Rating: 
Summary: The iceberg reading of an iceberg lecture.
Review: On a very concrete level, the impact of the book is clear. It is directed primarily against the way the IMF handles financial crises in the developing countries.
The message is also clear on the level of political morality. Our dealings with the underdog nations are selfish. Economic relations are rarely motivated by altruism. But we play a game of winners and losers, instead of allowing a win-win interaction.
Even so, many of the serious reviewers (a lot of the criticism is obivously unfounded, unfair, petty or beside the point: title, repetitions, style, and certainly the demand for more footnotes and academic rigour) wonder what Stiglitz really is trying to tell us. One reviewer mentions the "uncertain thrust of the book". I find this uncertainty or equivocation not so much on the level of plain argument, but rather lurking behind the discourse. Even conceded that an author has to limit his subject, the reader feels like Stiglitz shows him only the top of the problem-iceberg.
I'm sure that those examples which Prof. Joseph Stiglitz gives us of lobbyists working behind the scenes are just that small part of his experience which is already publicly known. But to understand his aggravation we must assume that he has seen seen a lot more (successful) pressuring for special interests in his political positions than what he can tell us. This could be called the "first-level-iceberg-dimension" of the book.
There are at least two other, more fundamental, dimensions that Stiglitz hovers around without bringing them into clear focus. But these "second-level-iceberg-dimensions" are central to his effort of trying to understand the malfunctioning of the IMF as systemic rather than personal.
First, there is the alternative of funding economic development with financial gifts or credit. Stiglitz does not give a clear picture wether in his opinion borrowing is harmful or can be beneficial for the developing countries. His arguments point in both directions. On the one hand, he advises those countries to make use of their modest means in a way that they don't have to incur debt.
On the other hand, when he calls for a stronger say of the debtors on the IMF-Board and suggests that a formalized international bancruptcy procedure should be introduced, he seems to enhance the importance of (foreign) credits in economic development. But again in his article "Dealing With Debt. How to Reform the Global Financial System", his call for "transferring risk from poorer countries to rich ones" or his complaint that the world is giving loans to the USA instead of "channeling funds from rich countries to poor ones" as well as his expectation that "global greenbacks could be used to finance global public goods, such as improving the environment, ..." seems to suggest (higher) foreign aid instead of loans.
Anyway, there still is a "third-level-iceberg-dimension", namely what requirements of our economic system are eventually behind the fairly manifest interest-structures operating in and/or behind the international finance- and trade-organizations. I guess we have an overproduction of finance capital, generated through some malfunction inherent in our system. This surplus production tries to conquer new markets. Not even in our society can this excess capital be turned into productive investments, and much less so under the prevailing socio-economic conditions in the developing world. If that is true, there is little hope for real changes in the workings of international finance, unless we manage to completely revamp our economic (and social) system. Maybe environmental constraints will soon force us on such a new road.
The ultimate dimension behind "globalization" is the world-wide expansion of the Western Civilization. Globalization is, in essence, the transformation from the history of mankind into world history. Up to now, mankind has developed in subsystems more or less separated from each other. You could say that several civilizations have so far competed to find the best pattern to cope with nature. Certainly there has been fruitful communication: where would we stand today, had we not adopted from the Arabs the decimal system that originally was developed in India? But none of the others has reached a degree of understanding nature that is necessary to develop a technology able to span the globe (and travelling into space). That the Western Civilization has achieved this is nothing you or I can personally be proud of. But we dont' have to be ashamed for it and - as Stiglitz says - there is no alternative to globalization.
The imposition of conditions by the IMF on the developing countries might have a double face. Of course there are practical reasons to set up limits for state spending etc. At the same time, the conditions are probably part of the expansion of our cultural system. Many of those who criticize the IMF for imposing them would never question the justification of other conditions imposed through other channels. Anti birth-control, anti child labour etc.: in all of these cases, there is probably more behind our mission-like activities than just economic interest.
In fact, even in the EU the governments hide behind "conditionalities" imposed by rather intransparent mechanisms. The deregulation and the privatizations that have taken place would probably never have come about, had they not been decided upon on a supra-national level. "They" made us do this, we cannot change it. However, there is one fundamental difference: the EU is eventually not "them" but "us". The perception of the IMF in the developing countries, by contrast, is probably one of total alienation. Maybe Stiglitz only wants to remedy this by giving the debtors more say in the IMF. Because basically he knows and says that the problems of the young countries are largely homemade and not resulting from any ill applied medicine or outright malice of western-dominated international institutions.
