations of neocolonialism. Fosters inequality that leads to continued need for loans, thus continued economic model, endless cycle of subjugation. States refusing loans may be in best interest e.g. Greece rejecting IMF SAPs after 2015 referendum.

Also can have negative effects on populations. IMF enforces austerity, often leads to cuts in health that leads to rise of disease e.g. TB and AIDS, e.g. loans to Kenya since 1986 coincide with decreased life expectancy (57y → 47y), and inc infant mortality.

WB prioritises whole population over local, seen with Narmada Valley DevProj where nearly 200000 displaced without compensation, as well as damage to local ecosystems.

T1 – Bodies that lend/invest money, overall

Success is undermined by a democratic deficit. The US veto and neoliberal conditionality prioritise systemic stability over domestic welfare, frequently trapping developing states in cycles of debt and austerity rather than fostering genuine economic autonomy.

T2 – World Trade Organisation, effective

Body has been effective at primary goal (reducing barriers to trade) esp early in life cycle, with 1947 GATT (45000 tariffs removed worth $10B) and 1962 Kennedy Round (worth $40B).

Gives credibility to body, seen with WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, handled 600 cases since 1995 with 95% compliance rate, states listen to legitimate body.

Comes with global benefit of 4X trade globally since 1995. In part, success due to different structure to other institutions, req consensus vote.

Therefore, state sov not impacted as all must agree to be binding.

T2 – World Trade Organisation, ineffective

WTO more limited by structure than benefitted.

Infrequent conferences with need for consensus slows negotiations, leads to gridlock e.g. Doha Round (Ongoing since 2001), with agricultural subsidies. Shows dominance of western political power, gain most from deals (Org for Econ Coop and Dev finds $300B advantage to developed with subsides).

Undermines WTO so much that states seek to bypass it by making bi/multilateral deals e.g. USMCA, KORUS (facilitated $169B trade 2019). Ease in doing so, and infrequency of rounds (4 in 79 years) demonstrates lack of power.

T2 – World Trade Organisation, overall

WTO deliberative crippled by consensus requirement that suggests body in present day has mostly superficial presence.