Abstract
The International Monetary Fund's response to evidence on the impact of its programs on public health fails to address the fundamental criticisms about its policies. The IMF's demand for borrowers to achieve extremely low inflation targets is founded on very little empirical evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. The low-inflation policies privilege international creditors over domestic debtors and short-term priorities over long-term development goals, and contain high social costs, referred to by economists as a “sacrifice ratio.” For example, governments' raising of interest rates to bring down inflation undermines the ability of domestic firms to expand production and employment and thus “sacrifices” higher economic growth and higher tax revenues and unnecessarily constrains domestic health spending. During financial crisis, most countries seek to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, the opposite of the IMF's general advice. Perversely, compliance with IMF policies has become a prerequisite for receiving donor aid. Critiques of the IMF express significant concerns that IMF fiscal and monetary policies are unduly restrictive. Health advocates must weigh in on such matters and pressure their finance ministries, particularly in the G7, to take steps at the level of the IMF Executive Board to revisit and modify its policy framework on deficits and inflation. Such reforms are crucial to enable countries to generate more domestic resources while the global health community searches for ways to support strengthening health system capacity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.