The next IMF loan to Russia
It seems certain that, even if only for humanitarian reasons, the IMF will have to give a further tranche of money to Russia -- and pretty soon, too. However, no coherent policy has emerged from Primakov so far. If such a policy does emerge in the next week or two, which is unlikely, it is highly questionable whether it would be practicable and, indeed, whether the IMF could realistically appraise it. The two immediate dangers facing Russia are that: (a) Primakov is unable to form a government of ministers with the economic insight and courage to force through necessary changes; (b) the next tranche would be as completely wasted as before. It seems to me that the next tranche from the IMF should be based on one simple principle: It should be applied to the lowest possible level, in order to short-circuit the multiple layers of corruption, administrative and private. The only practical method of doing this is to lend it to the Regional Governors in proportion to their populations. In the first instance this would only be a percentage game, of course and a great deal of the money would undoubtedly be wasted. Some would be lost completely, some would be partially wasted, but some regional loans might find their way more directly to the population, improve local services and, with simultaneous regional de-regulation for small and medium business, stimulate enterprise. I suggest that there should be only one condition for the loans. This is that a small team of IMF observers should be based in every region in order to record the effect of the loan on price levels and public services. This would necessarily be a rough-and-ready estimate in the first instance, but the benefits (or non-benefits) of a loan in any particular region would be pretty quickly apparent. Further regional loans would then be given according to the effectiveness of the first one -- some regions, one would guess, not receiving any further help at all. Of course, this strategy would be interpreted as political interference in the internal affairs of Russia leading, as it would, to further administrative independence of the regions. This I see as inevitable anyway, but perhaps, as a sweetener, a proportion of the overall loan could be applied to the central government. However, once the conditions of the proposed loan were known to the regions, it would be politically impossible for the central government to resist. Such a strategy would also meet with objections from Western statesmen because it would appear to undermine the integrity of Russian nation-statehood -- and thus, by implication, their own amour propre -- and also weaken the central control of Russian nuclear weapons. Both of these are deeply serious considerations, of course, and I wouldn't wish to downplay them. But I cannot see any possible IMF policy that would do any good other than the one I suggest above. The IMF has only one more opportunity to help Russia. Subsequent strategies will not be those of statesmen, world bankers, and small cliques of economists, as they have been hitherto, but of the electorates of the Western world. The power of this opinion is already being expressed by Republican Senators in Washington and it is already obvious, too, that European countries will be disinclined to contribute much more, if at all, to the IMF. If the next centralised loan to Russia is seen to be totally wasted, as the last one was, public opinion will simply -- but very powerfully -- say: "No more", and the IMF will become a political and financial invalid. In reality, being pretty close to bankruptcy already, the IMF will have nothing more to disperse in the coming months and years, whether to Russia, South-East Asia or to Latin America. Keith ___ Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: C4LDEMOC-L: Look who's Tory now
Dear Mr. Murphy: I am one of the lurkers on this list, living as I do in that remote outpost of Ontario called Ottawa. Yes, I agree, this is one of the most radical reforms that has occurred in the political process in my lifetime and for once, allows individuals a chance to short circuit the usual party politics that creates leaders for parties that then win elections, creating cabinets through which to rule us for the next 4-5 years. I like you, had made the decision to never - never vote Tory in my lifetime. And yet, one of my heroes is David Orchard and I have been seeking in vain for information about his quixotic quest for snatching the holy grail from the authorities. The Tory Party will be receiving my $10 and David will be receiving my vote. And yes, perhaps there is a tooth fairy in that we can initiate a bloodless coup and actually get an honourable man - a Canadians Canadian in the inner seats of power. I have no real issue with Joe Clark except that he has blended into the system so long that his form of honesty will not produce the radical choices which I and I think millions of other Canadians want. I'm tired of letting the ruling elite sell out the people of Canada. These guys, Harris, Chretien, Mulroney want to sit at the American's banquet table so bad that they betray in a thousand little ways and some very big ways the people like David, myself and others who have no wish to kiss the ass of anyone. So let me add my voice to yours and ask others to create a tsunami of support that arises out of the faith and hearts of working people, ordinary