IMF and WB outdated

• Theme 1: For - world bank

  • extreme poverty is standard poverty that is based on income level - some argued it should be $2, others argue it should be $5
  • 9% of the world's population lived on less than $1.90 a day, compared to 11% in 2013 - down from nearly 37% in 1990
  • current WB projects include:
  • $12 million to gambia to prevent, detect and respond to threat posed by covid-19,strengthen national system for public health preparedness
  • $58 million - to increase utilisation of quality essential health services, especially for women and children, in targeted areas in central african republic
• Theme 2: For - IMF

  • central in preventing states from falling into economic recessions and preventing economic difficulties in one state from spreading to others
  • essential in preventing an extreme economic crisis during covid 19 with $9 trillion in loans being ranted and over 90 countries seeking IMF bailout
  • global financial crisis in 2008 - greece, portugal, spain, and cyprus being unable to bail out their over-indebted banks alone
  • played a key role in this eurozone crisis, preventing these european economies from collapsing
• Theme 2: Against

  • in order to receive an IMF loan, a country must impose specific economic policies and undergo economic reforms to overcome the problems which caused the economic crisis in the first place
  • can include cutting public spending, increasing privatisation, and keeping tax rates high
  • argued that this advice is often inappropriate due to the strong neoliberal bias of the IMF
  • IMF must be more pragmatic and willing to change their advice to suit all types of economies
• theme 1 world bank counter

  However, the World Bank’s claims of success are undermined by its narrow measure of poverty. -> It defines extreme poverty as living on less than $1.90 a day — under which poverty is falling. But if the threshold is raised to $5 a day, the number of people in poverty increases to around 4 billion, showing many are still living in deprivation. This suggests the WB uses a low threshold to overstate the success of economic globalisation and its own impact. -> This is further supported by Oxfam data showing that the richest 1% now own more wealth than the rest of the world combined, with billionaire wealth rising by $4 trillion in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This highlights growing inequality and questions the true success of global economic development.
• theme 3: IMF and economic surveillance and voting rights

  • The IMF’s role in economic surveillance has been criticised, especially for failing to predict the 2008 financial crisis, due to a neoliberal bias favouring financial capitalism -> Leadership remains Western-dominated — with a European IMF head and an American World Bank head — limiting voices like China’s. -> Though 2010 G20 reforms aimed to increase China’s voting share to 6%, US Congress blocked them. In response, China created the AIIB, frustrated by IMF reform delays and Asia’s unmet infrastructure needs.
• Counter for theme 3: However, the IMF and World Bank have shown adaptability in response to global crises, suggesting they remain relevant. During COVID-19, the IMF provided over $250 billion in emergency support to nearly 90 countries, showing its capacity to respond to urgent financial shocks. The World Bank also committed over $160 billion in financing to support health systems and economic recovery in developing countries. -> Moreover, recent moves toward reform -> such as climate financing, debt restructuring frameworks, and focus on sustainable development  -> show both institutions are evolving to meet 21st-century challenges. While reforms have been slow, their global reach, expertise, and resources still make them key players in global economic governance.