
LatAm Nations Clear IMF Loans
Ahead of Schedules
Within
a context of political change
termed by many analysts as the
“progressive era”
the countries of the region are
increasingly doing without the
IMF. This trend reached its highest
point when Argentina and Brazil
made an early payment and cancelled
their debt to the IMF in December
2005.
During 2006 Uruguay followed the
same path, cancelling its debt
ahead of schedule and concluding
its program with the institution
by end-November. Venezuela and
Mexico, in spite of not owing
debts to the Fund, followed the
same trend, making repayments
to the World Bank and IDB ahead
of schedule. In order to make
these operations, governments
made use of international reserves
or resorted to the placement of
bonds into capital markets.
From the economic point of view,
this operation mainly implied
a change in terms of debt composition;
the external debt was reduced
at the expense of an increase
in domestic debt. On the other
hand, the growing influence of
Venezuela in the region, in its
role of “rich neighbor”
owing to oil resources resulted
in economic support for countries
that previously had to resort
to the IMF or private banks. The
latter reinforces a political
interpretation of this international
trend: financial institutions
have lost credibility and countries
are trying to escape their influence.
However, this does not necessarily
mean that in terms of economic
policy, national governments are
changing the neoliberal policies
that have been implemented by
previous (and current) governments.
Nevertheless, this implies a change
in the correlation of forces among
several Latin American countries
and the IMF, thus leaving them
in a better position to make demands
and negotiate with the institution.
Meanwhile, the poorest Latin American
countries remain under the influence
of IFIs. In early 2006, IMF debt
cancellation became effective
in favor of Bolivia, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Guyana within the
framework of the HIPC initiative,
while the same was implemented
by the World Bank in July. Both
measures comply with that which
was approved by G8 countries in
the 2005 Gleneagles Summit. However,
such cancellation is far from
the one hundred per cent announced
in Gleneagles, and these countries
had to start a negotiation with
the IDB the main creditor of Latin
American countries to make it
join the decision. A resolution
of the issue is still pending.
With regards to the future relationship
with the IMF in these cases, the
election (and first moves) of
Rafael Correa as President of
Ecuador and of Daniel Ortega in
Nicaragua, is staking out two
extreme positions within a broad
regional spectrum.
Correa, former Economy Minister
of Ecuador, became elected on
a discourse that is opposed to
IMF influence and on the promise
to analyze the non-payment of
the external debt. Meanwhile,
shortly after taking office, Ortega
started to negotiate a new IMF
economic program. The influence
exerted by the institution is
strongly criticized in Nicaragua,
owing to the conditions imposed
by its programs on the depressed
Nicaraguan economy.
The World Bank in 2006
The World Bank resorted to the
fight against corruption as a
new strategy to maintain relevance
in the international context,
being its president Paul Wolfowitz
the standard-bearer for this initiative.
His detractors question the use
of this policy, considering the
institution to be delegitimized
to fulfill a role that falls outside
the main duties of the Bank, and
demand a substantial reform of
its internal structure.
At the same time, through the
International Finance Corporation
(IFC), the Bank seeks to finance
new projects in the region, and
analyzes how to expand its influence
in middle-income countries (Argentina,
Brazil and Mexico, among others)
by means of new loan policies.
The annual Doing Business report,
issued in September 2006, “Doing
Business: How to Reform”,
offers Bank's views on the ease
and difficulties of doing business
in 175 countries, through a wide
set of indicators. The document
aims at supporting and fostering
the classic market reforms and
praises those countries that have
consented to the liberalization
of their economies. However, from
the other side, it is alleged
that this report is another means
used by the Bank to promote orthodox
measures such as trade liberalization
and labor flexibilization, among
others, thus failing to include
social and environmental aspects
as part of “good business”.
An evaluation carried out by independent
technical experts was released
by end-2006, confirming that which
many Bank's detractors have long
been denouncing: the Bank uses
research to promote its policies
without taking into account if
their outcomes are trustworthy.
This evaluation, released only
a few days before year-end, had
already been submitted to the
Bank one year ago.
The IDB in Latin America
The IDB is looking for new strategies
to increase its presence and influence
in the region. In the last meeting
of the IDB's Board of Governors,
held in April in Belo Horizonte
(Brazil), the Board proposed changes
to its loan policy and officially
launched its operational policy
on indigenous peoples. The Bank
aims at expanding its lending
to the private sector, granting
loans without sovereign guarantees.
Infrastructure projects continue
to be given priority, on account
of which the meeting ratified
the decision to create two funds
for this purpose: one for the
Initiative for Regional Integration
of Infrastructure in South America
(IIRSA) and Plan Puebla Panama
(PPP), and the other for infrastructure
projects in general.
In this sense, Latin American
social organizations strongly
criticize the integration project
that is being promoted by the
IDB through its financing in infrastructure
and denounce the social and environmental
consequences that these projects
may bring on the region.
The annual meeting was also marked
by the express request made by
the presidents of Bolivia and
Honduras in favor of debt cancellation
for the poorest Latin American
countries included in the HIPC
initiative: Bolivia, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Guyana and Haiti. The
meeting politically agreed with
this measure, but as of December
the operation still remains to
be implemented and an agreement
is expected to be reached before
the next meeting of the Board
of Governors to be held in March
in Guatemala. One of the key aspects
that still remain unresolved is
related to the “cut-off
date” for the cancellation
and the total amount to be cancelled
for the countries in question.
Numerous civil society organizations
(both Latin American and international)
have actively worked during the
whole year in order to obtain
a favorable decision in this respect.