Conservative economist Allan Meltzer calls for a rally to limit the roles of international organisations, especially the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. These international organisations were founded based on good wills and they are taking actions to achieve some mutual benefits of the global society.
Allan Meltzer has some relationship with the current Trump's administration and such criticism seems to match the anti-globalization ideology of the Trump's administration. However, as he is a respectful economics professor, we should not take account of his political ideology; but instead, we should consider the economics concept behind such claim.
Firstly the international organisations are not necessarily charities. For example, although the International Monetary Fund provides aids for the countries like Greece, the help is not unconditional and Greece still has to pay back the loans offered by the IMF. Secondly, the relationship between the international organisations and their associated countries is not equal. Sometimes their associated countries could dominate the organisations, for example, America has a very strong position in front of the World Bank, and the World Bank openly admits it is important to build a strong, constructive relationship with every US administration. It could cause a bias when it is dealing with some international issues. Sometimes, the international organisations are in stronger positions. For example, the IMF is in a stronger position in front of Greece. Such unequal relationship could cause ineffectiveness, unwanted opposition, and unfair judgement. Thirdly, many people love the idea of globalisation and free trade, but these international organisations are not the symbols of free trade. Free trade should not involve any third party, the existence of any type of third parties will increase the cost of trading. When these international organisations set up many rules and regulations, they indirectly damage the free trade.
No comments:
Post a Comment