This is part of an email I sent - so please don;t mind the unappealing literally style
I have worked in monitoring a lot of donor funded projects in Egypt, one of which the Social Fund for Development (SFD) - the brainchild of the World Bank and see a link to your article there. I have other experiences working with other international organizations and I can tell you also from academia that World Bank is definitely the worst of these organizations. It's emphasis on structural adjustment had deep penetrating effects, If we are to take the case of the Social Fund for example which started in the 1990ies after the Gulf war, the SFD got its main funding from WB and promoted SME development in the forms of soft loans, training, incubator programmes, ISO programmes etc.
So here is my take o the WB (from a micro level perspective):
A lot of focus on private sector development (without changing the environment and market stipulations who left these small entrepreneurs often in debt and inside the court house for not being able to repay. In fact the WB stipulated open market policies which inevitably were aggressive to those young entrepreneurs taking upon themselves the debt. WB was also involved in a lot of public works activities, which were justified by being labour intensive projects creating many jobs - which in reality were temporary (no skill/training) jobs.
So if you take those small SMEs and the temp labour intensive job opportunities most of which unsustainable you will find that they only allowed the government to inflate its progress by showing unrealistic numbers of job opportunities created - and in a cost/benefit analysis you would find that funds were spent in inefficient ways!
A lot of focus on private sector development (without changing the environment and market stipulations who left these small entrepreneurs often in debt and inside the court house for not being able to repay. In fact the WB stipulated open market policies which inevitably were aggressive to those young entrepreneurs taking upon themselves the debt. WB was also involved in a lot of public works activities, which were justified by being labour intensive projects creating many jobs - which in reality were temporary (no skill/training) jobs.
So if you take those small SMEs and the temp labour intensive job opportunities most of which unsustainable you will find that they only allowed the government to inflate its progress by showing unrealistic numbers of job opportunities created - and in a cost/benefit analysis you would find that funds were spent in inefficient ways!
Development work implemented through WB funding in reality distorted markets and allowed for the government to inflate ‘false and superficial’ progress, which encouraged the continuation of a dysfunctional system and perpetuating ineffective socio-economic strategies. These ultimately lead to increased masked unemployment and deteriorating socio-economic standards instead of proclaimed social development achievements.
And here is my take o the IMF (marco level) and the link to the revolution:
Now on the deeper problem of World Bank and IMF. These institutions have been promoting neoliberalism which started first in the era of Regan and Thatsher. They convinced the world and our governments that privatization combined with austerity measures and focus on economic growth are the way forward, signing on to a severe trade off on social justice in Egypt.
Credit agreements came with articles stipulating and encouraging economic policies further marginalizing the poor and pumping the wealth of the political and economic elites in the name of economic growth. The trade off on social justice in meant:
1. More austerity measures on government spending,
2. Unjust distribution of state subsidies especially on production material
3. Distortion of market values
4. Increased inflation
5. Less purchasigf power for the poor
6. Subsidies on petrol products versus basic commodities.
Credit agreements came with articles stipulating and encouraging economic policies further marginalizing the poor and pumping the wealth of the political and economic elites in the name of economic growth. The trade off on social justice in meant:
1. More austerity measures on government spending,
2. Unjust distribution of state subsidies especially on production material
3. Distortion of market values
4. Increased inflation
5. Less purchasigf power for the poor
6. Subsidies on petrol products versus basic commodities.
7. etc
These effects were accumulated along the past years and even upper middle class citizens were suffering and inflation rates were sky high. Commodity prices increased by 300% and more within a few months and government services were getting all the more worse.
Such economic policies also allowed for monopoly of some majour markets and allowed for what is called the marriage of authority and business. The political project in Egypt had been supported by the business tycoons and the strong iron fist of the happily wed couple allowed for unlimited and exposed corruption, buying votes and rigging elections and hence making sure all laws secure the transition of rule to Mubarak's son and the abuse of all economic policies in the favour of the same clique.
This concentration of both economic and political power in the hands of a few allowed for the complete abolishing of civic/political participation, systematic degradation of education and independent opinion, a increased daily indignation, hopelessness and a constant feeling of oppression. What happened at the end of the Mubarak's era was that socio-economic conditions were so bad that the regime needed to be blatantly brutal in suppressing opposition and dividing the nation through inducing sectarian strife. Until in the end, excessive police violence helped ignite the first steps of the revolution.
IMF & WB bank loans promoting neoliberalism allowed for the concentration of both political and economic power in the hands of a few, who systematically marginalized, oppressed, tortured and undignified Egyptians for decades until they revolted
These effects were accumulated along the past years and even upper middle class citizens were suffering and inflation rates were sky high. Commodity prices increased by 300% and more within a few months and government services were getting all the more worse.
Such economic policies also allowed for monopoly of some majour markets and allowed for what is called the marriage of authority and business. The political project in Egypt had been supported by the business tycoons and the strong iron fist of the happily wed couple allowed for unlimited and exposed corruption, buying votes and rigging elections and hence making sure all laws secure the transition of rule to Mubarak's son and the abuse of all economic policies in the favour of the same clique.
This concentration of both economic and political power in the hands of a few allowed for the complete abolishing of civic/political participation, systematic degradation of education and independent opinion, a increased daily indignation, hopelessness and a constant feeling of oppression. What happened at the end of the Mubarak's era was that socio-economic conditions were so bad that the regime needed to be blatantly brutal in suppressing opposition and dividing the nation through inducing sectarian strife. Until in the end, excessive police violence helped ignite the first steps of the revolution.
IMF & WB bank loans promoting neoliberalism allowed for the concentration of both political and economic power in the hands of a few, who systematically marginalized, oppressed, tortured and undignified Egyptians for decades until they revolted
No comments:
Post a Comment