No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The relationship between International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies and human rights performance is complex and contingent. Prima-facie evidence of a close association between the Fund's adjustment programs and repression is legion: 'IMF riots triggered by the imposition of austerity measures in countries such as Peru, Egypt, Sudan, and the Dominican Republic; similar outbreaks of civil disorder precipitated by the removal of subsidies, as in Morocco, Tunisia, and Brazil; strike activity following the elimination of support or price controls on basic consumption items, a reduction in social services, a shift in income from workers to property owners, a drop in real wages, and an increase in unemployment attributable to demand compression.1 There is sharp disagreement among analysts about the nature of this relationship. Do IMF policies cause, or at least reinforce, repression? Are authoritarian regimes hospitable to successful IMF stabilization programs? If so, must one also attempt to account for repression in the absence of IMF funding? Or if a causal relationship cannot be discerned, is there nevertheless an underlying explanation for a close association between intemational lending and repression in the implementation of IMF policy? Or is the relationship fundamentally conjunctural, one which obviates the possibility of a structural explanation?2
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.