The IMF Meets Civil Society
| Author | Jan Aart Scholte |
| Position | Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague |
-
The International Monetary Fund is an organization of its member countries, and its primary relationships are with governments. However, it also conducts a dialogue with civil society. Both the IMF and civil society have much to gain from developing this dialogue.
ALTHOUGH THE IMF is accountable, above all, to the governments of its 182 member countries, which determine its policies and operations and provide its funding, interchanges between the IMF and civil society have grown considerably in the 1990s. This budding dialogue has much potential. The development of relationships between the IMF and civil society can both enhance the effectiveness of IMF programs and encourage democratic governance.
Civil society should not be equated with another catchphrase of contemporary politics, namely the so-called NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). To be sure, civil society does include development NGOs, women's NGOs, environmental NGOs, human rights NGOs, humanitarian relief NGOs, and so on. However, civil society also encompasses far more: trade unions, business associations (as distinct from firms), farmers' groups, religious bodies, academic institutions, student organizations, community groups, professional associations, political parties, ethnic lobbies, and so on.
Any discussion of "civil society" needs a working definition of the phrase. For present purposes, civil society refers to the broad collectivity of nonofficial, noncommercial, and more or less formally organized groups that seek in one way or another to reinforce or alter existing rules, norms, and deeper social structures. The term "civic association" as used in this article refers to individual elements in civil society (Box 1).
Civil society encompasses tremendous diversity. Civic associations have widely differing objectives, sizes, memberships, resource levels, institutional forms, organizational cultures, campaign tactics, and so on. It is therefore difficult to generalize about civil society.
That said, we may loosely distinguish three types of civic organizations in terms of their general approach to the IMF. One group, whom we might call "conformers," broadly endorses the IMF's present aims and activities. Prominent examples include the Bretton Woods Committee and the Institute for International Economics. A second group, whom we might call "reformers," accepts the need for an IMF-type agency but seeks to change the IMF's operating procedures and/or policy directions. Leading campaigners for reform of the IMF include the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the Swiss Coalition of Development Organizations. A third category of civic associations, whom we might call "radicals," advocate a substantial reduction of the IMF's operations or even outright abolition of the institution. Prominent exponents of a radical agenda include the Cato Institute, from a libertarian position, and the Fifty Years Is Enough coalition, from a socialist perspective.
Contacts between the IMF and civil society can serve multiple purposes:
* information exchange
* policy debate
* channel of public opinion
* legitimation
* civic education
* general democratization
Why might the IMF wish to engage in relations with the various kinds of civil society organizations just described? We can identify six general reasons.
First, civic associations can provide the IMF with information that is useful in policy formulation, implementation, and review. Many of these organizations can collect and relay political and economic data that would otherwise not be available to the IMF.
Second, civil society groups can stimulate debate about policy, particularly by offering alternative perspectives, methodologies, and proposals. Such debate, by allowing diverse points of views to be heard, can enrich policymaking. It can provoke the IMF to clarify, explain, justify, and perhaps rethink its positions.
Third, civic organizations can provide channels through which stakeholders may voice their views on the IMF and have those opinions relayed to IMF staff. This input can help IMF officials gauge the political viability of proposed measures or programs.
Fourth, civic associations can...
To continue reading
Request your trial