Search

This paper examines the implications for regional security of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality and its outcomes. The common wisdom among neoliberals is that a liberal economic system and the intervention of international organizations promote peace in the international system. Economic liberalization and political liberalization are considered to promote both domestic and international stability. However, research has shown that IMF conditionality, which is based on the notion of economic liberalization, has done little to promote domestic stabilization, and has frequently been the source of destabilization. In fact, in many cases IMF structural adjustment programs have posed serious security risks for developing countries in the form of IMF riots. As a result, economic liberalization has often come at the expense of political liberalization, as states have reversed democratic gains in the name of security. The case of Jordan provides a focus for examining this issue. While regional political tensions were in part responsible for Jordan's requesting loans from the IMF in the early 1990s, the severity of the conditions imposed by the Fund also led to political destabilization in Jordan that could have created overt hostility between Jordan and Iraq and drawn the surrounding states into the conflict. In conclusion, this paper proposes changes to Fund policy and its implementation that could possibly avoid such a situation in the future and that could strengthen, rather than undermine, regional security efforts. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liberalization of the financial market in developing countries and Newly Industrialized Countries is one of the crucial issues in the "age of globalization". The banking sector is a pivotal part of every economy and can support development as well as cause serious financial crises. What are the consequences of financial market liberalization and especially foreign investor?s control in the banking sector?South Korea provides an interesting case as it is often seen as a successful example of structural adjustment since the Asian financial crisis in 1997/98. Korea used to be a comparably closed economy before the crisis. During the crisis financial markets in Korea were opened widely or entirely for foreign investment with the consequence that especially foreign ownership in the banking sector increased dramatically. Even though the consequences until now are far from being clear, the openness is hailed by the IMF and fiercely opposed by Korean labor unions and an increasingly nationalistic population. This paper intends to shed some light on this controversy and explores the following questions: How did the role of the state in the financial sector change since 1997? What are the consequences of foreign investment in the financial market in South Korea? How do foreign owned banks differ from banks owned by domestic investors or the state concerning their role in economic development? ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we examine the effects of structural adjustment policies (SAPs) on the democratic practices of loan recipient governments, using a dataset of 159 countries from 1981-2004. To meet the conditions of World Bank and IMF SAPs, recipient governments must cut back on public employment and reduce government spending in the areas of health, housing, education, and welfare. Leaders of the World Bank, IMF, and first world governments contend that the governments of third world countries must undertake these policies if they want to cure their economic problems. According to this perspective, improved human rights practices will be one of the many benefits of achieving a higher level of economic development. Rapley (2002), Stiglitz (2002), Vreeland (2003), and many other critics of SAPs argue that these programs have worsened the economic situations within recipient states. Preliminary evidence shows that SAPs undermine democracy and human rights movements in developing countries. SAP-related reductions in state services hurt the most vulnerable members of society. Citizens who have lost these protections often increase their anti-government activity. These challenges to government policies, in turn, often provoke government repression and institutional changes reducing "democraticness." The reductions in democraticness hold for both the short and long-term. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]