Improving the IMF's Impact
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The leaders of Group of 20 nations can do better for the world's poorest countries than a larger "lifeline" of debt from the International Monetary Fund, as described in the April 3 news story "A Lifeline for Nations Both Rich and Poor." The IMF has a disastrous record in its lending to developing countries. Conditions attached to IMF loans have made poor countries more vulnerable to the global downturn and less able to respond with stimulus policies. President Obama and other G-20 leaders should insist on a more inclusive governance structure and more flexible lending policies for the IMF before enhancing its "firepower."
A just lifeline for poor countries would prioritize debt cancellation and grants. Studying abroad in Tanzania two years ago, I saw the positive impacts of debt relief: It enabled more children to enroll in primary school because the government eliminated fees and invested in school construction. Debt cancellation and grants enable low-income countries to invest in social goods that help stimulate their economies and stave off poverty in the short term while creating a better standard of life -- not just debt -- for future generations.
KELLY TROUT
Silver Spring
