

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Wherever they fall on the scale of economic development, most countries generally provide some form of health care to the poor and sick. So what happens when that public responsibility winds up on the balance sheet of a foreign loan? A new economic analysis reveals that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the subprime lender to the Global South, may be indirectly draining resources for medical care in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The Oxford-based study reveals that poor countries receiving aid to boost health care have, in many cases, simply used the money as a substitute for their regular state spending-not to enhance their health-care system. The result is that IMF funds end up hindering, not helping a country's development. Comparing health spending among dozens of countries, those that relied on IMF loans and those that did not, the researchers found that "borrowers' spending on the health system grew at half the speed of non-IMF borrowers."
This in turn could have serious consequences for progress on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Some of the key targets for those goals relate to disparities in health and nutrition, particularly in maternal and children's health and HIV/AIDS.
The study helps illuminate a paradox playing out in many poor countries: No matter how much aid money is pumped in through international financial institutions, the beleaguered economies keep missing benchmarks for development and improving living conditions. The findings coincide with growing frustration over the ineffectiveness of conventional foreign aid, as well as rising grassroots opposition to the coercive, predatory conditions typically attached to IMF loans.
In Haiti, for example, the IMF's introduction of "trade liberalization" to the agricultural system is notorious for devastating local farming by allowing massive imports of U.S. rice, thus plunging the country deeper into chronic poverty.
The problem is that IMF policies tend to constrain the way government officials manage their budgets-a scenario that is now playing out across Europe and has already wreaked havoc on developing countries such as Haiti and Zimbabwe. Typically, IMF authorities will force governments to adopt economic restructuring schemes based on deep budget cuts, often stoking the kind of civil unrest we've recently seen unfolding in the streets of Greece and Ireland.
Historically, such restructuring programs have pushed governments to drastically overhaul their trade and fiscal policies in order to meet loan conditions. Ultimately, according to the advocacy group Jubilee USA, the international debt cycle has forced poor countries to:
Jubilee's report on IMF policies [PDF] in the wake of the global financial crisis notes that the IMF has made some efforts to reform, including easing restrictions on social welfare spending, rather than relentlessly pressuring governments to slash their budgets. But overall, the group reported, "Restrictions on public spending remain prevalent in post-crisis programs," and IMF policies leave poor countries with "little choice but to divert government revenue and foreign aid away from needed public expenditure."
The research on health spending backs up what people in poor countries have been crying out for years: When it comes to IMF interventions, less is more. Nonetheless, even as the global economic crisis drags on, and now a potential food crisis is reportedly looming over struggling countries, the same kinds of short-sighted policies continue to be foisted onto countries in crisis. The documented impacts on health are just one symptom of the far more insidious disease of debt.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Wherever they fall on the scale of economic development, most countries generally provide some form of health care to the poor and sick. So what happens when that public responsibility winds up on the balance sheet of a foreign loan? A new economic analysis reveals that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the subprime lender to the Global South, may be indirectly draining resources for medical care in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The Oxford-based study reveals that poor countries receiving aid to boost health care have, in many cases, simply used the money as a substitute for their regular state spending-not to enhance their health-care system. The result is that IMF funds end up hindering, not helping a country's development. Comparing health spending among dozens of countries, those that relied on IMF loans and those that did not, the researchers found that "borrowers' spending on the health system grew at half the speed of non-IMF borrowers."
This in turn could have serious consequences for progress on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Some of the key targets for those goals relate to disparities in health and nutrition, particularly in maternal and children's health and HIV/AIDS.
The study helps illuminate a paradox playing out in many poor countries: No matter how much aid money is pumped in through international financial institutions, the beleaguered economies keep missing benchmarks for development and improving living conditions. The findings coincide with growing frustration over the ineffectiveness of conventional foreign aid, as well as rising grassroots opposition to the coercive, predatory conditions typically attached to IMF loans.
In Haiti, for example, the IMF's introduction of "trade liberalization" to the agricultural system is notorious for devastating local farming by allowing massive imports of U.S. rice, thus plunging the country deeper into chronic poverty.
