40 likes | 170 Vues
This article explores the evolving policy direction of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), examining its complex relationship with neoliberalism and Keynesian economic theories. It highlights how the IMF's endorsement of capital account liberalization reflects broader systemic changes within the economic profession, influenced by neoclassical and Keynesian discourses. The discussion includes the impact of appointment changes, policy failures, and internal fractures in the economic community. Additionally, it touches on capital controls and their relevance in current economic debates.
E N D
Training plus appointment changes • IMF: not always neoliberal • Neoclassical-keyensian synthesis • -eviscerated the revolutionary implications of Keynes’ theory and therefore exposed itself to the neoclassical resurgence • -this percolated deeply into the profession during the 1970s: epistemic (Chicago, Hayek) plus political (business, think tanks) attacks against the background of a crisis that appeared to give Keynesianism a hard time. • -capital account liberalization as an IMF policy is part of this systemic transformation in the profession
BUT… • -the profession ain’t a batallion of Nazi soldiers marching in goosestep; its internal fractures can make a difference as long as (a) appointments change (b) policy failures feed critics and (c) main creditors bicker.
Whar are capital controls (wiki) • 1. exchange controls that prevent or limit the buying and selling of a national currency at the market rate, caps on the allowed volume for the international sale or purchase of various financial assets, transaction taxes such as the proposed Tobin tax, • 2. minimum stay requirements, • 3. requirements for mandatory approval, or even limits on the amount of money a private citizen is allowed to remove from the country.