Canadians who drive trucks, teach school, sit on a tractor and go north for months at a time and leave their families. We are the Canadians who make Canada, not the suits who sit in offices, manipulate salaries so theirs are the largest and want to play with the big boys of the world. Let me state it plainly. We don't have to ask anyones permission to sit at the table, we, the ordinary Canadian have earned the right to sit at anyones tab le and even more, there are many in the world who would feel honoured to sit at our table - for ours is a generous table made up of decent people. Let's shock the complacency of those who court power to manipulate us, better a John Diefenbaker or David Orchard with the faults of honesty and inexperience than the faults of a Harris, Mulroney or Chretien who play the shell game. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: M.J. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 19, 1998 2:12 PM Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: Look who's Tory now As some people may know, the federal Torys are choosing a new leader on October 24th. To do this, they have initiated an interesting experiment in direct democracy. Anyone who pays the $10 fee to become a member of the party by Sept. 24th gets to vote on the new leader. That is, there will be no chosen delegates. There will be a polling station in every federal riding! You pay $10, walk down the street, and you too can decide the future of the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, what's really interesting is that anti free trade/MAI activist David Orchard has decided to run for the position, and has been signing up "instant Tory's" by the thousand. (Specifically, about 7,000 memberships in a party that a few months ago had only 20,000 members. Read this in the Globe, I think). The party "machine" is terrified that Mr. Orchard might actually win, and even if not his candidacy could turn the whole race into a rather surreal affair. On Friday, I mailed my $10 to the PC party headquarters. Hopefully, by next week I will be a Tory. The opportunity to remake these guys as Canada's only Center Left party in Canada (now that the NDP have officially sold out), or at least the opportunity to help create a bit of political mayhem, seemed more than worth the small fee. I intend write a few pieces in support of Mr. Orchard's positions. Can anyone provide me a list of good URLs on MAI, or the Tory leadership race itself? Also, anyone looking for more info on the Orchard campaign (and how to become an insta tory) can go to www.davidorchard.com. Together we can save this country from the Mulroney legacy! Cheers, M.J. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Shapes of Things are Dumb. - L. Wittgenstein | |To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no subject, with the |following message (and no other text): unsubscribe c4ldemoc-l
FW: Sachs's G-16 proposal (fwd)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Zhiyuan Cui Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 5:51 AM To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT Subject: Sachs's G-16 proposal Making it work Jeffrey Sachs from "The Economist" 12-Sep-98 THE collapse of the emerging markets and its ricochet effect on advanced economies may not be the end of globalisation. But it is certainly the end of an era. Since the miraculously peaceful fall of communism, Washington has aspired to stage-manage the transition to global capitalism. America, in concert with Europe and Japan, would ensure security and arrange deals on world trade and regional stability; the International Monetary Fund would do the financial plumbing, to connect Russia, Africa, Latin America and South Asia, back to the world economy. This approach is rapidly collapsing. In the short term, there is now a crying need for globally co-ordinated interest-rate cuts to shore it up. But in the longer term, if the current crisis is used creatively, a sounder basis for globalisation is required. If neither of these things is done, we may be entering a highly dangerous new period of confusion and confrontation. At the simplest level, the story is an old one: you just can't find a good plumber when you need one. The IMF, and the institutions that it co-ordinated (the World Bank, the regional development banks, the Paris Club of creditors), have proved technically ill-equipped for the challenge. But the IMF was having too much fun running 80 countries in the world to take heed. Organised as a secretive institution, all of its programmes carefully stamped "confidential" until recently, the IMF has lacked moderation, outside review, and the competitive pressures needed to keep it up to date. The American government has found it a handy instrument of financial diplomacy and quick-disbursing funds, but did not realise that its repeated technical failures could threaten the greater vision. At a deeper level, the problem is one of basic approach. America has wanted global leadership on the cheap. It was desperate for the developing world and post-communist economies to buy into its vision, in which globalisation, private capital flows and Washington advice would overcome the obstacles to shared prosperity, so that pressures on the rich countries to do more for the poorer countries could be contained by the dream of universal economic growth. In this way, the United States would not have to