The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created 60 years ago to promote a stable global economy.

The IMF lends money to countries which are in deep economic trouble - Mexico in the 1980s for example, South East Asia and Russia in the late 1990s and Argentina in 2001.

Click here to listen

But the Fund, along with its sister institution, the World Bank, faces unprecedented criticism. It has been accused of enforcing one-size-fits-all recommendations that are too harsh in certain areas including budget cuts and inflation.

The IMF has also been marred by many protests from anti-globalisation groups who believe that IMF policies benefit large multinational corporations, and not the countries whose markets are liberalised under the IMF's economic reforms.

The IMF Managing Director, Rodrigo de Rato will be attending a summit next week in Africa, that will include meetings with the region's leaders in Burkina Faso designed to continue discussions over critical economic issues.

What do you think of the IMF's policies? Are they working? Do you think the Fund needs to change?

We apologise that due to technical difficulties Mr Rodrigo de Rato, the Managing Director of the IMF, could not take part in our global phone-in 'Talking Point".

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we received:

We should work towards a fair, respectful world Steve, London

The technicalities of how the IMF works are irrelevant. What matters is that we relieve the developing world of the crippling debt which is generating resentment. We should work towards a fair, respectful world.
Steve, London

The biggest problem with the IMF system is that it doesn't get down to the core problem. The IMF needs to ensure that the governments receiving IMF/World Bank aid are trained in running economies (including efficient and logical tax collection), understand the benefits of both state and private sector companies and ensure that successful profitable businesses will ensure the creation of wealth to spend on social needs rather than just borrowing money to spend.
G.P. Russell, Peterborough, England

The IMF has achieved the impossible. It has driven me, once a staunch conservative, to re-read the works of Marx. There must be a better way and it certainly is not that propounded by the IMF and the World Bank!
Anthony, Fareham, Hampshire

The IMF, in some form or another, is essential in the globalised world of today. The main problem with the organisation centres on how it is run, rather than its mere existence.
Nathan James, Liverpool

The IMF, World Bank, and the WTO are part of the Imperial US grand scheme. The IMF is the legalized US body to push forth the US neoliberal agenda. To completely understand the US's grand imperial strategy is very important to gain an understanding of the roles performed by the above mentioned organizations and how they help the US implement that strategy. That discussion is definitely beyond the scope of this opinion piece.
Andy, Sydney, AU

The IMF's perverted insistence on privatization is doing more damage than good to the people of the countries it is 'helping'! The Hungarian Telecom was privatized in order to get foreign loans. Prices have not decreased one bit and we are still paying 50-100% more in telephone charges than in Western Europe.

These privatization scams for national water, electricity, and telecom services are doing more damage to third world countries than it is doing to Hungary. Reducing poverty in the third world is really simple; make sure the people have more money! Infrastructure may be good for the country overall, but if people are having less money in their hands then the IMF requirements are doing more harm than good. Whether we are talking IMF or the World Bank seems to be a choice between plague and cholera.
Thomas, Budapest, Hungary

While it's clear the IMF is not a panacea for world poverty, its successes in countries like Indonesia and Korea attest to its benefit Christopher Chung, Auckland, New Zealand

While it's clear the IMF is not a panacea for world poverty, its successes in countries like Indonesia and Korea attest to its benefits. It should be pointed out no one forces countries to accept an IMF bailout - when they do, surely it's only reasonable that the lender should have a say in how the money is spent - and surely logical that the country follows certain structural adjustment policies so they don't end up getting into the same mess again! You'll think twice about giving money to a homeless man a second time if he spends your first handout on alcohol.
Christopher Chung, Auckland, New Zealand

The problem with the IMF is its multi-faceted hidden political agenda. A large proportion of the finance comes from the US and in return that government understandably expects protection of its own security and economy. Unfortunately these objectives are not always compatible with the needs of the poor. The pattern which is most frustrating is when America conquers a country installs a governor and then uses the IMF to loan cash for American Arms, thus mortgaging the future of that country in order to fund the imperial war machine.
Jon, England