The problem is that IMF policies tend to constrain the way government officials manage their budgets-a scenario that is now playing out across Europe and has already wreaked havoc on developing countries such as Haiti and Zimbabwe. Typically, IMF authorities will force governments to adopt economic restructuring schemes based on deep budget cuts, often stoking the kind of civil unrest we've recently seen unfolding in the streets of Greece and Ireland.
Historically, such restructuring programs have pushed governments to drastically overhaul their trade and fiscal policies in order to meet loan conditions. Ultimately, according to the advocacy group Jubilee USA, the international debt cycle has forced poor countries to:
Jubilee's report on IMF policies [PDF] in the wake of the global financial crisis notes that the IMF has made some efforts to reform, including easing restrictions on social welfare spending, rather than relentlessly pressuring governments to slash their budgets. But overall, the group reported, "Restrictions on public spending remain prevalent in post-crisis programs," and IMF policies leave poor countries with "little choice but to divert government revenue and foreign aid away from needed public expenditure."
The research on health spending backs up what people in poor countries have been crying out for years: When it comes to IMF interventions, less is more. Nonetheless, even as the global economic crisis drags on, and now a potential food crisis is reportedly looming over struggling countries, the same kinds of short-sighted policies continue to be foisted onto countries in crisis. The documented impacts on health are just one symptom of the far more insidious disease of debt.
Wherever they fall on the scale of economic development, most countries generally provide some form of health care to the poor and sick. So what happens when that public responsibility winds up on the balance sheet of a foreign loan? A new economic analysis reveals that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the subprime lender to the Global South, may be indirectly draining resources for medical care in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The Oxford-based study reveals that poor countries receiving aid to boost health care have, in many cases, simply used the money as a substitute for their regular state spending-not to enhance their health-care system. The result is that IMF funds end up hindering, not helping a country's development. Comparing health spending among dozens of countries, those that relied on IMF loans and those that did not, the researchers found that "borrowers' spending on the health system grew at half the speed of non-IMF borrowers."
This in turn could have serious consequences for progress on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Some of the key targets for those goals relate to disparities in health and nutrition, particularly in maternal and children's health and HIV/AIDS.
The study helps illuminate a paradox playing out in many poor countries: No matter how much aid money is pumped in through international financial institutions, the beleaguered economies keep missing benchmarks for development and improving living conditions. The findings coincide with growing frustration over the ineffectiveness of conventional foreign aid, as well as rising grassroots opposition to the coercive, predatory conditions typically attached to IMF loans.
In Haiti, for example, the IMF's introduction of "trade liberalization" to the agricultural system is notorious for devastating local farming by allowing massive imports of U.S. rice, thus plunging the country deeper into chronic poverty.
The problem is that IMF policies tend to constrain the way government officials manage their budgets-a scenario that is now playing out across Europe and has already wreaked havoc on developing countries such as Haiti and Zimbabwe. Typically, IMF authorities will force governments to adopt economic restructuring schemes based on deep budget cuts, often stoking the kind of civil unrest we've recently seen unfolding in the streets of Greece and Ireland.
Historically, such restructuring programs have pushed governments to drastically overhaul their trade and fiscal policies in order to meet loan conditions. Ultimately, according to the advocacy group Jubilee USA, the international debt cycle has forced poor countries to:
Jubilee's report on IMF policies [PDF] in the wake of the global financial crisis notes that the IMF has made some efforts to reform, including easing restrictions on social welfare spending, rather than relentlessly pressuring governments to slash their budgets. But overall, the group reported, "Restrictions on public spending remain prevalent in post-crisis programs," and IMF policies leave poor countries with "little choice but to divert government revenue and foreign aid away from needed public expenditure."
The research on health spending backs up what people in poor countries have been crying out for years: When it comes to IMF interventions, less is more. Nonetheless, even as the global economic crisis drags on, and now a potential food crisis is reportedly looming over struggling countries, the same kinds of short-sighted policies continue to be foisted onto countries in crisis. The documented impacts on health are just one symptom of the far more insidious disease of debt.