Rating: 
Summary: IMF sucks! but give us a bigger picture..
Review: Joseph seems to harp primarily about the follies of IMF and the proponents of the Washington Consensus. He presents some good cases of gross social faux pas that could have been prevented if there was greater transparency and more involvement from the developing countries who stood to suffer from the very same 'bad' policies that they assumed were going to be there medicine. If you are in the rush, read the last chapter and that should be sufficient. The strength of his writings would have been more impressive had he spent some time enumerating some of the 'good' things that have been done by IMF. Also, he could have spent some time giving possible alternatives and how they could have panned out, instead of giving "generic guidelines" whose consequences are unclear given the difficult scenarios (like in Russia or Thailand). Yet, I think it is a good reading for those people who drink the cool aid mantra of
Globalization = Liberalization = Goodness-for-all
Joseph does a good job of debunking this mantra.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good Book
Review: This book does a pretty good job of relating the failures that the IMF has had in its dealings with developing countries. Most of the issues raised are widely acknowledged by the masses in developing countries, but are finally coming to light in the west. The book criticizes the IMF and US Treasury Department quite liberally, but unfortunately, the World Bank, the author's former employer, is rarely criticized although it has had its share of failures. Overall, this book is a step in the right direction in acknowledging how the international institutions have sometimes promoted policies that did not have the well-being of developing countries at heart.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Critique of the System
Review: At times Stiglitz seems to go off on a diatribe against the IMF, but he usually has examples to back up his opinions. He worked for the World Bank and so he has excellent experience in the issues he deals with. This book is most definatley not a resistance to globalization, but a resistance in how it is being applied right now by the "Washington Consensus." From what I have previosuly read, I would have expected him to critique the World Bank more, but he leaves the issues he has to the IMF, WTO, and U.S. Treasurey Dept. A book most definatley worth reading to get a better grasp on how the international institutions work and their goals in the globalized world.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: This book is amazing. It is mandatory that anyone with a social conscience and a desire to understand the implications of current global economic policy read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Stiglitz and his distemper
Review: This book's focus is far narrower than its title suggests. Its material on globalization is very limited and would have been more appropriately covered in a single article within The Economist or BusinessWeek. The book is mainly a critique of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The author indicates that the IMF was created in 1947, shortly after the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. It's purpose was to enforce the rules of an elaborate system of currency and capital controls under a Fixed Exchange Rate System. However in 1971, this Fixed Exchange Rate System was succeeded by the Floating Exchange Rate System. According to Stiglitz, this change from fixed to floating exchange rate rendered the IMF original mission completely obsolete. Back in 1971, the IMF should have closed its doors, and its staff should have moved on to more fruitful ventures. But, the IMF did not close down. Instead, it recycled itself into an international foreign aid agency implementing Western economic reforms, including: 1) privatization of government assets and utilities, 2) deregulation of markets, 3) free trade and opening up of domestic markets, and 4) liberalization of capital markets. Stiglitz refers to these measures as the "Washington Consensus." Stiglitz analysis of the IMF performance is right on the mark. It is true that the IMF economic interventions have had poor results. Whenever they structured a country's bailing out, they typically have enforced the reverse policies that Allan Greenspan and Congress would have taken to get our U.S. economy out of a recession. For example, the IMF standard cure is to implement an increase in interest rates to shore up the currency value. It is also to promote a balanced fiscal budget and a balanced current account. The problem is that this standard package of policy is recessionary, and will further exacerbate an economic crisis. So, here Stiglitz is right.
However, Stiglitz crosses the line when he mounts a relentless polemical attack on the "Washington Consensus." One could easily deduct that he stands for the opposite, which would be: 1) nationalization of private commercial assets, 2) reregulation of markets, 3) protectionism, and 4) foreign exchange and capital markets controls. Within a post WWII framework, no country has ever succeeded following such anti Washington Consensus economic policies. After reading this book, one can see why he was fired from the World Bank. He comes across as arrogant. He could have written an excellent article regarding the failures of the IMF. Instead he wrote a weak polemic book attacking capitalism. If you want to read an excellent and more balanced account of globalization, I suggest "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas Friedman. This book is also so much broader in scope than Stiglitz book.
Rating:
Summary: I strongly agree to what Jonathan said about this book!!!
Review: As a student from developing world and now working at the World Bank,I typically have the sense that US mode has been treated or cited as a archetype for other developing countries.Free market,deregulation,a reasonable inflation rate,all of these are forced in developing countries,otherwise,no loans,subsidies will go to these countries,which is famous as conditional loan. In operation side,IMF is definitely a key role player in policy making and intervention.It has implicitly full color of ideology.Democracy itself is good,however,can be used for bad purpose in terms of economic development.No one can be too naive about his position or status in the world,unless there is only one government in the world,or no government at all.How to make these international organizations "international"---more neutral or objective?I think some questions can be answered from these NGOs' side,'cause they will realize how reliable their advice is going to their client countries and how risky it will be for these developing countries to adopt their suggestions? Too many questions,maybe Joseph's book didn't give very clear answers to these questions,however,he indicated the problem,which will cause our concerns in the near future and even now.
