The IMF offers a macroeconomic lifeline for countries in financial distress. Its loans are based on members’ individual quota shares, and come with program design and conditionality designed to address the underlying economic challenges. The Fund also administers trust funds that provide even more generous, concessional financing for its poorest members.
While IMF programs have helped stabilize and rehabilitate economies, they have typically been costly for many target countries. Moreover, the structural difficulties underlying economic fragility often remain unaddressed by IMF programs. For example, deficits, high public debt, and currency crises tend to persist over time because of underlying policy constraints.
On the other hand, IMF lending has generally supported a smoother adjustment and catalyzed official development finance and private investment from others. It has also played a critical role in helping to protect the most vulnerable, through its policy conditionality. Furthermore, supporting a country in crisis is in the enlightened self-interest of creditor countries, because instability in one country could easily spill over to their own markets and capital flows.
Nonetheless, the IMF has been criticized for its policies, including those that impose austerity and push for privatization and liberalization, particularly in low-income economies. In 2002, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that the Fund has been more destructive than helpful for its target countries. In the current context of rising global inequality and growing economic divergence, reforming the IMF’s governance and conditions for lending must be considered.
About the Author