The IMF helped win the Cold war and smash the evils of socialism and communism. Free market economics work, socialist economies simply allow greedy workers to do nothing. Those who protest have benefited more from IMF policies than any others. They are the ones causing economic misery and governments need to take action to put a stop to their activities.
Michelle Taylor-Smith, Slough

As others have indicated already, the debt question is one which gives the lie to others' protestations of the IMF success. All that the IMF and their ilk have succeeded in doing is ensuring that the only measure of success that matters anymore is economic success. No wonder dealing in people, drugs and arms is such an attractive option to young people from poor backgrounds the World over!
Harry, Thanet, UK

In 60 years of the existence of the IMF, the one thing it has very ably done is deepen poverty. Structural adjustment programmes to currency devaluations have only hurt the poorest of the world, but these policies have immensely befitted the rich especially the north. The IMF has proved over and again a tool for benefit of the rich and the powerful.
Anoop, Bangkok, Thailand

The IMF's policies are not "one-size fits-all". Their underlining policy is a very simple one - encourage the economic reforms that are responsible and promote the creation of a middle class. The latter is crucial. Its policies are criticised by labourers because it is pro-business. But free-trade encourages the formation of a middle-class. A strong middle-class both creates jobs, offsets corrupt governments, encourages the Rule of Law, and promotes democratic reforms. Why else are they lending corrupt governments and dysfunctional institutions money? For the chance of creating something better that would replace these institutions. It is a truly noble and grand strategy.
Ian Yee, Austin, Texas, USA

What about a country like Pakistan, which is the epitome of underdevelopment and extremism? Maheen, Pakistan

It is interesting to see that all the reviews received so far on this topic have come from countries that are relatively stable in economic and financial terms. What about a country like Pakistan, which is the epitome of underdevelopment and extremism? As a student, I would like to ask what the IMF has done for the betterment of the Pakistani youth? It has done nothing but made Pakistan more and more dependent on foreign help, standard policies with no customization.
Maheen, Pakistan

Who's going to help out Third world countries with horrible credit ratings if the IMF doesn't step up? You? Would you be willing to give most of your pay check to someone in Zimbabwe to pay for First world injustice? I didn't think so.
Andy

How can the IMF continue to support countries like Argentina, allowing them to run up a $125 billion debt before cutting them off. The IMF's controls aren't too strong, they are far to weak and they are far too lax at enforcing them. They allowed a populist government to run a charity welfare state at the expense of the rest of the world, mostly the American taxpayer for many years. When the failure became inevitably so pronounced that they had to pull out, the result was a social explosion.
Mark, USA

IMF polices force developing countries to adopt economically disastrous measures, yet allow OECD farm subsidies to exceed the total income of the world's poorest 1.2 billion people. Average annual global agricultural subsidies account for 60% of the value of world agriculture trade, and twice the value of all developing world agricultural exports. Many developing world countries rely heavily on agriculture for their GNP. As long as this situation continues, IMF polices will continue to be destructive to the poorest of countries.
Robert Myhara, Ottawa, Canada

To Robert Myhara, Ottawa Canada: From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to have developing countries export food to us, due to their competitive advantage without barriers such as our farm subsidies, as it would really help them maintain solid export revenue and develop their countries. However, I for one am loathe to allow our own national agricultural base to collapse and rely on foreign markets to keep us fed. Sorry.
Jim, Canada

Those who criticise the world bank and IMF seem to know absolutely nothing about either. Developing countries need infrastructure, and that often comes in the form of extremely expensive projects, usually funded by the world bank. The fact that their economies are no good is not the fault of either institution, and just like on the personal level, it is very difficult to get out of debt, especially when you are not earning anything, and a lot of sacrifices need to be made.
Tom, UK

Inequality has risen dramatically Leslie White, Falls Church, USA

Research in Tanzania has made it clear to me that the burden of debt and structural adjustment is truly damaging the society, not only by restricting health and education funds, but by limiting the ability of individuals to get jobs and, particularly in the case of women, protect themselves from HIV. Why is it that the conditions for receiving IMF loans directly hit the poor, who have no social safety net, yet there is nothing to stop government officials buying up a fleet of SUVs to manage the bad roads? Inequality has risen dramatically in the area, and from what I understand, the situation is similar in other countries indebted to the IMF.
Leslie White, Falls Church, USA

