[eDebate] IMF Topic

Galloway, Ryan W. rwgallow
Thu Apr 30 10:23:09 CDT 2009

Hi Jim,

Frankly, I'm far more worried about the NEG than the AFF on the IMF/World Bank topics (thus my topic assessment on page 43 of the paper).

Remember that most AFF's would block a negative action by the IMF/World Bank.

Ban aid conditionality from the IMF/World Bank.  All the advantages are structural adjustment bad.  Another agent can't solve that because it is an action from the organization itself.  Giving more money from a regional development bank could theoretically cause the target country to refuse the loan from the IMF, but they may already be subject to such restrictions.

Strengthen environmental impact statements on IMF/World Bank projects.  Other agent doesn't solve because these are projects by these organizations that would still exist.

The paper is predicated heavily on these "negative action" affirmatives and not on the IMF/World Bank "doing something else."  The voting rights portion of the topic deals with the structure of the IMF & the Bank, the corruption components are the Bank & IMF giving money to corrupt governments and/or dealing with corruption internal to the bank.  I'm posting a link to an article on the question of voting rights, where I found a China advantage and a US-European relations disad to reforming the voting structure of the organizations:  http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-22-voa47.cfm

Europe link/China-India advantage:
The calls for change extend to the World Bank as well.  One solution is supported by an NGO supporting reform, the Bretton Woods Project.  It calls for a system of parity between members, where lenders and borrowers would each have an equal number of votes on the bank's executive board.  Ramachandran of the Center for Global Development says the proposals do not enjoy universal support.  Some fear the reforms might dilute the strong working relationship between the united States and Europe, which are said to be critical for development.  On the other hand, development activists fear that without better representation, emerging powers like China and India are not likely to cooperate on issues such as limiting greenhouse gas emissions or increasing support for efforts by the IMF and World Bank to shield poor countries from the global recession.

The paper also contains many cards on the IMF/World Bank key:


World Bank key to solving world environment: (pg. 22)

Pete Leyden, illustrates how changes at the global institutional level could get clean development implemented around the globe:
The way to truly solve the environment problems of this planet is to accelerate the migration to new generations of technologies. This needs to happen not just in the developed countries, but especially in the developing ones. We need Western autos to increasingly be super-efficient hybrids and ultimately be based on hydrogen fuel cells. But what we really need to do is ensure that China starts off with these most-efficient technologies rather than older, dirtier ones. If they're building a modern auto industry, then start clean. These global institutions, particularly the World Bank, can play a big part in getting this kind of thinking incorporated into all development plans. (Leyden, quoted by Lindsey, April 18, 2000)

Leyden continues by noting how the World Bank is uniquely situation to jump-start an environmental revolution in the developing world: Instead of financing rain forest destruction and climate change, the bank should support a Global Green Deal: A program to renovate human civilization environmentally from top to bottom while truly fighting poverty. And make no mistake: Poverty is central to humanity's environmental predicament. To accommodate this mass ascent from poverty without ruining the natural systems that make life on Earth possible in the first place will be an enormous challenge. But the World Bank is uniquely situated to jump-start the environmental revolution needed to meet it. (Leyden, April 18, 2000).

IMF key to solve global financial crisis:  (pg. 24)

Edwin Truman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: The scope of the current crisis reflects the harsh reality of today?s globalised economy and financial system. Every country has been affected; those with the weakest policies have and most precarious financial circumstances have been affected most and first. We have learned that countries can run but they cannot hide from the effects of such crises. In the future, the incidence and virulence of crises may be reduced but will not be eliminated. Over the past several decades, the leaders of the advanced countries have failed to recognise this trend. One consequence has been that they have starved the IMF of resources to lend. In London, the G20 leaders should take immediate and longer-term corrective actions. When the simmering financial crisis boiled over in September 2007, the Fund?s estimated forward lending capacity was $200 billion from regular quota resources and an additional $50 billion from established borrowing arrangements. Since September, the IMF has made more than $50 billion in lending commitments and set aside $100 billion for a new short-term lending facility. At the same time and outside the framework of IMF lending, the Federal Reserve has advanced more than $600 billion in short-term credit to 14 other central banks, and the European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank have advanced smaller amounts within Europe. These facts illustrate the need to augment immediately the IMF?s lending capacity and to provide it with the resources and instruments so that in the future permanent, multilateral arrangements replace ad hoc bilateral operations. (Truman, 2009).

The paper does not really define an IMF/World Bank should give more money topic, but that their practices are bad, and barring change in their practices, harms will continue.

The pause for concern should be for the NEG (which will need to be more innovative on this topic), not the AFF.


More information about the Mailman mailing list