The IMF has long been known for conducting its business in a very particular way; that is to say that its financial assistance is provided to beneficiaries in need, but not without stipulations. The conditions attached to IMF capital disbursements generally aim to support the growth of neoliberal institutions and are often criticized for doing more harm than good. The IMF’s continued resistance to providing debt relief to Greece serves only to show that the Fund, despite reports to the contrary, is still very much entrenched in its trademark approach of imposing insular, Fund-centric ideology upon its members.
IMF funding is traditionally grounded in a number of conditionalities that must be met by state beneficiaires. These conditionalities are intended to promote the growth of institutions that support free-market capitalistic ideology and are often criticized for failing to take into account facts on the ground in states beleaguered by financial insecurity. Despite rampant criticism of these so-called accountability measures, the IMF continues to demonstrate and exercise a sense of allegiance to neoliberalism that leaves the organization at risk of becoming archaic in the ever-changing global financial landscape.
The question of whether or not the IMF has moderated its neoliberal ways in face of disagreement with Germany over Greece is a challenging one to answer. On the one hand, the release of a report by the Fund that seems to acknowledge the shortcomings of neoliberalism points to the possibility that, yes, there has been a change in philosophical approach. On the other hand, one must grapple with the fact that the IMF’s resistance to taking part in Greek debt relief (as proposed by Germany) is rooted not in a new-found distaste of neoliberalism on the Fund’s part, but in the institution’s insistence on imposing strict conditions that ostensibly support its longstanding goal of increasing the presence of neoliberal structures across the globe. Furthermore, the Fund has, by all accounts, been plagued by a lack of clear responsibility in the global economy. Coupling this ever-present dilemma with the Fund’s insistence on adhering to conditionalities that many feel are counterproductive seems to point to the fact that it clings to past methods in an effort to maintain some sense of stability in a global financial landscape that is increasingly steeped in uncertainty.
The IMF’s insistence on sticking to its principles is somewhat admirable; misguided, maybe, but admirable. It is critical that in times of instability there exists at least one impenetrable structure that provides familiarity and a foundation on which to stand. The IMF is arguably providing some sense of stability in today’s volatile global economy by not attempting to reform itself into a completely unrecognizable institution. To completely revamp itself and abandon the principles that it has operated under for decades, especially in such volatile circumstances, would likely do nothing more than cause greater uncertainty and leave the global economy vulnerable and ripe for chaos on a grand scale. That’s not to say that the principles that the IMF champions can be considered best practices in all cases, but that they do provide some semblance of security. In the meantime, alternative institutions like the BRICS Development Bank’s Contingent Reserve Allocation fund are cropping up that provide states the opportunity to seek aid elsewhere. Though not ideal and certainly not in-line with the philosophy of the IMF, the very fact of these alternatives’ existence is reflective of a global economy that is becoming more complex and marked by actors that require support in ways that the IMF is either unwilling or unable to provide.
A brief look at the IMF and its response to criticism of its neoliberal ways seems to point to a move away from this ideology. Looking at the IMF and its behavior, however, indicates that it is still very much grounded in its goals of promoting western economic ideals within its beneficiary states. This disconnect is unlikely nefarious but, rather, the result of an aging institution attempting to find its place in increasingly unpredictable global economy.