At any rate, Prof. Stiglitz definitely is not an emotional iceberg, but highly compassionate with the suffrances of the people in the third world countries.
Rating: 
Summary: instructive analysis of globalization's ills
Review: The title of this book obviously borrows from Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. I suppose that one could stretch the relationship further and try to illustrate that Freud's sublimation of desire is similar to the IMFs sublimation of common sense, or some other such pithy observation, but what this book does really well is simply to point out many of the inconsistencies of the thinking at the IMF, its lack of accountability despite its being a public institution, and the arrogance displayed by it in the face of criticisms (including, as per the Afterword, this book).
Rating:
Summary: Rakes the IMF over the coals
Review: There are actually at least four books published in the last eight years with the title "Globalization and its Discontents," and for Joseph Stiglitz's book the title is probably a bit misleading. This is NOT a general indictment of globalization. When it comes to international economics, Stiglitz is the consummate insider: he was recently the chief economist for the World Bank, for crying out loud! You won't find him protesting on the streets at the latest WTO meeting.This book contains something better: a tightly argued, detailed critique of the ideologically-driven free-market policies that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been pushing down the throats of developing nation after developing nation. Stiglitz makes the following major points: * The IMF has a deep faith in the power of free markets to solve all economic woes, and sees the primary historical effect of market intervention as stifling, rather than enabling, the development of truly free markets; * This position of the IMF is, however, poorly supported by the bulk of economic evidence from the last three or four decades of globalization, and more nuanced models of free-market development (some of which were developed by Stiglitz himself) show that an active government role is typically crucial in the development of healthy indigineous free markets; * The conditions under which the IMF makes loans to developing countries generally harm, rather than aid, the short- and long-term economic health of these countries for the lower- and middle-class populations; * IMF-imposed conditions generally ARE good news for foreign investors, whose risk the IMF loans are in effect underwriting; * The economic ministries and cabinates of developed countries themselves, such as the U.S., generally adopt policies much more moderate such as those of the IMF, casting doubt on whether the IMF is really the source of much economic wisdom at all. All these points in a dense yet well-written book that covers cases of African debt, Russia after the fall of communism, the East Asian crisis, and more. The book takes some intellectual energy to read but it's well worth it. I learned a great deal about the last ten years of international economic development, and I recommend Stiglitz's book highly.
Rating:
Summary: Inside the World of International Finance
Review: Of all people Joseph Stiglitz is eminently qualified to write this book. His experience and background make him a clear authority on the issues at hand, those of course being the extreme ineptitude of the World Bank and IMF in handling international development. A little research reveals that these two organizations have not always chosen the best path but Stiglitz shows these economic actions with the background information that highlights a frightening level of incompetence. Interestingly, this book points out that these two world powers ultimately only represent the interests of the bankers that control them and have consistently failed to help the poor that they were created to serve. In many cases they have even made bad situations worse using extremely questionable economic prescriptions. Stiglitz gives well referenced examples of spectacular ineptitude that make me surprised these organizations can even exist. However, as the book wears on it becomes clear that Joseph Stiglitz has had a distinguished career as an economist for a very good reason. He knows what's going on and skillfully gives readers access to the seemingly insane inner workings of the World Bank and IMF. The first three chapters are introductory and bring the reader up to speed. This is where the book doesn't do so well. These chapters are boring and essentially repeat the same thing over and over again for three chapters. While I can see the necessity I don't think they work for their intended purpose. I may not have finished the book if it wasn't the only material available at the time. While it misses in the beginning this book really picks up towards the end, the chapters on Russia and the East Asia Crisis are particularly good. Most importantly Stiglitz offers rational, straightforward ways to solve the problems that he outlines here. This book is a must read for anyone interested in the way international finance works. You may want to skip the first two or three chapters though...
Rating:
Summary: Good critique of globalization
Review: This is a well-argued critique of liberal ideology at the IMF. Stiglitz documents and explains the flaws and the mistakes that happens when ideology replaces proper economic analysis. Stiglitz however at times assumes a self-righteous stance which might be a reflection of his anger at the IMF. Nonetheless, it was a good analysis of present economic situations.
|