Rating: 
Summary: Blame it all on the IMF
Review: I thought the title is misleading - this is not anti-Globalisation, in fact Stiglitz is pro-Globalisation, as am I. It turned out to be a criticism of everything that the IMF has ever done, in Asia, Russia etc. There is some criticism of how the WTO is in the pocket of the USA, creating spurious arguments for Trade Sanctions. One of the first examples he gives is when in 1992 Jamaica's milk market was opened up to US imports. His rationale is that it 'may have hurt local dairy farmers but it also meant that poor children could get milk more cheaply'. Now I think that's bad. What about the poor(er) children of the dairy farmers themselves? Why ship US milk 2,000 miles from Wisconsin to Jamaica - not as if that market penetration would make any difference to Wisconsin's economy. And how much fuel & energy are consumed in transporting all that milk, and how fresh is it when it gets there? My (UK) milk supply comes from a dairy less than 10 miles away. So now a poor economy like Jamaica isn't self-sufficient in a basic foodstuff? We get Stilgitz saying that was a good thing in 1992, but that lots of similar events since then are not? I'm no fan of the IMF or the World Bank, but I don't buy his argument that everything is the fault of the IMF. It got quite boring in the end.
Rating:
Summary: A review from someone who actually read the book!
Review: I have just finished reading this book and was curious to see what others had thought of it so checked out the customer review section. The majority of reviews are most enlightened, however a few are laughably bad and innacurate. Many people criticse Stiglitz for being personal in his attack yet I felt he was remarkably restrained given the extreme incompetence demonstrated by many high ranking officials, particularly at the IMF. This incompetence resulted in tremendous suffering for millions. The criticsms that the book only talks about the IMF are not valid as the IMF has been a major cause of the problems that the developing world has faced. One reviewer also criticised Stiglitz as being arrogant, well if you want to really see arrogance at work take a look at the IMF and its self righteous approach to developing countries . Few people understand, especially those in the States, that the reason why America has such a dominant position is due as much to their abuse of power than any inherent superiority in industry. I am not anti -US ,in fact I love America, but it annoys me when people try to use it as a model demonstrating the superiority of the free market ideology. US industry was allowed to become dominant because it was at first protected, just look at Boeing as an example. I read many of the artciles laughing about the supposedly flawed analysis of Stiglitz. One guy did a full critique of how the book has many contradictions. Excuse me, HELLO one of the key points Stiglitz makes is the ideological iconsistencies of the IMF !! Would people who choose to criticse the book do so after actually reading it first, MORONS! This boook is excellent, granted it only tells part of the story but it is the part that the author has supburb insight into . The fact that one of the reviewers mentions how people could not stand Stiglitz just confirms to me that people could not bear to hear the truth and realise the result of their incompetence. A ceratin level of "lets shoot the messenger" is most probably at play here. The western democracies have behaved with discragceful incompetence in realtion to managing global developement. Moreover this is particularly true for the United States. Stiglitz arguments about "practice as you preach " are all the more noteworthy of late, as the US embarks on its misguided policy of trade tarrifs on steel and Chinese textiles . The US also has one of the most protectionist agricultural policies on earth out side of the EU. It seems that the US and indeed my country (Britain, France etc) do what suits them best and then turn around and preach a recipe that they themselves did not follow to achieve success. It is a bit like testing all your Nukes then signing up to a test ban treaty and criticising others for doing it. WAKE UP people is it any wonder why the rest of the world hates us. An essential book, well done Stiglitz!
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Insightful
Review: As noted in other reviews, this is not really a treatise on globalization as much as it is a highly articulate and obviously angry rant about the organizations primarily responsible for overseeing the globalization process-- the IMF and the World Bank. I am not enough of an economist to really be able to judge many of Stiglitz' arguments, and as this is not an academic book, the assumptions and foundations of his arguments were not visible. For me this created the sense that while I instinctively agreed with him I wasn't sure if I had all the information or if I fully understood what he was saying. The idea that sequencing is at least as important in ideology in leading change has a clear resonance for me (coming from my own experience in corporate organizational change). And certainly, I found his arguments about how the IMF role has mutated from its original intentions believable and compelling. Still, the IMF had so many aspersions cast against it in this book that I felt compelled to go online afterwards to try to find their response to Stiglitz's criticisms. I don't know if it's interesting or not that I didn't find any such response. It gets four stars rather than five because I would have preferred more supportive material to help me understand his arguments. It also has the unfortunate tendency to repeat itself (seemingly) unnecessarily-- I suppose a result of what is clearly the writer's deep passion about the subject.
Rating:
Summary: The Economics of Failure
Review: As noted on this book's cover, there are few people in a better position to examine the problems of globalization than Joseph Stiglitz. This book is mostly an indictment of the faulty economics of the globalization process, especially as practiced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Despite that focus on the economics, Stiglitz successfully integrates first-hand economic knowledge with the larger issues of globalization, especially social justice in developing countries. His main focus is the poor economics practiced by the IMF in their so-called mission to stabilize world financial markets. Instead, the IMF is guilty of pushing the ideology of free markets, which is not supported by economic data and has little connection to the real world. The free market ideology does not even have credence in the US, as we have social safety nets and economic regulations to protect citizens against market failures. However the IMF, as a condition for monetary aid, forces developing nations to enact simplistic free market systems before they have regulatory structures or institutions in place, leading to all kinds of economic chaos and suffering. Stiglitz provides evidence that such narrow-minded economic bullying by the IMF was a key factor in the Asian financial collapse of the late 90s and the continuing financial anarchy in Russia. The most chilling indictment here is that the IMF and World Bank are less concerned with the development of poor nations, than with religiously pushing the vested interests of their main stakeholders: Wall Street fatcats and financial speculators who make quick profits off currency fluctuations and cheap exports. Meanwhile the nations who follow the IMF's rules, like Bolivia and Thailand, suffer long-term consequences. While his writing style gets repetitive as the book progresses, Stiglitz provides solid evidence of why globalization, at least as practiced by American vested interests, is a cause of great worldwide suffering and resentment against the US. [~doomsdayer520~]
| 
