It Pays to Get Tough with the IMF
Argentina wins face-off with Washington lenders . . . again
February 26, 2004
Mark Weisbrot Center for Economic and Policy Research
In late January, the government of Argentina stood up to the
International Monetary Fund. And, for the second time in less than
six months, the IMF backed down. Does this unprecedented move
presage a major shift in the balance of power between multilateral
lenders and Third World debtors? It sure looks that way to Mark
Weisbrot, a liberal economist at the Washington-based Center for
Economic and Policy Research, writing recently in his syndicated
newspaper column.
RELATED CONTENT
Changing relationship is a sign of Latin America's rising power...
After a recent meeting of heads of state in Monterrey, Mexico '.
. . the Fund approved the latest installment of its lending to
Argentina, after having failed in its efforts to get a better deal
for Argentina's private creditors,' Weisbrot reports. The Bush
administration, stung by criticism of its foreign policies at the
Monterrey Summit, decided it was not the right time for a face-off
with Argentina, and prevailed upon the IMF, the most powerful
lending institution in the world, to back down. This is no small
feat, considering that the Fund is used to getting its way with
smaller debt-ridden countries like Argentina, which at $88 billion
has racked up the biggest sovereign debt default in history.
'The case of Argentina has enormous implications for our
understanding of what the Fund actually does and does not do,'
Weisbrot says. 'Not only does it pay its clients to take
economically destructive advice -- as it also did in Asia, Russia,
Brazil, during the 1990s. It also fails to act as a 'lender of last
resort' -- the common understanding among policy makers of what the
Fund's purpose is -- when such a lender is most urgently
needed.'
'Furthermore,' Weisbrot continues, 'we can see more clearly than
ever in the IMF's 60-year history its role as organizer of a
creditors' cartel, as it openly tries to use its muscle on behalf
of the private foreign creditors.' Which makes it all the more
ironic that the US government, the dominant voice within the Fund,
decided that the IMF should back down this time.