Friday, September 22, 2000
As officials of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank gather in Prague for their annual meeting, critics of the two institutions, and of economic globalization, could take great pride in the degree to which their messages have been heard and are being heeded. But many of those critics seem bent only on acting out and have rejected offers of dialogue. It is ironic and disappointing that the closed minds and narrow vision in the debate over globalization now seem to originate not with the IMF and World Bank, but with their grass-roots critics.
The IMF's agenda for Prague includes a far-reaching set of proposals for reforming the agency, making it more transparent and more democratic. The World Bank already has made great strides toward those goals under President James Wolfensohn. Both Wolfensohn and IMF Managing Director Horst Kohler have sought to open a dialogue with thoughtful critics. And there are criticisms to be made -- especially of the slow pace toward debt relief at both the IMF and World Bank. But too many of the critics prefer to screech and shout -- and demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge of what they protest.
Typical of that attitude is a statement by Alica Dvorska, spokeswoman for INPEG, an umbrella group that is guiding the Prague protests: "We want the IMF and World Bank to shut down," she said. "Any form of dialogue will only improve their PR and that's not what we have in mind."
In their self-righteous certitude, people like Dvorska are bashing two organizations that, while imperfect, are among the most important advocates for the world's poor in this naturally occurring process of globalization. They are the mediating institutions that fight corruption, promote openness and democracy, and advocate for the rights of the poor. Without them, globalization would not stop, but the interests of the poor would be poorly served.
Moreover, it is incontrovertible that, overall, globalization is helping the world's poor. Whether the test be literacy rates, health, income or environmental protection, nations that open their markets and seek to integrate into the world economy show the most improvement in the well-being of their poorest citizens.
That story is beginning to get out -- thanks, ironically, to the protests. Newsweek's international edition this week reports that young people of Eastern Europe scoff at the protesters -- whom they regard as uninformed and ultimately silly young people from the United States and Western Europe. The Eastern Europeans are eagerly savoring the freedoms and economic opportunities made available by the end of the Soviet empire. For them, globalization is jim-dandy.
Also this week, the Associated Press carried a report from Gomez Palacio, Mexico, now the jeans capital of the world thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Workers earn $2.50 an hour -- significantly more than Mexicans not employed in the export manufacturing market -- and are thankful for the jobs. Working conditions are excellent, and the local economy is expanding so fast that unemployment approaches zero. It's a part of the very complicated globalization story that protesters prefer to ignore.
Those protesters' narrow focus and uninformed ideological zeal make you wonder if it is truly the world's poor they seek to serve. On behalf of the poor, the IMF and World Bank have shown a large capacity to listen, learn and change. Now it's their critics' turn.
? Copyright 2000 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.