One of the most interesting reflections by Anup Shah in his article ‘Structural Adjustment: A Major cause of Poverty’, is connected with the idea that the IMF and the World Bank assist some countries financially, but apply neoliberal measures as a pre-requisite for loans. Some of these pre-conditions are listed below:
- Liberalization of the economy or capital Markets.
- Flexibility of the labour market.
- The role of the state should be minimized.
- Privatization should be encouraged.
As regards the liberalization of capital markets, the concept may be better worked out as a market where capitals circulate with less restrictive control from state regulations. Hence, the circulation of cash flow into and out from a nation, which may be destined to inversions, is carried out without too much restriction, being in this sense more liberalized. Nevertheless, the effect of this action to the economy of a country seems to be rather negative, as it is observed by Anup Shah in the next paragraph.
‘Capital market liberalization. According to Palast, Stiglitz describes the disastrous capital flows that can ruin economies as being “predictable,” and says that “when [the outflow of capital] happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.’ [‘Structural Adjustment: A Major Cause of Poverty’, subtitle: ‘What is the IMF/ World Bank prescription?’ Anup Shah, October 2008].
In the previous paragraph, Shah introduces Joseph Stiglitz, recognized economist and Nobel Prize in Economy, who argues about the disastrous but ‘predictable’ consequences that the flow of capitals may produce to the economy of a nation. This ‘out flow of capitals’ has somewhat been explained in the previous lines and denotes the taking away of funds from a country, becoming such cash flow as volatile. Interestingly, a nation undergoing such a particular situation is suggested to increase its interest rates up to 30%, 50% and 80%, seducing the so called speculators to return back to a particular nation its capitals again. These increments in the interests rates are both attracting to speculators carrying here and there their assets and to some small savers, people that may or not be interested in increasing their incomes by depositing their small capitals in banks.
The previous context, that for some people is so positive, swears off as soon as the ‘out flow of capitals’ starts again. As a consequence, those small savers who see themselves in risk remove all their assets at once from banks, leading this to a complete bankruptcy. For this reason, protectionist measures are taken, like that one known as ‘The Corralito’, adopted during the economical collapse of Argentina 2001. However, this decision arose from people a huge level of criticism and skepticism, especially from those who had savings in banks, and had not expected that variables like the ‘outflow of capitals’ could have produced so terrible consequences.
As regards the ‘Flexibility of labor market’, the nineties period of
- The test period for a factory owner to contract a worker was extended from 3 months to 1 year. This meant that it would take 1 year for a boss to decide whether one would be fit for a job or not. Passed this period, if the worker did not reach to the ‘standards’, he or she was returned to an agency from where had been contracted as an ‘eventual worker’, and was replaced immediately be another one. Thus, the factory owner would be always supplied in time and form by workers. However, it was clear that some workers this system was inappropriate, since they had to wait a year time to be part of the staff or a company.
- Creation of agencies for eventual work. These agencies positioned workers in factories, firms or multinational companies, but which only required labor hand for an eventual or transitional period of time regulated according to parameters like production. Thus, agency workers were contracted for 3 or 4 months, but then returned back to the huge staff of unemployed people again, provided they had not been positioned permanently in a firm.
10 comments:
What an interesting piece of information Nestor!. I think that nowadays our country is suffering the effects of neo-liberalism. Besides, our government does not seem to help in reconstructing a country for everyone. Even though they say they work towards "Social Justice" I do not think they are taking the right way. I believe that to give jobs to people is better than to give them money, which is a resource extremely used by this government.
Hi Mariana, thanks for commenting. I agree with you about the effects of neoliberalism and sorry but I'm not quite agree with the idea that this goverment may be doing a bad homework. There has been worst governmental gestions than this one in the past. Well bye bye.
Nestor, your article reminds me horrid names as Carlos Saúl Menem, Domingo Cavallo, María Julia Alsogaray, Adelina Dalesio De Viola, Susana De Cibe, and, as you know, etc, belonging to that unforgettable "circus"(1989-1995, 1995-1999) . It also comes to me scary images on TV as Israel Embassy and AMIA Attacks (1992 and 1994, respectively), and the Explosion of Río Tercero(1995). And the concepts of the"pairing" of 1 dollar-1 peso, social exclusion, unemployment, and a confusing educational system: Federal Law(1993)...and so on.
Well Susan, this paper focuses mainly in anlysing, through the eyes of this man Anup Shah, the effects of economical trends namely liberalization of markets, labour flexibilization and the IMF role. Interestingly, today I was hearing on TV a candidate called Margarita Stolbitzer, from the opposition. She was ratifying that our return to IMF policies will be inexorable. So, reading Anup Shah perspective can also be interesting to select the correct candidate. Bye bye
It is a very interesting article that reminds me many important facts and as Marian says the effects of the Neoliberalism.Nestor I agree with Mariana,Goverment is not following the right way to solve all the present problems.Can you notice any change?just words...I do not say they do not do¨anything¨ but not in the way they should,with responsibility and compromise..so as we can see that they are starting to do the their work well.
Well Flavia. It's just Marian's opinion, I won't judge that. But you are asking me if I notice any change actually. Fankly speaking, If I compare what was done, as regards public work, during 2000 and 2002 governmental period with this actual period, well, things has changed a little bit, don't you think? Appart from this, that period was characterized by a total even unbearable instability, not only in the economical sense but also in the political and social aspects. So, taking into consideration this last example, don't you think that things has changed a little bit?
Hey there. Nestro thanks for your info. This topic is not easy for me to understand because I'm not involve in such details of how economics works. However, as regards the economical situation of Argentina, I think that changes to solve the critical situation that we lived in 2001 were implemented and they were successful in a way to calm down all the struggles. Now, I think that we should look fornew ideas to improve our situation and not going back to fall on that mistake again. I think that there is little work in that field.
I coincide with you Robert but let me just differ in at least one aspect: it is not that changes 'were' implemented to solve the 2001 crisis becoming in an event from the past that should be forgotten. Such crisis has left such colateral problems that from 2003 onwards the goverments in turn 'have been' trying to solve the effects and 'are still' solving the effects of past economical and political decisions. So, rather than being a problem from the past, I think the colateral effects of such policies are still present and left for the gestion this government terrible inconvenients to sort out. ok Bye
It is a nice article Nestor but I agree with Flavia and Mariana. The Goverment is not solving the economic problem in Argentina. I can't see any change. Politicians promise things but none of them have a right proyect which can help to solve other problems such as education, security or health. I think that we should look for new ideas.
Yes Vanesa, totally agree with you, it is needed a project to solve our security problems. For instance, there's a respectable deputee from the official party, whose surname is Rossi, who was attacked and insulted by a goup of ruralist or farmers protestants that were throwing at him eggs putting in risk his person. What's more, Daniel Scioli (our vice president!!) is said to have been insulted in Loberia Buenos Aires. It seems as if some groups didn't tolerate our representatives. In this sense, I always ask myself how to define a person like De Angelis, who took a bank as asignal of protest some months ago, situation which in any foreign countries would be taken as an act of delinquency. Whenever I see people like these attacking others like governors or taking the private property, I try to see which party they represent, or upside down, which party do represent them so as not to vote them.
Post a Comment