PHA-Exchange> From the IMF?

[Aviva]

The following are statements we could find in any publication coming from a
'progressive' group yet, lo and behold, they come from Finance and
Development (June and Sept. 2002), the official publication of the IMF. They
may be
cited out of context, but are still mostly verbatim quotes.
Claudio

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES AND THE THIRD WORLD:
In recent years, industrial country leaders have boosted their pledge of aid
and debt relief for the poorest countries, but what they have given with one
hand they have taken away with the other. For example, industrial countries
spent U$50 billion in foreign aid in 2001(*), yet they provided six times
this amount in agricultural support (to their own farmers), which depressed
world prices and hurt income prospects in poor countries by keeping
agricultural exports out of rich countries' markets....In agriculture, the
industrial countries should lead the way: opening their markets would not
only boost trade and global growth --and thus help reduce poverty-- it would
also bring greater stability to the global economy, ensuring a healthier
international financial system. Opening up of industrial country markets to
the products of the developing countries is thus as essential as additional
ODA(*).

UNFAIR TARIFFS LEVIED ON THIRD WORLD GOODS:
Although in 200,1clothes and shoes accounted for only 6.5% of US imports,
in value terms they brought in nearly half of the U$20 billion of US tariff
revenue. Tariffs applied to consumer goods are often higher than those on
luxury goods. The US collects more tariffs on imports from Bangladesh than
on imports from France. [Ref cited: 'America's hidden tax on the poor',
E.Gresser, Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report (Washington), 2002].

ON GLOBALIZATION:
Globalization drives down wages and exports jobs to low-wage economies.
Critics see the creation of a global 'sweat-shop economy' in which
corporations pit workers around the world against each other in a race to
the bottom to see who will accept the lowest wages and benefits.
Most variation in the income of the poor comes as a result of changes in
average income, not changes in income distribution. So the trade
liberalization associated with globalization may have a positive overall
effect on growth, but is most probably not good for poverty reduction since
it worsens income distribution. A more egalitarian income distribution has
to antecede (or be concomitant with) growth to have an impact on the rate of
poverty.
Priority continues to be given to the relationship between economic growth
and poverty, but no consideration is being given to income redistribution.
Poverty alleviation is thus only attempted by secondary trickle-down
effects. It can then be predicted that poverty will not be reduced by the
targeted amount (by 2015). (Pro-poor growth addresses neither the political
nor the economic causes of poverty).
______________________________
(*):  If industrial countries increased ODA to 0.7% of GNP, financial aid
would increase to about U$175 billion, roughly three times its current
(2002) level.