[eDebate] IMF Topic

RW blackslaw06
Fri May 1 16:05:21 CDT 2009


I am going to plug the financial institutions topic.  The Russia and Nuclear Weapons topics are intriguing, but they have been done.  There have been a ton of debates on nuclear posture one way or another over the years and several debates about Russia/Europe as well.  Update a few things, but the debates will inevitably sound the same.  The financial institutions topic offers the possibility of a fresh actor and interesting/diverse harm areas that help us move beyond our obsession with nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

I also think that the IMF topic will allow for good quality negative ground..  This topic is particularly interesting because it has the potential to turn traditional CP debates into solid case debates.  In the past, the negative could CP with condition the plan's aid on anti-corruption measures or transparency or environmental impact statements, accounting, etc.  Too many of these debates end up being resolved on theory or permutations.  Now this debate can happen without the CP and the debaters can have an in depth discussion about whether conditions are good and which conditions are good.  So, I think the negative would likely be much stronger on defending the status quo.  Additional negative arguments could include region or country specific disadvantages for why removing conditions in country X would result in Y.  Although, it's unclear to me if the topic as it has been currently discussed would permit the accompanying exclude country X from the plan
 PIC.  Similarly, the Aff will have the ability to read country or project specific add on advantages to the specific effects the reforms will have.

--- On Thu, 4/30/09, Galloway, Ryan W. <rwgallow at samford.edu> wrote:

> From: Galloway, Ryan W. <rwgallow at samford.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] IMF Topic
> To: "hansonjb at whitman.edu" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> Cc: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 11:23 AM
> 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:
> 
> Specifically,
> 
> 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.
> 
> RG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 


      




More information about the Mailman mailing list