shell out real money to help the peaceful reconstruction of Russia; or to ameliorate the desperate impoverishment and illness in Africa. In essence, America has tried to sell its social ethos: the rich need not help the poor, since the poor can enjoy rising living standards and someday become rich themselves. Washington became skittish at anything or anybody that challenged this vision. When developing-country leaders pointed out that development was much harder than it looked; that their economies were falling further behind in technology; that they were being destabilised by financial flows they could neither track nor understand; that falling commodity prices were taking them further from the shared prosperity that they had been promised; that unattended disease was ravaging their societies; that the wreckage of Soviet communism would take real aid, not just short-term loans to overcome; or that they were still drowning in debt ten years after America acknowledged the need for debt relief; all these honest reflections were taken as hostile challenges to the vision of shared prosperity, because they put at risk the notion of cost-free American leadership. Time for a G16 As a result, for a decade we have had a phony Washington consensus on how to achieve shared prosperity-and almost no real discussions between rich and poor countries on the challenges facing a world of greater income inequality than ever before in history. The Americans seem to fear the potential budgetary costs of being honest about the manifold obstacles to global development, and they fear the consequences of stirring up isolationists in Congress and in the wider public. Such fears are overblown. The American people, no less than any others, are deeply worried about a world increasingly lacking convincing answers on the way forward. Instead of the next G8 summit, we should immediately begin preparations for a G16 summit: the G8 plus eight counterparts from the developing world. Such a meeting would not seek to dictate to the world, but to establish the parameters for a renewed and honest dialogue. One standard should apply for participation: democratic governance, since the only reliable way to build for the future is through participatory political processes. Four core members of the eight developing countries would be Brazil, India, South Korea and South Africa. We can hope that soon a democratic Nigeria will be in place to help represent the 200m people of West Africa. Smaller
How the IMF Killed Russia -Personal use, please (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:45:48 -0700 From: mckeever [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How the IMF Killed Russia -Personal use, please Testimony Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services United States House of Representatives Hearing to Examine the Russian Economic Crisis and the International Monetary Fund September 10, 1998 Dr. Boris Kagarlitsky Advisor to the Russian Duma and Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Comparative Political Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences Boris Kagarlitsky First of all I want to stress that it would be highly inappropriate to characterize IMF credits to Russia as "aid". These are credits for which Russia has to pay. Though these credits seem cheaper than those taken on the financial markets Russian government has to accept the conditions formulated by IMF ideologues and policy makers. So far Russia has in general followed the instructions of the IMF and other international financial institutions. There have been minor disagreements, but basically the IMF has accepted and supported economic policies of the Russian government, while the Russian government has accepted the basic principles and advice of the IMF decision-makers. These decisions resulted in the current chaos which has not only led to the total collapse of the Russian economy, something unprecedented in peace time, but also is bringing the whole world economy closer to recession. The collapse of the debt market in the first half of August came even though the International Monetary Fund had just begun payments to Russia from one of the largest economic ``rescue'' packages in history. Along with the devaluation that followed, the crash marked the definitive failure of the key strategies that the IMF and major world governments had urged on Moscow throughout much of the 1990s. The Russian government never discussed its economic programs with its own people or parliament. It was always the IMF to which all the basic documents were addressed. It was the IMF that systematically worked with the Russian elites, advised them and publicly supported them. The leaders of the Russian Central Bank who are personally responsible for the financial catastrophe in today's Russia have always enjoyed political support from the IMF experts who have stressed "professionalism" of their Russian colleagues. The policies of the IMF were based on the assumption that a stronger currency automatically leads to a stronger economy. The currency should be strengthened at whatever price including the decline of production, the impoverishment of the population and even the disappearance of most basic services in the spheres of healthcare, education and social security. The IMF ideologues were sure that the emission of paper money by the national government was the only source of