Two unrelated events in the past week evoked interest. The first concerned the lucrative postings acquired by some senior Prime Minister'sOffice (PMO) functionaries as a signal to the end of the regime reward. The second was the minor cabinet reshuffle in which former chief election commissioner M.S. Gill was appointed a central minister in charge of the Sports Ministry.
Newspapers wrote editorials and political parties issued statements criticising the impropriety of a former constitutional functionary accepting a ministerial berth. But the first news went largely unnoticed, rather with some positively encouraging reportage here and there.
In most developed countries the past leanings and future destinations of individuals serving high positions in the land is a matter of close scrutiny. This writer was curious about the preference of bureaucrats for IMF-World Bank postings. The most preferred openings for economists in our country these days are the international monetary institutions. But the striking aspect is that since globalisation, it has become a pre-requisite for the persons handling the PMO, Finance, Commerce, Planning Commission and Reserve Bank to have an IMF background. There might be a few honourable exceptions. But they often do not matter. That is why the report about the future job orientation of the PMO officials gives us an insight into the manner in which the country'seconomic road map is drawn.
Educating India on globalisation is a major plank of the World Bank strategy. For this they create the atmospheric through saturation advertising, publications, symposia, workshops, NGO initiatives and media manipulation. Most of the politicians and academics have been co-opted into this thinking over the years through assiduous strategic programming. This aspect of the World Bank structural adjustment programme is an interesting study.
Countries seeking their help must follow their economic prescriptions which reflect their free-market ideologies. Because that is the only way to access international capital market. Once a country becomes part of the World Bank global scheme, it is sucked into a pattern of development where there are no swadeshi choices. I use this word swadeshi deliberately. The governments that bogusly claim that the policies are for national good are either kidding or deceiving. Globalisation is neither good nor bad as Joseph Stiglitz explains. It depends on the governments that implement it, how it works for the country, which is not easy. The IMF also ensures that those who represent the country in negations with these international monetary institutions look after the interest of the particular constituencies within the country aligned closely to such lobbies. Nobody talks for the toiling Indian farmer or the hugely taxed small trader and small entrepreneur.
So in most cases the persons who claim to represent the country are not really in touch with the people or their problems. They work for the benefit of that small section in the country who benefits maximum from globalisation. That is one reason why these institutions like to deal with dictators and nominated nonentities rather than elected popular leaders.
Given the high unemployment rate, unprecedented price rise, scarcity of food items, and growing disparity it is a surprise that people are only protesting and quietly suffering so much for so long. The IMF and other international economic institutions are keyed to the problem of governance as to who decides and what they do. The government is dominated not just by the wealthiest industrial, commercial and financial interests in the country but the policy decisions are designed to reflect this.
It is not an accident that in most developing countries the Prime Ministers or Presidents, Planning Commissions, Finance and Commerce ministries, central banks etc are often headed by individuals with IMF background. These people are closely tied to the financial community and financial firms from where they come and after their period of government service that is where they return. This is the only explanation why the policy decisions of these leaders are often closely aligned with the commercial and financial interests of those in the developed industrial countries. India is a typical study in the operation of this development matrix.
The Word Bank Country Strategy for India, 2004 says, ?The Bank will also aim to substantially expand its role as a politically realistic knowledge provider and generator. To achieve this shift, changes are envisioned in a number of fronts, including (i) strengthening Bank capacity to act as a channel for ideas and lessons of international experience, (ii) placing greater emphasis on understanding the motivations of interest groups and different stakeholders in the reform process; (iii) helping clients to better communicate the potential benefits of their reform programs; and (iv) operating in a more strategic and integrated fashion across different organizational units of the Bank to leverage knowledge resources more effectively. Given the modest scale of Bank Group financing, to help realize its role as a full development partner, an important part of its knowledge function will be directed to supporting better delivery and effectiveness of government programs, with the aim of leveraging rather small knowledge-based interventions into significant impacts on development outcomes.? (p.13).
See the language. Couched in purple prose is a major policy intervention which in normal times would have been construed as unacceptable interference in national sovereign rights. A lending agency need not leverage such interventions in national polity. The Country Strategy, however, gives a clearer explanation of its action plan in the preceding chapters.
It says, ?The work of the Bank Group has been coordinated or leveraged with that of the external partners in most sectors, including energy (ADB, JBIC, DFID, USAID, KFW, CIDA), education (EC, DFID), health and nutrition (USAID, WHO, EC, DFID, concerned UN Agencies, CDC, AUSAID, ILO and other institutions including the Gates Foundation), and small and medium enterprises financing (DFID, KIW, and GTZ). IFC has co-financed investments with ADB, DEG and FMO and has partnered with ADB, CIDA, DFID, the EC, the Netherlands and Norway in Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) development technical assistance in North-East India. Since India participates in routine Article IV consultations with the IMF, Bank (World Bank) economists work closely with IMF staff, particularly on financial and macroeconomic issues.? (p19).
As the Bank has revealed, its financing in India is of ?modest scale?. Then, is it not surprising that it is leveraging so much? The Bank comes into the picture not only on the country'spolicy initiatives but in its dealings with all other international bodies. This is what the Bank document says, not my interpretation. Nobody will ask this question, though we have enlightened editorials on the impropriety of a former CEC occupying a post of a Minister of State.
The reason is obvious. But this systematic brainwashing of the national psyche is explicitly detailed in the Country Strategy. And unlike the communists, who are secretive, this is the fascinating aspect of laissez-faire economics.
Almost all the activities of the IMF and World Bank?particularly all their lending today?are in developing countries. Creating public support for this strategy is vital for its success. How it is being done? Next week.
(The views expressed in this column are personal. The writer can be contacted at editor@organiserweekly.com)
Comments