What question did this study set out to answer?

The paper investigates the shortcomings of IMF programmes and their impact on countries' economic stability and growth.

April 4, 2026Open Access

Inadequate IMF Programmes and Increasing Number of “Graduated” Countries : IMF Reflects U.S. Interests

Key Points

The paper investigates the shortcomings of IMF programmes and their impact on countries' economic stability and growth.
Analysis of IMF programme structure and policies
Case studies of countries like Turkey, Argentina, and Ukraine
Discussion of IMF's historical financial models and their implementation
Countries under IMF programmes face growing economic instability and worsening social indicators.
Conditionality measures often fail to provide necessary immediate liquidity, hindering recovery.
The IMF's preference for countries aligned with U.S. interests has led to unequal treatment in programme management.

Abstract

An increasing number of countries around the world have recently 'graduated' from IMF programmes.This is because the IMF has been forcing countries to conditionality IMF programmes with short-term austerity measures and shortterm difficult-to-implement 'structural reforms' as conditionality, when what the countries in crisis urgently need is short-term liquidity provision.As a result, countries under IMF programmes rarely achieve a sustainable and stable growth path, as the economies of the countries concerned become more severe, social indicators (e.g.unemployment) deteriorate, political changes occur and political and economic instability is created.Despite the fact that IMF programmes have been criticised for numerous problems over the past decades, the IMF has implemented austerity policies based on financial programming that basically applies a model that is more than half a century old.The reason behind this is to encourage the repayment of IMF loans by increasing foreign currency reserves through an improvement in the current account balance due to a decrease in imports as a result of a decline in economic activity in the country concerned.In addition, the IMF has been implementing a programme management preference for countries close to the US through a 'double standard' reflecting the interests of the US, which has the sole veto power.Furthermore, it has promoted fixed exchange rates and capital and financial liberalisation to facilitate the entry of foreign capital by promoting capital liberalisation, leading to capital account crises.This paper explains the problems with IMF programmes (austerity, structural adjustment, etc.) and models, and then looks at countries where IMF programmes have failed (Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine).It also discusses the fundamentally unchanged position of the IMF on Capital Flow Management and Controls and the future direction of the international financial system, including the IMF, and proposes the establishment of a true global central bank.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper