Many argue that forgiving international debts will help relieve poverty in the world's poorest countries. But an enormous amount of money is already given to aid the poor, with little of it reaching those in need. Widespread corruption, weak political institutions, and a lack of accountability all hinder the provision of important social services in developing countries. The international community must figure out a way to ensure the proper use of debt-relief dollars-before the problems plaguing many of the world's poorest countries grow any worse.
M. A. Thomas is Associate Director of the Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector in the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland at College Park.
BLESSED ARE THE POOR?
Today 41 of the world's poorest countries are bankrupt. These nations, identified by the World Bank as "heavily indebted poor countries" (HIPCS), owe some $170 billion to foreign creditors, while half of their 600 million citizens get by on less than $1 a day. Nine out of ten HIPCS cannot sustain their debts, given their low export earnings and GNPs. Unless some of this debt is forgiven, they will be paying in perpetuity. Their creditors, on the other hand, include the wealthiest countries in the world, as well as the international financial institutions that are meant to support economic development.
In the spirit of the Jubilee (a semicentennial forgiveness of debts described in the Old Testament), a diverse and powerful coalition of political and religious leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, economists, rock stars, and rioting activists has rallied for a complete debt write-off. Arguing that high interest payments "crowd out" government spending on the poor, these advocates claim that forgiving national debts will help relieve the world's worst poverty. Using powerful emotional rhetoric, they offer heart-wrenching descriptions of the millions of people lacking security, adequate food, clean water, and basic health care and education. But as moving as this testimony may be, the reality is that the windfall of the current HIPC Initiative -- a $28 billion debt-relief package administered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank -- does not go to the poor. Instead, it goes to the same governments that racked up the debt in the first place, many of which are weak, corrupt, and authoritarian -- hardly the best intermediaries to carry out a philanthropic agenda.
IN THE RED
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
U.S. and international development agencies, believing that poor countries should develop economically before they become democratic, have not taken politics into account when disbursing aid. This is a mistake: poor democracies are almost always stronger, calmer, and more caring than poor autocracies, because they allow power to be shared and encourage openness and accountability. They deserve all the help they can get.
The assumption behind the International Monetary Fund's recent bailout of Russia is that the country is gradually reforming its economy according to market principles. But Russia's economy is much smaller than official figures suggest. Workers, the government, and industry all accept the myth that the manufacturing sector produces value, when in fact what it makes is worth less than the labor and resources it consumes. The result is a mountain of wage and pension arrears and government debt that will continue to provoke crises. The day of reckoning will be much worse if the West does not pull the plug soon.
Corruption is widely acknowledged to distort markets, undermine the rule of law, damage government legitimacy, and hurt economic development. The global anticorruption movement has gained ground since the mid-1990s, but its key agents -- developed and developing countries, international organizations, and MNCs -- must do more to prevent and punish misbehavior systematically.
