2.2.1 International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. • Role and significance of these institutions, including their strengths and weaknesses. 2.2.2 The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and G7/G8 and G20. • Role and significance of these institutions, including their strengths and weaknesses. 2.2.3 Significance of how global economic governance deals with the issue of poverty, including: • The North-South divide and other measurements to include world-systems theory, dependency, orthodox and alternative measurements of poverty. • Classical economic development theory, structural theory, neo-classical development theory.
presidency rotates annually among member states, and are responsible for setting agenda and arranging logistics
has no budget or secretariat (unlike UN and IMF) so action that costs money is paid for by the states themselves (or not)
decisions are not binding and rely on individual will of member states
no objectives allowing for enormous flexibility
basically a discussion forum
members are outdated (China is 2nd emerging economy but not included)
made of countries who merely agree with each other (expulsion of Russia in 2014 confirms this)
scope to achieve major breakthrough is limited
its flexibility and informal approach makes it difficult to hold members to account for commitments made at the summits
impact on state sovereignty is negligible (extent to which decisions are delivered/enforceable are weak)
2007: Gleneagles Summit saw G8 agreeing to major debt cancellation to heavily indebted poor countries
Hosted by Tony Blair
US pledge $50 billion in aid to developing countries by 2010 , $25 billion was to go to Africa
ministerial level agreement to major debt cancellation to heavily indebted poor countries
UK breaking historical practices, allowed non govt organisations to play a key role in deliberations → due to public pressure of ‘Make Poverty History’ movement
No agreement on global warming was reached due to opposition from the US
The deal was not a full cancellation of all debts but only a cancellation of the debts for 40 potential countries → this was even after completing the HIPC iniative ‘Highly Indebted Poor Country’ which means countries were forced to change their economic policies at the behest of the IMF and World Bank
SIGNIFICANCE?
This guaranteed more of the economic conditionalities highlighted by the ‘Make Poverty History Campaign’
For example, Tanzania was forced to privatise water to a British Company (Bi Water) , which worsened services
represents both established and emerging economies which account for almost 2/3 of world’s population
allows key IGO’s (EU, IMF, WB, WTO etc) to attend
meetings are annual, with the presidency state of that year choosing what attendees to invite and sets the agenda
a balance of traditional economic powers and newly emerged powers making it neither too exclusive or too comprehensive
allows a forum of dispute and problem solving as not all countries agree (unlike G7)
inclusions and partnership with major Bretton Woods IGO’s allows powerful states to influence these institutions
ensure wealthy states and IGO’s work together, this has reduced the ability of banks to fund terrorists
2016 G20 Hangzhou Summit communique included
support for refugees
reducing protectionism
reducing tax evasion by working with OECD to identify tax havens
summits conclude with a ‘communique’ agreed by each state, this has been criticised for basically being the best all states could agree on and no state can be held accountable for these
create agreed system of rules for international economic trade regulations
stabilise world currencies and reduce wide fluctuations in value of currencies
prevent repeat of 1930s Great Depression
bolster capitalism against emerging rise of communism
reduce barriers in trade on both goods and services, thus enabling spread of global capitalism to reduce poverty
checks states are following trade agreements
produces research on global trade and economic policy
helps resolve trade disputes between states
non discrimination
more open (commitment to more open and free trade)
predictable and transparent (enables stability and job creation)
more competitive
more benefits for less developed nations
protection of the environment
helped transform international relations
binding rules for global trade in goods and services have facilitated dramatic growth in cross-border business activity
since 1995, dollar value of world trade has nearly 4x while real volume of world trade expanded 2.7x
Fairtrade Foundation revealed $47bn in subsidies paid to rich country producers has created barriers for 15m cotton farmers across W Africa trying to trade their way out of poverty
5m of world’s poorest farming families have been forced out of business and into deeper poverty
enables wealthier states/Global North to maintain tariffs and rules which provide them with an advantage at the expense of developing world
argued WTO implements a system of trade which further enables explanation of Global South whilst benefitting the North
Political will was low and in no mood to invite further opposition from powerful farming lobbies
Was not in interest of major countries (US and EU bloc) to remove agricultural subsidies as these protect their economies (realism)
political power resides with Western powers and they tend to gain the most from deals
decision making is biased towards these countries with large representation in Geneva
only wealthy countries have the resources and legal expertise to dispute legal
worker’s rights and environmental protection is disregarded
unable to make decisions quickly due to large membership
Andrew Haywood - ‘WTO is a rich man’s club’
Economic surveillance (highlights possible risks to stability and advises needed policy adjustments)
Lending (provides loans)
Capacity development (helping boost growth and jobs)
cutting public spending
tax reform
free trade
privatisation
deregulation of markets and capital controls
190 member states
led by managing director who is always European
deputy head and first deputy managing director are always American
US also has biggest share of voting rights (in line with size of economy)
development countries see increased prosperity but also increase inequality and child poverty suggesting programmes disproportionately benefit the rich
reform of formal sector of economy has little impact on poorest working in informal sector
opening markets to foreign investors could expose fragile economies to effects of foreign economic crises
Greece accumulated large debts in international financial spending due to high public spending and low GDP, therefore making them a major recipient of IMF loans
ECB, European Commission and IMF decided impact of crisis could spread and rescue package was needed
2010: €110b to Greece was approved
demanded to implement austerity measures in return
2014: anti austerity party Syriza won snap election
represented clash between political and economic IGOs and state sovereignty, 61% of Greek people said they did not support the bailout package
2015: Greece failed to make payment to IMF (1st developed country to do so)
gives loans to state and helps reduce likelihood of failing into economic recession
helps prevent economic difficulties from spreading to other states
encourage states to reform their economies to an economic model that has delivered economic growth to other states
provides independent monitor of state economies, helping them identify threats and opportunities
IMF forces states to comply with SAPs in a way which interferes with their sovereignty, it relentlessly promotes a neoliberal, Western dominated economic model
SAPs do not benefit the poorest, but boost cooperate profits and serve interests of developed states
Failed to predict and prevent global financial crisis in 2008 by failing to challenge reckless lending and inadequate regulation of global financial institutions
Was unable to prevent spread of Greek debt crisis
end extreme poverty by decreasing % of people living on less than $1.90 a day to no more than 3%
promote shared prosperity by fostering income growth of bottom 40% in every country
189 member states
decisions are put to a member vote
like IMF, voting power is weighted according to amount states contribute
USA carries 16%, whilst no other state has more than 5%
contributions are dwarfed by private investors, which amounted to as much as $900b for China and India in 2011, whilst WB reached only $8b
imbalance in voting powers is outdated in increasingly globalised world economy where rising powers incl Brazil, India and China have less than 1/3 of USA’s voting powers
2007: WB loans $68.5m to Kenya national rainforest project, leading to forceful removal of indigenous peoples