To reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, it is estimated to be between $40-$60 billion a year in loans from organizations such the World Bank and the IMF. This is not even sufficient funds for countries to be able to reform their policies and improve the goals the country is trying to reach. The World Bank strives to provide loans to countries to improve their standard of living in order to build better capital programs and aims to reduce poverty. Although in theory loans are morally good, there are downfalls to not only the World Bank, but also other loan and money agencies. Continue reading Where do the Funds Go?-Julia Norman
For over sixty years now, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has served as a key instrument of the liberal international economic order (LIEO). Free trade, loans to aid development, and the decline of command economies have all been results of this institution—much to the delight of countless actors across the international stage. Yet the past decade has hosted a particularly strong wave of criticism. The 2007-08 financial crisis, as Eric Helleiner shows us, damaged the legitimacy of both IMF policies and leadership. From that time through today, many have insisted that a “new Bretton Woods” occur as to totally begin again in our structuring of global finance. Helleiner and I are, at our cores, opposed to such a move. This is largely because a “new Bretton Woods” is almost impossible, but also because a “new Bretton Woods” seems rather counterintuitive.
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 shook the very foundations of the globalized financial world. By destabilizing the global economy, the meltdown created a legitimacy crisis for the Bretton Woods system. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was the brainchild of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference and put forward an era of intense market liberalization. Under the leadership of the super-powerful United States, the world (or at least those 45 allowed into the original institution) entered a new age of interdependence. However, times have changed. The United States is not the powerhouse it used to be, with economic power spreading as more countries enter the global markets. Legitimacy of the IMF and the effects of domestic economic problems on the rest of the world have created a lack of faith in how the IMF handles crises, leading to issues and impediments for governments to cooperate. Continue reading The Changing Global Financial Market and the Static IMF – Paige Moeller
The main criticism of the international institution is that it does not mutually benefiting all member states. There is a mutual benefit in some extent; however, not all states get equal amount of benefit. In fact, it creates a system which first world countries can exploit third world countries. The international institution creates more interaction and cooperation but at the same time, it also creates even more inequality between countries. Continue reading Marxism: Criticism of the International Institution -Seungmin Song
Globalization is a catch phrase in today’s society, but what does it really mean? To me, the definition encompasses a plethora of components such as the sharing of ideas, cross boarder economics, cultural sharing, and division of resources. With so much involvement cross- boarders, there becomes a blurred line of state power and sovereignty. It is a debated topic whether sovereignty is in decline or just being challenged by various factors. Krasner, a professor of International relations at Stanford University, argues the idea that sovereignty has always existed, however is always being challenged in various ways. Continue reading Sovereignty: Declining or Evolving- Julia Norman