The IMF (and the World Bank) was born as the product of a very innovative piece of institutional architecture. One of its most original features was the separation of the economic from the political and the two domains were object of distinct negotiation processes and conferences. IMF and World Bank, intended to take care of economic and financial matters, were created at Bretton Woods in 1944, and were given an entrepreneurial structure where the power was proportional to contribution ability. As a result, power in the two institutions was concentrated in the hands of some ten countries with the US at the top, endowed with veto power. Since the 70s, World Bank and IMF were seen as the carrot and the stick of the spreading wave of neoliberalism in the developing world. On the occasion of their 50th anniversary, they have been object of the campaign “50 years is enough”, calling for their closure because of the social damage provoked by their operations. In 2006, on the verge of price hikes for raw materials, some of IMF's biggest debtors even reimbursed most of their debts before the term. Now, having a substantial role in the management of the European crisis, IMF shows an apparently softer position compared to its European counterparts. The question this paper will try to answer is: Did the IMF change its stance or it just met with an even more extreme form of neoliberalism?

The bad cop turns good? The IMF and the Greek bailout in Neoliberalism 2.0

Oreste Ventrone
2017

Abstract

The IMF (and the World Bank) was born as the product of a very innovative piece of institutional architecture. One of its most original features was the separation of the economic from the political and the two domains were object of distinct negotiation processes and conferences. IMF and World Bank, intended to take care of economic and financial matters, were created at Bretton Woods in 1944, and were given an entrepreneurial structure where the power was proportional to contribution ability. As a result, power in the two institutions was concentrated in the hands of some ten countries with the US at the top, endowed with veto power. Since the 70s, World Bank and IMF were seen as the carrot and the stick of the spreading wave of neoliberalism in the developing world. On the occasion of their 50th anniversary, they have been object of the campaign “50 years is enough”, calling for their closure because of the social damage provoked by their operations. In 2006, on the verge of price hikes for raw materials, some of IMF's biggest debtors even reimbursed most of their debts before the term. Now, having a substantial role in the management of the European crisis, IMF shows an apparently softer position compared to its European counterparts. The question this paper will try to answer is: Did the IMF change its stance or it just met with an even more extreme form of neoliberalism?
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Pagine da ESA-2017-Athens_Abstract-Book_final.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Dominio pubblico
Dimensione 307.68 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
307.68 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11588/789618
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact