Editing International Monetary Fund (section)

==Criticisms==

=== General ===
[[File:IMF demonstration (10).png|thumb|[[Anarchist]] protest against the IMF and corporate bailout in April 2009]]
[[Overseas Development Institute]] (ODI) research undertaken in 1980 included criticisms of the IMF which support the analysis that it is a pillar of what activist Titus Alexander calls [[global apartheid]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Alexander |first1=Titus |title=Unravelling Global Apartheid: an overview of world politics |year=1996 |publisher=Polity press |pages=133 }}</ref>
* Developed countries were seen to have a more dominant role and control over [[Developing country|less developed countries]] (LDCs).
* The Fund worked on the incorrect assumption that all payments [[disequilibria]] were caused domestically. The [[Group of 24]] (G-24), on behalf of LDC members, and the [[United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]] (UNCTAD) complained that the IMF did not distinguish sufficiently between disequilibria with predominantly external as opposed to internal causes. This criticism was voiced in the aftermath of the [[1973 oil crisis]]. Then LDCs found themselves with payment deficits due to adverse changes in their [[terms of trade]], with the Fund prescribing stabilization programmes similar to those suggested for deficits caused by government over-spending. Faced with long-term, externally generated disequilibria, the G-24 argued for more time for LDCs to adjust their economies.
* Some IMF policies may be anti-developmental; the report said that [[deflationary]] effects of IMF programmes quickly led to losses of output and employment in economies where incomes were low and unemployment was high. Moreover, the burden of the deflation is disproportionately borne by the poor.
* The IMF's initial policies were based in theory and influenced by differing opinions and departmental rivalries. Critics suggest that its intentions to implement these policies in countries with widely varying economic circumstances were misinformed and lacked economic rationale.

ODI conclusions were that the IMF's very nature of promoting market-oriented approaches attracted unavoidable criticism. On the other hand, the IMF could serve as a scapegoat while allowing governments to blame international bankers. The ODI conceded that the IMF was insensitive to political aspirations of LDCs while its policy conditions were inflexible.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The IMF and the Third World |url=http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5379&title=imf-ldcs |journal=ODI Briefing Paper |date=October 1980 |publisher=[[Overseas Development Institute]] |access-date=6 July 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107124156/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5379&title=imf-ldcs |archive-date=7 January 2012 }}</ref>

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the [[Bretton Woods system|Bretton Woods]] institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001,<ref>''Memoria del Saqueo'', [[Fernando Ezequiel Solanas]], documentary film, 2003 (Language: Spanish; Subtitles: English) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs&feature=PlayList&p=8B60CF40AEF6BBDA&index=0&playnext=1 YouTube.com] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328152628/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs&feature=PlayList&p=8B60CF40AEF6BBDA&index=0&playnext=1 |date=28 March 2014 }}</ref> which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions—which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security—and [[privatisation]] of strategically vital national [[natural resources|resources]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm |title=Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again |publisher=Twnside.org.sg |access-date=30 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100303033200/http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm |archive-date=3 March 2010 }}</ref> Others attribute the crisis to Argentina's misdesigned [[fiscal federalism]], which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.<ref>Stephen Webb, "Argentina: Hardening the Provincial Budget Constraint", in Rodden, Eskeland, and Litvack (eds.), ''Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints'' (Cambridge, Massachusetts: [[MIT Press]], 2003).</ref> The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region's economic problems. The post-2000s trend toward moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.{{citation needed|date=October 2021}}

In 2001, the Independent Evaluation Office, an autonomous body, was established to conduct independent evaluations of policies and activities of the International Monetary Fund.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

In 2006, a senior [[ActionAid]] policy analyst Akanksha Marphatia stated that IMF policies in Africa undermine any possibility of meeting the [[Millennium Development Goals|Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)]] due to imposed restrictions that prevent spending on important sectors, such as education and health.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scitrading.pro/post-49677/ |title=Ultimate Profit Solution Review by Toshko Raychev |publisher=SCI Trading |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161124043034/http://www.scitrading.pro/post-49677/ |archive-date=24 November 2016 }}</ref>

In an interview (2008-05-19), the former Romanian Prime Minister [[Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu]] claimed that "Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country's economic performances".<ref name=int>{{cite web |url=http://www.mediafax.ro/economic/tariceanu-fmi-a-facut-constant-greseli-de-apreciere-a-economiei-romanesti.html?1686;2645329 |title=Tăriceanu: FMI a făcut constant greșeli de apreciere a economiei românești – Mediafax |publisher=Mediafax.ro |access-date=30 May 2010 |archive-date=28 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081228224458/http://www.mediafax.ro/economic/tariceanu-fmi-a-facut-constant-greseli-de-apreciere-a-economiei-romanesti.html?1686;2645329 }}</ref> Former Tanzanian President [[Julius Nyerere]], who claimed that debt-ridden African states were ceding sovereignty to the IMF and the World Bank, famously asked, "Who elected the IMF to be the ministry of finance for every country in the world?"<ref name="Mwakikagile2006">{{cite book |title=Africa is in a Mess: What Went Wrong and what Should be Done |url={{Google books|f1NvA-BFmC8C |page=PA27 |keywords= |text= |plainurl=yes}} |year=2006 |author=Godfrey Mwakikagile |publisher=New Africa Press |isbn=978-0-9802534-7-4 |pages=27– }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.houseofknowledge.org.uk/site/documents/neoGarveyismCorner/Nyerere,%20Reflections--Dec.%201997.pdf |title=Reflections on Leadership in Africa – Forty Years After Independence |website=houseofknowledge.org.uk |access-date=14 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515014411/http://www.houseofknowledge.org.uk/site/documents/neoGarveyismCorner/Nyerere,%20Reflections--Dec.%201997.pdf |archive-date=15 May 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Former chief economist of IMF and former [[Reserve Bank of India]] (RBI) Governor [[Raghuram Rajan]] who predicted the [[2008 financial crisis]] criticised the IMF for remaining a sideline player to the developed world. He criticised the IMF for praising the monetary policies of the US, which he believed were wreaking havoc in emerging markets.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/banking-finance/rbi-guv-raghuram-rajan-slams-imf-for-applauding-easy-money-policies/153617/ |title=RBI Guv Raghuram Rajan blasts IMF for being soft on easy money policies of West |date=19 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151022162913/http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/banking-finance/rbi-guv-raghuram-rajan-slams-imf-for-applauding-easy-money-policies/153617/ |archive-date=22 October 2015 }}</ref> He had been critical of "ultra-loose money policies" of some unnamed countries.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://in.reuters.com/article/india-rbi-rajan-imf-idINKCN0SD0CL20151019 |title=RBI chief Rajan urges IMF to act against 'extreme' policies |first1=Suvashree |last1=Choudhury |newspaper=Reuters |date=19 October 2015 |access-date=6 July 2021 |archive-date=25 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190425115413/https://in.reuters.com/article/india-rbi-rajan-imf-idINKCN0SD0CL20151019 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businesstoday.in/money/banking/rbi-governor-raghuram-rajan-urges-imf-to-act-against-extreme-policies/story/225016.html |title=RBI's Raghuram Rajan urges IMF to act against 'extreme' policies |date=19 October 2015 |access-date=2 November 2015 |archive-date=2 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151102223713/http://www.businesstoday.in/money/banking/rbi-governor-raghuram-rajan-urges-imf-to-act-against-extreme-policies/story/225016.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Countries such as [[Zambia]] have not received proper aid with long-lasting effects, leading to concern from economists. Since 2005, Zambia (as well as 29 other African countries) did receive debt write-offs, which helped with the country's medical and education funds. However, Zambia returned to a debt of over half its GDP in less than a decade. American economist [[William Easterly]], sceptical of the IMF's methods, had initially warned that "debt relief would simply encourage more reckless borrowing by crooked governments unless it was accompanied by reforms to speed up economic growth and improve governance", according to ''[[The Economist]]''.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/09/15/zambias-looming-debt-crisis-is-a-warning-for-the-rest-of-africa |title=Zambia's looming debt crisis is a warning for the rest of Africa |newspaper=The Economist |access-date=19 September 2018 |archive-date=18 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180918163443/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/09/15/zambias-looming-debt-crisis-is-a-warning-for-the-rest-of-africa |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Conditionality===
{{See also|Debt-trap diplomacy|Neocolonialism}}
The IMF has been criticised for being "out of touch" with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform.<ref name="Jensen 2004, April, Issue 48" /> The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how it is felt by citizens.<ref name="The End of Poverty">{{cite book |last1=Sachs |first1=Jeffrey |title=The End of Poverty |url=https://archive.org/details/endofpovertyecon00sach |url-access=registration |year=2005 |publisher=The Penguin Press |location=New York |isbn=9781594200458 }}</ref> Countries charge that with excessive conditionality, they do not "own" the programmes and the links are broken between a recipient country's people, its government, and the goals being pursued by the IMF.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Boughton |first1=James M. |chapter=Whose programme is it? Policy ownership and conditional lending |pages=[https://archive.org/details/imfitscriticsref0000unse/page/225 225–253] |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780511493362 |last2=Mourmouras |first2=Alex |doi=10.1017/cbo9780511493362.010 |title=The IMF and its Critics |year=2004 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/imfitscriticsref0000unse/page/225 }}</ref>

[[Jeffrey Sachs]] argues that the IMF's "usual prescription is 'budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts{{' "}}.<ref name="The End of Poverty" /> Sachs wrote that the IMF's role as a generalist institution specialising in macroeconomic issues needs reform. [[Conditionality]] has also been criticised because a country can pledge collateral of "acceptable assets" to obtain waivers—if one assumes that all countries are able to provide "acceptable collateral".<ref name="IMF Conditionality and Country Ownership of Programs" />

One view is that conditionality undermines domestic political institutions.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stiglitz |first1=Joseph E. |title=Making Globalization Work |year=2006 |publisher=Allen Lane: an imprint of the Penguin Group |location=Great Britain }}</ref> The recipient governments are sacrificing policy autonomy in exchange for funds, which can lead to public resentment of the local leadership for accepting and enforcing the IMF conditions. Political instability can result from more leadership turnover as political leaders are replaced in electoral backlashes.<ref name="Jensen 2004, April, Issue 48" /> IMF conditions are often criticised for reducing government services, thus increasing unemployment.<ref name="chorev"/>

Another criticism is that IMF policies are only designed to address poor governance, excessive government spending, excessive government intervention in markets, and too much state ownership.<ref name="The End of Poverty" /> This assumes that this narrow range of issues represents the only possible problems; everything is standardised and differing contexts are ignored.<ref name="The End of Poverty" /> A country may also be compelled to accept conditions it would not normally accept had they not been in a financial crisis in need of assistance.<ref name="An Analysis of IMF Conditionality"/>

On top of that, regardless of what methodologies and data sets used, it comes to same the conclusion of exacerbating income inequality. With [[Gini coefficient]], it became clear that countries with IMF policies face increased income inequality.<ref name="The distributional effects of IMF program">{{cite book |last1=Garuda |first1=Gopal |title=The distributional effects of IMF program |year=1998 |publisher=The Harvard university |location=Cambridge }}</ref>

It is claimed that [[conditionalities]] hinder social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programmes lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.<ref name=Hertz>Hertz, [[Noreena]]. ''The Debt Threat''. New York: [[Harper Collins Publishers]], 2004.</ref> The IMF sometimes advocates "[[Austerity|austerity programmes]]", cutting public spending and increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, to bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing [[budget deficit]]s. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. In ''[[Globalization and Its Discontents]]'', [[Joseph E. Stiglitz]], former chief economist and senior vice-president at the [[World Bank]], criticises these policies.<ref name=Stiglitz>Stiglitz, Joseph. ''Globalization and its Discontents''. New York: WW Norton & Company, 2002.</ref> He argues that by converting to a more [[monetarist]] approach, the purpose of the fund is no longer valid, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out [[Keynesian]] reflations, and that the IMF "was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community."<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Benjamin M. Friedman |url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15630 |title=Globalization: Stiglitz's Case |magazine=The New York Review of Books |date=15 August 2002 |access-date=30 May 2010 |archive-date=13 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071213160910/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15630 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Stiglitz concludes, "Modern high-tech warfare is designed to remove physical contact: dropping bombs from 50,000 feet ensures that one does not 'feel' what one does. Modern economic management is similar: from one's luxury hotel, one can callously impose policies about which one would think twice if one knew the people whose lives one was destroying."<ref name=Stiglitz/>

The researchers [[Éric Toussaint|Eric Toussaint]] and Damien Millet argue that the IMF's policies amount to a new form of colonisation that does not need a military presence: 
{{blockquote|Following the exigencies of the governments of the richest companies, the IMF, permitted countries in crisis to borrow in order to avoid default on their repayments. Caught in the debt's downward spiral, developing countries soon had no other recourse than to take on new debt in order to repay the old debt. Before providing them with new loans, at higher interest rates, future leaders asked the IMF, to intervene with the guarantee of ulterior reimbursement, asking for a signed agreement with the said countries. The IMF thus agreed to restart the flow of the 'finance pump' on condition that the concerned countries first use this money to reimburse banks and other private lenders, while restructuring their economy at the IMF's discretion: these were the famous conditionalities, detailed in the Structural Adjustment Programmes. The IMF and its ultra-liberal experts took control of the borrowing countries' economic policies. A new form of colonisation was thus instituted. It was not even necessary to establish an administrative or military presence; the debt alone maintained this new form of submission.<ref>{{cite book |last=Toussaint and Millet |title=Debt, The IMF, and The world Bank |year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press U.S. |pages=83 }}</ref>}}

International politics play an important role in IMF decision making. The clout of member states is roughly proportional to its contribution to IMF finances. The United States has the greatest number of votes and therefore wields the most influence. Domestic politics often come into play, with politicians in developing countries using conditionality to gain leverage over the opposition to influence policy.<ref name="IMF: Politics of Conditional Lending">{{cite book |last1=Vreeland |first1=James |title=The International Monetary Fund (IMF): Politics of Conditional Lending |year=2007 |publisher=Taylor & Francis Books UK |location=UK }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Julien Reynaud and Julien Vauday |date=November 2008 |title=IMF lending and geopolitics |url=https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp965.pdf |website=ecb.europa.edu |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090608225536/https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp965.pdf |archive-date=8 June 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Academic Jeremy Garlick cites IMF loans to South Korea during the [[1997 Asian financial crisis]] as widely perceived by the South Korean public as a debt-trap.<ref name=":13">{{Cite book |last=Garlick |first=Jeremy |title=Advantage China: Agent of Change in an Era of Global Disruption |date=2024 |publisher=[[Bloomsbury Academic]] |isbn=978-1-350-25231-8 }}</ref>{{Rp|page=89}} Garlick writes that the public was generally bitter about submitting to the conditions imposed by the IMF, which required South Korea to radically restructure its economy and consult with the IMF before making economic decisions until the debt was repaid.<ref name=":13" />{{Rp|page=89}}

In 2016, the IMF's research department published a report titled "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" which, while praising some aspects of the "[[neoliberal]] agenda", claims that the organisation has been "overselling" fiscal [[austerity]] policies and financial deregulation, which they claim has exacerbated both financial crises and [[economic inequality]] around the world.<ref>{{cite web |last=Rowden |first=Rick |date=6 July 2016 |title=The IMF Confronts Its N-Word |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/06/the-imf-confronts-its-n-word-neoliberalism/ |access-date=22 October 2016 |website=Foreign Policy |archive-date=4 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201104040658/https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/06/the-imf-confronts-its-n-word-neoliberalism/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[https://time.com/4356816/neoliberalism-imf-globalization/ Globalization's True Believers Are Having Second Thoughts] . ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', 3 June 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-neoliberalism-warnings-2016-5 IMF: The last generation of economic policies may have been a complete failure] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201007023122/https://www.businessinsider.com/imf-neoliberalism-warnings-2016-5 |date=7 October 2020 }}. ''Business Insider'', May 2016.</ref>

In 2020 and 2021, Oxfam criticized the IMF for forcing tough austerity measures on many low income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite forcing cuts to healthcare spending, would hamper the recipient's response to the pandemic.<ref>{{cite web |date=19 April 2022 |title=IMF must abandon demands for austerity as cost-of-living crisis drives up hunger and poverty worldwide |url=https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/imf-must-abandon-demands-austerity-cost-living-crisis-drives-hunger-and-poverty |access-date=13 October 2023 |website=Oxfam International |archive-date=15 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231015084633/https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/imf-must-abandon-demands-austerity-cost-living-crisis-drives-hunger-and-poverty |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=12 October 2020 |title=Over 80 per cent of IMF Covid-19 loans will push austerity on poor countries - World {{!}} ReliefWeb |url=https://reliefweb.int/report/world/over-80-cent-imf-covid-19-loans-will-push-austerity-poor-countries |access-date=13 October 2023 |website=reliefweb.int |archive-date=15 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201015020304/https://reliefweb.int/report/world/over-80-cent-imf-covid-19-loans-will-push-austerity-poor-countries |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Support of dictatorships===
The role of the [[Bretton Woods system|Bretton Woods institutions]] has been controversial since the late [[Cold War]], because of claims that the IMF policy makers supported [[military dictatorship]]s friendly to American and European corporations, but also other [[anti-communist]] and [[communist]] regimes, such as the [[Socialist Republic of Romania]]. An example of IMF's support for a dictatorship was its ongoing support for [[Mobutu]]'s rule in [[Zaire]], although its own envoy Erwin Blumenthal provided a sobering report about the entrenched corruption and embezzlement and the inability of the country to pay back any loans.<ref name="dvr">{{cite book |author=David van Reybrouck |title=Congo: The Epic History of a People |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2012 |page=374ff |isbn=978-0-06-220011-2 |title-link=Congo: The Epic History of a People |author-link=David van Reybrouck }}</ref> In 2021, the IMF approved a US$1 billion loan to the [[autocratic]] Uganda despite protests from Ugandans in Washington, London and South Africa.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/06/28/pr21197-uganda-imf-executive-board-approves-ecf-arrangement-for-uganda |title=IMF Executive Board Approves US billion ECF Arrangement for Uganda |website=IMF |access-date=29 June 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629114647/https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/06/28/pr21197-uganda-imf-executive-board-approves-ecf-arrangement-for-uganda |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://diaspora.nup-uganda.com/?p=275 |title=IMF loan to Uganda should be cancelled – NUP Uganda Diaspora |date=9 June 2021 |access-date=29 June 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629114650/https://diaspora.nup-uganda.com/?p=275 |url-status=live }}</ref> Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to democracy, human rights, and [[labour rights]]. The controversy has helped spark the [[anti-globalization movement]].

Arguments in favour of the IMF supporting dictatorships is the claim that [[economic stability]] is a precursor to democracy. A 2017 study found no evidence of IMF lending programs undermining democracy in borrowing countries,<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Nelson |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Wallace |first2=Geoffrey P.R. |date=1 December 2017 |title=Are IMF lending programs good or bad for democracy? |journal=The Review of International Organizations |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=523–558 |doi=10.1007/s11558-016-9250-3 |s2cid=85506864 |issn=1559-7431 }}</ref> it found "evidence for modest but definitively positive conditional differences in the democracy scores of participating and non-participating countries".<ref name=":0" />

A 2020 study found the reverse causality with [[democracy]] as a precursor to economic stability.<ref name="j902">{{cite journal |last=Knutsen |first=Carl Henrik |title=The Business Case for Democracy |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |publisher=Elsevier BV |year=2020 |issn=1556-5068 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3710437 |page= }}</ref> Critics highlight various examples in which democratised countries fell after receiving IMF loans.<ref name="cadtm">{{cite news |title=IMF support to dictatorships |publisher=World Bank |url=http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article809 |work=[[Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt]] |access-date=21 September 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012105817/http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article809 |archive-date=12 October 2007 }}</ref>

Party-based autocracies and democracies can face similar incentives when considering agreements with IMF, in contrast to personalist and military regimes.<ref name="q511">{{cite journal |last1=Fails |first1=Matthew D. |last2=Woo |first2=Byungwon |title=Unpacking Autocracy: Political Regimes and IMF Program Participation |journal=International Interactions |volume=41 |issue=1 |date=2015 |issn=0305-0629 |doi=10.1080/03050629.2015.969370 |pages=110–132 }}</ref>

===Impact on access to food===
A number of [[civil society]] organisations<ref>Oxfam, [https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf Death on the Doorstep of the Summit] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107192935/https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf |date=7 January 2012 }}, August 2002.</ref> have criticised the IMF's policies for their impact on access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former United States president [[Bill Clinton]] delivered a speech to the United Nations on [[World Food Day]], criticising the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture:

{{blockquote|We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and [[sustainable agriculture|sustainable form of agriculture]]. |Former U.S. president Bill Clinton|Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008<ref>Bill Clinton, [http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/speech-united-nations-world-food-day "Speech: United Nations World Food Day"] {{webarchive |url=https://archive.today/20110605130326/http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/speech-united-nations-world-food-day |date=5 June 2011 }}, 13 October 2008</ref>}}

The [[FPIF]] remarked that there is a recurring pattern: "the destabilization of peasant producers by a one-two punch of IMF-[[World Bank]] structural adjustment programs that gutted government investment in the countryside followed by the massive influx of subsidized U.S. and European Union agricultural imports after the [[WTO]]'s Agreement on Agriculture pried open markets."<ref name="Foreign Policy In Focus 2008">{{cite web |title=Destroying African Agriculture |website=Foreign Policy In Focus |date=3 June 2008 |url=https://fpif.org/destroying_african_agriculture/ |access-date=22 August 2018 |quote=At the time of decolonization in the 1960s, Africa was not just self-sufficient in food but was actually a net food exporter, its exports averaging 1.3 million tons a year between 1966-70. Today, the continent imports 25% of its food, with almost every country being a net food importer. |archive-date=22 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180822145829/https://fpif.org/destroying_african_agriculture/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Impact on public health===
A 2009 study concluded that the strict conditions resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by [[tuberculosis]] as [[public health care]] had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, [[tuberculosis]] deaths rose by 16.6%.<ref>[http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050143&ct=1 International Monetary Fund Programs and Tuberculosis Outcomes in Post-Communist Countries] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080920071410/http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050143&ct=1 |date=20 September 2008 }} [[PLoS Medicine]]. The study has not been independently verified, nor have the authors published parts of their supporting data. Retrieved 29 July 2008.</ref> A 2017 systematic review on studies conducted on the impact that [[Structural adjustment|structural adjustment programs]] have on child and maternal health found that these programs have a detrimental effect on maternal and child health among other adverse effects.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stubbs |first=Thomas |date=December 2017 |title=Structural adjustment programmes adversely affect vulnerable populations: A systematic-narrative review of their effect on child and maternal health |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318335496 |website=Researchgate }}</ref>

===Reform===

====Function and policies====
The IMF is only one of many [[international organisations]], and it is a generalist institution that deals only with macroeconomic issues; its core areas of concern in [[developing countries]] are very narrow. One proposed reform is a movement towards close partnership with other specialist agencies such as [[UNICEF]], the [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] (FAO), and the [[United Nations Development Programme]] (UNDP).<ref name="The End of Poverty" />

[[Jeffrey Sachs]] argues in ''[[The End of Poverty]]'' that the IMF and the World Bank have "the brightest economists and the lead in advising poor countries on how to break out of poverty, but the problem is development economics".<ref name="The End of Poverty" /> [[Development economics]] needs the reform, not the IMF. He also notes that IMF loan conditions should be paired with other reforms—e.g., trade reform in [[developed nations]], [[debt cancellation]], and increased financial assistance for investments in [[Infrastructure|basic infrastructure]].<ref name="The End of Poverty" /> IMF loan conditions cannot stand alone and produce change; they need to be partnered with other reforms or other conditions as applicable.<ref name="Lipscy 2015" />

====U.S. influence and voting reform====
The scholarly consensus is that IMF decision-making is not simply technocratic, but also guided by political and economic concerns.<ref name="Breen 2013 13">{{Harvnb|Breen|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9VmYAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 13]}}.</ref> The United States is the IMF's most powerful member, and its influence reaches even into decision-making concerning individual loan agreements.<ref name="Oatley&Yackee 2004">{{harvnb|Oatley|Yackee|2004}}.</ref> The U.S. has historically been openly opposed to losing what Treasury Secretary [[Jacob Lew]] described in 2015 as its "leadership role" at the IMF, and the U.S.' "ability to shape international norms and practices".<ref name="Donnan Dyer FT">{{cite web |last1=Donnan |first1=Shawn |last2=Dyer |first2=Geoff |date=17 March 2015 |title=US warns of loss of influence over China bank |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71e33aea-ccaf-11e4-b94f-00144feab7de.html |access-date=2 July 2015 |website=ft.com |archive-date=28 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628160115/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71e33aea-ccaf-11e4-b94f-00144feab7de.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Emerging markets were not well-represented for most of the IMF's history: Despite being the most populous country, China's vote share was the sixth largest; Brazil's vote share was smaller than Belgium's.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Vreeland |first=James Raymond |date=11 May 2019 |title=Corrupting International Organizations |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=205–222 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071031 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access= }}</ref> Reforms to give more powers to emerging economies were agreed by the [[G-20 major economies|G20]] in 2010. The reforms could not pass, however, until they were ratified by the [[United States Congress]],<ref name="nyt-20140325">{{cite news |author=Jonathan Weisman |date=25 March 2014 |title=Senate Democrats Drop I.M.F. Reforms From Ukraine Aid |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/world/europe/senate-democrats-drop-imf-reforms-from-ukraine-aid-package.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=9 April 2014 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220103/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/world/europe/senate-democrats-drop-imf-reforms-from-ukraine-aid-package.html |archive-date=3 January 2022}}{{cbignore }}</ref><ref name="reuters-20140407">{{cite news |date=7 April 2014 |title=Britain urges U.S. Congress to stop blocking IMF reform |publisher=Yahoo |agency=Reuters |url=https://news.yahoo.com/britain-urges-u-congress-stop-blocking-imf-reform-164902678--business.html |access-date=9 April 2014 |archive-date=13 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413150708/http://news.yahoo.com/britain-urges-u-congress-stop-blocking-imf-reform-164902678--business.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="reuters-20140409">{{cite news |last1=Hughes |first1=Krista |date=9 April 2014 |title=Australia treasurer 'disappointed' at U.S. impasse on IMF reform |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/imf-australia-idUSW1N0LW01320140409 |url-status=live |access-date=9 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140410085237/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/imf-australia-idUSW1N0LW01320140409 |archive-date=10 April 2014 }}</ref> since 85% of the Fund's voting power was required for the reforms to take effect,<ref name="IMF 2010 acceptance">{{Cite web |title=Acceptances of the Proposed Amendment of the Articles of Agreement on Reform of the Executive Board and Consents to 2010 Quota Increase |url=https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/consents.htm |access-date=9 July 2015 |website=imf.org |archive-date=29 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150629054230/http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/consents.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> and the Americans held more than 16% of voting power at the time.<ref name="IMF members" /> After repeated criticism,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Talley |first1=Ian |date=14 April 2014 |title=The Wall Street Journal |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579501252344303012 |via=online.wsj.com |access-date=2 September 2017 |archive-date=8 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161208081218/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579501252344303012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Bberg veto">{{Cite news |last1=Mayeda |first1=Andrew |date=12 May 2015 |title=Obama Seeks to Keep IMF Veto as China Influence Is Expanded |website=bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/obama-administration-said-to-reject-plan-that-threatens-imf-veto |access-date=9 July 2015 |archive-date=12 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150712212158/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/obama-administration-said-to-reject-plan-that-threatens-imf-veto |url-status=live }}</ref> the U.S. finally ratified the voting reforms at the end of 2015.<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 December 2015 |title=IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde Welcomes U.S. Congressional Approval of the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms |url=https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr15573 |access-date=25 July 2017 |website=imf.org |archive-date=8 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708142913/https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr15573 |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[OECD]] countries maintained their overwhelming majority of voting share, and the U.S. in particular retained its share at over 16%.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Weisbrot |first1=Mark |author-link=Mark Weisbrot |last2=Johnston |first2=Jake |year=2016 |title=Voting Share Reform at the IMF: Will it Make a Difference? |url=http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/IMF-voting-shares-2016-04.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160528013819/http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/IMF-voting-shares-2016-04.pdf |archive-date=28 May 2016 |access-date=25 July 2017 |publisher=[[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] |location=Washington, DC }}</ref>

The criticism of the American- and European-dominated IMF has led to what some consider "disenfranchising the world" from the governance of the IMF. [[Raúl Prebisch]], the founding secretary-general of the [[UN Conference on Trade and Development]] (UNCTAD), wrote that one of "the conspicuous deficiencies of the general economic theory, from the point of view of the periphery, is its false sense of universality".<ref>{{cite book |author=Dosman, J. Edgar |title=The Life and Times of Raúl Prebisch, 1901-1986 |publisher=McGill-Queen University Press, Montreal |year=2008 |pages=248–249 }}</ref>