inflation. At the same time they did not see government borrowing as a potential source of inflation. The Russian government even registered borrowed money in 1997 as "budget revenues". The IMF theorists also insisted that privatization would lead automatically to better management of industries and lower government spending. As early as 1992-93 these measures had disastrous consequences. As was recognized in a report issued in 1994 by former privatization agency head Viktor Polivanov, the quality of management in practice either remained the same or declined. No big company had shown any visible improvement in performance. At the same time the government lost the revenues from profitable public companies, which had earlier been the main source of its income. The new owners were incompetent, often lacked capital for necessary investment, and turned the companies into semi-feudal personal domains. In many cases the old Soviet bureaucracy remained in charge, but the old Soviet system of external control disappeared. Of course there were also success stories, but mainly in small companies that were not capital-intensive. While the performance of privatized companies generally deteriorated, the state faced a permanent budget crisis. Totally in agreement with IMF instructions, the government saw taxes as the only legitimate source of income, but the taxes never came. In order to cover the budget deficit, the government had to cut services and increase taxes. That inevitably led to an even greater decline of business activity. The purchasing power of the population remained low, private investment was almost non-existent, and public investment constantly declined. The paradox however is that given the lack of private investment, the state, no matter how it reduced its spending, remained the main investor in the economy. In the years between 1994 and 1998, however, the government managed to stabilize the ruble. The methods used were government borrowing on the international and domestic financial markets, and non-payment of wages. By August 1, 1998 there were 75.84 billion rubles unpaid wages
UPDATE: October 2-4 50 Years Conference (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 14:19:32 -0700 From: Njoki Njoroge Njehu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: UPDATE: October 2-4 50 Years Conference Friends/Activists, We hope you can join us! Please Share this information far and wide. In Solidarity, Njoki Njoroge Njehu 50 Years Is Enough Network == Updated information on the 50 Years Is Enough Conference (October 2-4, 1998). It includes a list of confrimed speakers, Plenary speakers line-up, and a sample listing of workshops to be offered at the conference. Updates are available on our website: www.50years.org We hope you will join us in October. VENUE: The American University, Washington, DC (Ward Circle Building; corner of MASSACHUSETTS NEBRASKA AVENUES, NW: (Metro: Red Line to Tenley Town/AU; free suttle to AU) The conference SADO-MONETARISM: THE OTHER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT -- THE IMF WORLD BANK IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER will feature activists from around the world working in many fields at the grassroots, as policy analysts, and international campaigners. The Conference is co-sponsored by The American University School for International Service. Detailed materials will be available for all who register to attend. CONFIRMED SPEAKERS include: Soren Ambrose, Alliance for Global Justice (Washington, DC) Sarah Anderson, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington, DC) Nila Ardhianie, Yaya San Duta Awam (Solo, Indonesia) Bama Athreya, International Labor Rights Fund (Washington, DC) Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South (Bangkok, Thailand) Trim Bissell, Campaign for Labor Rights (Washington, DC) Brent Blackwelder, Friends of the Earth, U.S. (Washington, DC) Patrick Bond, Campaign Against Neo-Liberalism in South Africa (Johannesburg, South Africa) Dennis Brutus, University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA) Horace Campbell, Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY) Ruth Caplan, Alliance for Democracy (Washington, DC) Gustavo Castro Soto, CIEPAC (San Cristobal, Mexico) John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington, DC) Terry Collingsworth, International Labor Rights Fund (Washington, DC) Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange (San Francisco, CA) Marie Dennis, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns (Washington, DC) Oronto Douglas, Environmental Rights Action, (Port Harcourt, Nigeria) Andrea Durbin, Friends of the Earth-U.S. (Washington, DC) Susan George, TransNational Institute (Paris, France) Amy Goodman, Host, Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now" (New York, NY) Han Young Workers (Tijuana, Mexico) Tom Hansen, Mexico Solidarity Network / Chiapas Media Project (Chicago, IL) Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer (New York, NY) Cheri Honkala, Kensington Welfare Rights Union (Philadelphia, PA) Korinna Horta, Environmental Defense Fund (Washington, DC) Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Pesticide Action Network (San Francisco, CA) Pastor Luc Norbert Kenne, Ecumenical Service for Peace (Service Humanus) (Yaounde, Cameroon) Kofi Klu, Jubilee 2000 Afrika Campaign (Accra, Ghana/London, U.K.) Magda Lanuza, Centro