4.6 Financial Support for Emerging Economies: The IMF and the World Bank
Adapted by Stephen Skripak with Ron Poff
A key to helping developing countries become active participants in the global marketplace is providing financial assistance. Offering monetary assistance to some of the poorest nations in the world is the shared goal of two organizations: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These organizations, to which most countries belong, were established in 1944 to accomplish different but complementary purposes.
The International Monetary Fund
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans money to countries with troubled economies, such as Mexico in the 1980s and mid-1990s and Russia and Argentina in the late 1990s. There are, however, strings attached to IMF loans: in exchange for relief in times of financial crisis, borrower countries must institute sometimes painful financial and economic reforms. In the 1980s, for example, Mexico received financial relief from the IMF on the condition that it privatize and deregulate certain industries and liberalize trade policies. The government was also required to cut back expenditures for such services as education, health care, and workers’ benefits.[1]
The World Bank
The World Bank is an important source of economic assistance for poor and developing countries. With backing from wealthy donor countries (such as the United States, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom), the World Bank has committed $42.5 billion in loans, grants, and guarantees to some of the world’s poorest nations.[2] Loans are made to help countries improve the lives of the poor through community-support programs designed to provide health, nutrition, education, infrastructure, and other social services.
Trading Blocs: NAFTA and the European Union
So far, our discussion has suggested that global trade would be strengthened if there were no restrictions on it—if countries didn’t put up barriers to trade or perform special favors for domestic industries. The complete absence of barriers is an ideal state of affairs that we haven’t yet attained. In the meantime, economists and policymakers tend to focus on a more practical question: Can we achieve the goal of free trade on the regional level? To an extent, the answer is yes. In certain parts of the world, groups of countries have joined together to allow goods and services to flow without restrictions across their mutual borders. Such groups are called trading blocs. Let’s examine two of the most powerful trading blocs—NAFTA and the European Union.
North American Free Trade Association
The North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) is an agreement among the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to open their borders to unrestricted trade. The effect of this agreement is that three very different economies are combined into one economic zone with almost no trade barriers. From the northern tip of Canada to the southern tip of Mexico, each country benefits from the comparative advantages of its partners: each nation is free to produce what it does best and to trade its goods and services without restrictions.
When the agreement was ratified in 1994, it had no shortage of skeptics. Many people feared, for example, that without tariffs on Mexican goods, more US manufacturing jobs would be lost to Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Almost two decades later, most such fears have not been realized, and, by and large, NAFTA has been a success.
Since it went into effect, the value of trade between the United States and Mexico has grown substantially, and Canada and Mexico are now the United States’ top trading partners.
Shortly after taking office in 2017, concerned with deficiencies and mistakes from the original NAFTA, President Trump and representatives from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, began negotiating a new trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada. Signed in 2018 and later ratified by all three nations, the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaces the 25-year-old trade agreement known as NAFTA. Implemented in July 2020, the USMCA works to mutually beneficial trade between all three nations with the goal of leading to freer markets, fairer trade, and robust economic growth in North America.[3]
The European Union
The forty-plus countries of Europe have long shown an interest in integrating their economies. The first organized effort to integrate a segment of Europe’s economic entities began in the late 1950s, when six countries joined together to form the European Economic Community (EEC). Over the next four decades, membership grew, and in the late 1990s, the EEC became the European Union. Today, the European Union (EU) is a group of 27 countries that have eliminated trade barriers among themselves (see the map in Figure 4.11).
At first glance, the EU looks similar to NAFTA. Both, for instance, allow unrestricted trade among member nations. But the provisions of the EU go beyond those of NAFTA in several important ways. Most importantly, the EU is more than a trading organization: it also enhances political and social cooperation and binds its members into a single entity with authority to require them to follow common rules and regulations. It is much like a federation of states with a weak central government, with the effect not only of eliminating internal barriers but also of enforcing common tariffs on trade from outside the EU. In addition, while NAFTA allows goods and services as well as capital to pass between borders, the EU also allows people to come and go freely: if you possess an EU passport, you can work in any EU nation.
The Euro
A key step toward unification occurred in 1999, when most (but not all) EU members agreed to abandon their own currencies and adopt a joint currency. The actual conversion occurred in 2002, when a common currency called the euro replaced the separate currencies of participating EU countries. The common currency facilitates trade and finance because exchange-rate differences no longer complicate transactions.[4]
Its proponents argued that the EU would not only unite economically and politically distinct countries but also create an economic power that could compete against the dominant players in the global marketplace. Individually, each European country has limited economic power, but as a group, they could be an economic superpower.[5] Over time, the value of the euro has been questioned. Many of the “euro” countries (Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland in particular) have been financially irresponsible, piling up huge debts and experiencing high unemployment and problems in the housing market. But because these troubled countries share a common currency with the other “euro countries,” they are less able to correct their economic woes.[6] Many economists fear that the financial crisis precipitated by these financially irresponsible countries threaten the very survival of the euro.[7] Keep a close eye on Greece because if an exit from the Euro occurs, it will likely start there.
Only time will tell whether the trend toward regional trade agreements is good for the world economy. Clearly, they’re beneficial to their respective participants; for one thing, they get preferential treatment from other members. But certain questions still need to be answered more fully. Are regional agreements, for example, moving the world closer to free trade on a global scale—toward a marketplace in which goods and services can be traded anywhere without barriers?
Key Takeaways
- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank both provide monetary assistance to the world’s poorest countries.
- In certain parts of the world, groups of countries have formed trading blocs to allow goods and services to flow without restrictions across their mutual borders.
- Examples include the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) (United States, Canada, and Mexico) and the European Union (EU), a group of 27 countries that have eliminated trade barriers among themselves.
- 1 Bernard Sanders (1998). “The International Monetary Fund Is Hurting You.” Z Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/IMF_Sanders.html ↵
- World Bank (2016). "Fiscal Year Data 2011-15." Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/annual-report/fiscalyeardata#1 ↵
- USMCA (2019). "Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada." Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved from: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between ↵
- European Commission on Economic, and Financial Affairs (2015). “Why the Euro?” Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/why/index_en.htm ↵
- Ibid. ↵
- “Paul Krugman (2011). “The Economic Failure of the Euro.” National Public Radio. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133112932/paul-krugman-the-economic-failure-of-the-euro ↵
- Willem Buiter (2010). “Three Steps to Survival for Euro Zone.” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009423447485768.html ↵