Is the IMF a blessing or a curse?

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
• Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

Editor's Note: Pedro Brieger is an Argentine journalist and sociologist, author of more than seven books and contributor to publications on international issues. He currently serves as director of NODAL, a portal dedicated exclusively to the news of Latin America and the Caribbean. He collaborated with different Argentine media such as Clarín, El Cronista, La Nación, Page / 12, Profile and for magazines such as News, Somos, Le Monde Diplomatique and Panorama. Throughout his career, Brieger won important awards for his informative work on radio and television in Argentina.

(CNN Spanish) - Since the appearance of oil, it is often said that the countries that have it in their territory are blessed by the so-called “black gold” that sprouts from the earth. But it is also said that they are cursed. Its exploitation allows to generate currencies that well used can be a “blessing” to develop a thriving economy. But their generous income can also be a brake on diversification and dependence on food and consumer goods that are imported from other countries.

Playing with the oil metaphor one might ask if the International Monetary Fund is a blessing or a curse in Latin America.

On the one hand, when the IMF provides huge resources to a country, the government that receives the monetary injection argues that it is a “blessing” that will serve for general development and particularly for the most humble sectors, an argument that is never lacking in Fund statements. And the temptation to receive fresh money is great.

However, on the other hand, the aid is accompanied by adjustment plans always adorned with euphemisms that usually hide that these plans affect, precisely, the most humble sectors and that ends up transforming the "blessing" into "curse."

In the last two months, South America has known two popular revolts against the policies of the International Monetary Fund. The first was on August 11 in Argentina and manifested at the polls, in the open, simultaneous and mandatory primary, punishing the government of Mauricio Macri, "blessed" by a gigantic loan of almost 60,000 million dollars.

The electoral rejection of President Macri was directly in line with the economic plans implemented since he took office in December 2015 and praised by the Fund. When everything seemed to be going well, Macri even said that she hoped that "all of Argentina would fall in love with Christine Lagarde," at that time director of the agency.

The second revolt was in Ecuador, which also received help from the Fund this year. Without electoral processes in sight, thousands of people went out to protest in the streets against a "package", a series of measures that President Lenin Moreno announced and were immediately praised by the IMF. The Fund said in a statement that it included "important decisions to protect the poor and most vulnerable." However, during the protests he was identified as one of those responsible for the crisis.

It closes a year with strong criticism of the IMF, one could say that now more cursed than blessed.

International Monetary Fund