Humboldt (Managua, Nicaragua) Margaret McCasland, IthacaHours (Ithaca, NY) Francesco Martone, Campaign to Reform the World Bank (Rome, Italy) Allan Nairn, East Timor Action Network (ETAN) (New York, NY) elmira Nazombe, Center for Women's Global Leadership (New Brunswick, NJ) Samuel Nguiffo, Director, Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (Yaounde, Cameroon) The Most Right Reverend Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, (Cape Town, South Africa) Doug Norlen, Pacific Environmental Resource Center (Washington, DC) Sister Ann Oestrich, Sisters of the Holy Cross (South Bend, IN) Ezekiel Pajibo, Africa Faith Justice Network (Washington, DC) Robin Round, Halifax Initiative, (Vancouver, BC, Canada) Doris Shen, International Rivers Network (Berkeley, CA) Susan Thompson, Columban Justice Peace Office (Washington, DC) Deborah Toller, Scholar Activist (Oakland, CA) Lori Wallach, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (Washington, DC) Carol Welch, Friends of the Earth-U.S. (Washington, DC) Daphne Wysham, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington, DC) SAMPLE WORKSHOPS: IMF and Militarization in Africa: Lessons from Rwanda and Angola Development Without Debt or Inflation: Local Currencies Faith-based Strategies for Economic Justice Activism Countering Globalization Myths/Ten Arguments for a Democratic Global Economy Gender and Economic Globalization MAI Free Zones: Local Organizing Around the World Stealth IMF: The "Africa Growth and Opportunity Act" Slavery in Washington: Domestic Workers in IFIs Households Tobin Tax: Controlling Speculative Capital The ABCs of ECAs: Your Public Money Supporting Corporate Investment Overseas Women's Labor and Economic Globalization Community Based Monitoring: Farmers Investigating World Bank Projects in Asia Earth Day: Organizing for Economic and Environmental Justice "The Bank is
Re: FW: Sachs's G-16 proposal (fwd)
Thank you for putting this on the list. I have had very mixed feelings and experiences with Jeffery Sachs; but I think the good side of him that I've seen comes uppermost in this article. I've been working in Russia since 1993, and have encountered a lot of justifiable anti-Sachs feeling there: he had a fixation on ending inflation AT ANY COST that in the end had an unbearable cost -- the dismantling of virtually the entire Soviet safety net, when it was about to be desperately needed. (Along with some other costs.) I've also been aware, as a neighbor of the Harvard Institute for International Development, that his own arrogance is pretty unpopular. All the same, I always remember that when I was running a series of seminars at Boston University, in the late '80s, Sachs came and presented a paper on the need for writing off the external debt of poor nations, and a reasonable way of doing this, that was absolutely right, in both humane and economic terms. I'm glad to see that he is again trying to get backing for a similar initiative. I fear that some of his mistakes of the last ten years may reduce his credibility when he speaks, as now, about the responsibilities of the rich nations. I guess what I learn from this, above all, is that people are always a mixed bag. If I had only seen Sachs' effect on Russia, I'd have had one very negative opinion of him; if I'd only heard the scuttlebut at Harvard, I'd have had another; I'm glad that I was introduced to his better side first. Neva Goodwin, Co-director Global Development And Enviroment Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] web address: http://www.tufts.edu/gdae street address: G-DAE, Cabot Center Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
Re: FW: Sachs's G-16 proposal (fwd)
Thank you for putting this on the list. I have had very mixed feelings and experiences with Jeffery Sachs; but I think the good side of him that I've seen comes uppermost in this article. I've been working in Russia since 1993, and have encountered a lot of justifiable anti-Sachs feeling there: he had a fixation on ending inflation AT ANY COST that in the end had an unbearable cost -- the dismantling of virtually the entire Soviet safety net, when it was about to be desperately needed. (Along with some other costs.) I've also been aware, as a neighbor of the Harvard Institute for International Development, that his own arrogance is pretty unpopular. All the same, I always remember that when I was running a series of seminars at Boston University, in the late '80s, Sachs came and presented a paper on the need for writing off the external debt of poor nations, and a reasonable way of doing this, that was absolutely right, in both humane and economic terms. I'm glad to see that he is again trying to get backing for a similar initiative. I fear that some of his mistakes of the last ten years may reduce his credibility when he speaks, as now, about the responsibilities of the rich nations. I guess what I learn from this, above all, is that people are always a mixed bag. If I had only seen Sachs' effect on Russia, I'd have had one very negative opinion of him; if I'd only heard the scuttlebut at Harvard, I'd have had another; I'm glad that I was introduced to his better side first. Neva Goodwin, Co-director Global Development And Enviroment Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] web address: http://www.tufts.edu/gdae street address: G-DAE, Cabot Center Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
