Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Health Promot Int. 2013 Sep;28(3):357-66. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das016. Epub 2012 Apr 14.
In this article, we interrogate the policy response of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the global financial crisis, and discuss the likely global health implications, especially in low-income countries. In doing so, we ask if the IMF has meaningfully loosened its fiscal deficit targets in light of the economic challenges posed by the financial crisis and adjusted its macro-economic policy advice to this new reality; or has the rhetoric of counter-cyclical spending failed to translate into additional fiscal space for IMF loan-recipient countries, with negative health consequences? To answer these questions, we assess several post-crisis IMF lending agreements with countries requiring financial assistance, and draw upon recent academic studies and civil society reports examining policy conditionalities still being prescribed by the IMF. We also reference recent studies examining the health impacts of these conditionalities. We demonstrate that while the IMF has been somewhat more flexible in its crisis response than in previous episodes of financial upheaval, there has been no meaningful rethinking in the application of dominant neoliberal macro-economic policies. After showing some flexibility in the initial crisis response, the IMF is pushing for excessive contraction in most low and middle-income countries. We conclude that there remains a wide gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the IMF's policy and programming advice, with negative implications for global health.
在本文中,我们探讨了国际货币基金组织(IMF)对全球金融危机的政策应对,并讨论了其可能对全球卫生产生的影响,特别是对低收入国家的影响。在这样做的过程中,我们不禁要问,IMF 是否根据金融危机带来的经济挑战,实质性地放宽了其财政赤字目标,并根据这一新现实调整了其宏观经济政策建议;或者说,反周期支出的言论是否未能为 IMF 贷款接受国提供额外的财政空间,从而对健康产生负面影响?为了回答这些问题,我们评估了 IMF 与需要财政援助的国家达成的几项后危机贷款协议,并参考了最近研究和考察 IMF 仍在规定的政策条件的民间社会报告。我们还参考了最近研究这些条件对健康影响的研究。我们表明,虽然 IMF 在应对危机方面比以往的金融动荡时期稍显灵活,但在应用主导的新自由主义宏观经济政策方面并没有进行有意义的重新思考。在最初的危机应对中表现出一定的灵活性之后,IMF 正在推动大多数中低收入国家进行过度收缩。我们的结论是,IMF 的政策和方案建议在言辞和现实之间仍然存在很大差距,这对全球健康产生了负面影响。