POV of 2 interlinked articles:
Makwana (2005) argues that the sustenance of WTO, World Bank and IMF is not beneficial for developing countries, since they are sustained by the economically dominating governments of the developed countries. Since these countries see neoliberalism as the way to achieve development in developing countries, yet fail to liberalize their own markets to the free international, competitive trade by implementing protectionists measures, like import tariffs and subsidizing domestic production, which leads to developing countries experiencing worsening terms of trade.
The World Bank is criticized for contracting foreign, mostly Western corporations, for a developing project that it launches in developing countries. These corporations then profit from the project, the developing country encounters a loss of income since a major part of it is transferred abroad. The IMF is criticized for its lending regulation and the SAPs , making the developing countries set repayment set as its main priority above national welfare. The WTO is criticized for failing to lift the domestic barriers of developed countries but succeeding in that for developing countries, which leads to the above-mentioned worsening terms of trade. The World Bank and IMF are seen as incredibly undemocratic, since the votes are distributed unequally according to financial input of countries. The US, with 18% of the votes, has veto right for policies that do not serve US interests. Votes within the WTO are equally distributed. Yet developing countries are unable to exercise their democratic rights in the WTO negotiations, since (mostly) Canada, EU, Japan and USA, consistently agree on proposals before negotiations, developing countries can only agree with or block these proposals. Griffin, K (2003) argues that without global governance balancing the global economy, the benefits of globalization will be distributed asymmetrically seeing the strong interlink between...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document