The IMF benefits those who hold capital to the detriment of labour, no matter what country we're talking about. We need an International Labor Union to counteract these trends.
Christopher, Minneapolis, USA

The IMF has to change its mindset Kpdodo, Mauritius

The IMF's policies are mainly one-size-fits all, which would be fine if every economy was very similar to the utopian ideal of free markets. However that is not the case. There is no economy with perfectly free markets; if there was perfect freedom of movement of resources and flow of information across the globe, there would be no need for the IMF or for the World Bank, WTO... The second point is that the 'free market ideology' that pervades IMF thinking and policy analysis suits multinationals perfectly; smaller and less developed economies are not able to compete. Imposing free market policies on economies that are not ready leads to massive problems; compare the economies of Russia and China today. The IMF has to change its mindset. It's not a question of their analysts having a secret agenda, as much as being genuinely wrong.
Kpdodo, Mauritius

Over the years the IMF has administered policies that have sought to stagnate if not retrogress the embryonic economies of the developing world. Ghana, after years of a long standing relationship with the IMF, has yet to see any real benefits.
Osei Victor, University of Cape Coast, Ghana

Why not make the First World countries pay for the damage that they have done to the Third World, by making them slow down in economic development, since the world cannot sustain what is happening at the moment. Let the rich help the poor by giving humanitarian aid - water, food, shelter, essentials of life.
Anon

Most of these countries are in debt because money was misappropriated Bongo, Kenya

The IMF policies only work for the countries that are not really in big debts thus beating its purpose to rid countries with heavy debts of the burden. It should have some of the best financial counsellors in the very poor countries carryout a case study of the problems that saddle them.

Then they should come up with some recommendations and a close follow up other than lending money to corrupt governments (individuals) who just sink the countries succeeding generations into deeper debt. Most of these countries are in debt because money was misappropriated, thus more money to the same hands means further misuse and doesn't heal the situation.
Bongo, Kenya

Do people really believe that it is in the best interest of developed nations to keep Third World nations poor, when capitalistic economies rely on opening new markets to stay alive? The Bill Gates of the world must be light-years smarter than everyone else if they can make more money by fiscally repressing Africa than by selling a computer to every hut.
Drew, Philadelphia, USA

I agree with Drew's comment that basically people in the richer world should not worry too much if jobs are outsourced to poorer nations. They should lead the way for the next level of progress for society and should be able to cut their consumption of resources. It's true that developed nations have contributed to the world a lot and that some nations are already better off but time to time they need to share it with others and motivate others in contribution to the progress.
Sathya, Lugano, Switzerland

Do you really want every hut to be able to buy a computer? Then end farm subsidies in Europe, the US and Japan and the poor nations will get a fair price for the only competitive product they have. Globalisation will never work unless it is fair for everyone.
Ignacio, Buenos Aires, Argentina

I think that the IMF policy of one size fits all is too harsh for poor countries Musu Stewart, Liberia

I think that the IMF policy of one size fits all is too harsh for poor countries. This policy has resulted in social and economic problems for poor countries including sub-standard quality of basic social services (education, health) and making it increasingly difficult for these countries to achieve the millennium goals set forth by the UN. The Fund needs to rethink its policy if indeed it seeks to help the poor.
Musu Stewart, Liberia

We need debt forgiveness in Nigeria and help with aid for the growth of our democracy.
Tayo, Lagos, Nigeria

It seems that the IMF and the World Bank will "help" developing nations if, and only if, there's some profit in it for the MNCs or some developed country. In a world where 20% of the population is consuming 80% of the resources, we need an economic institution that looks out for the interests of the "have nots" without trying to make the rich richer in the process.
Tom Hunsberger, Canada and Mexico

Based on the comments I've seen so far, it looks like anti-globalisation = socialism, i.e., these are not loans but entitlements. The IMF approach is the right one: help create vibrant economies. However, if this is not happening (e.g. Argentina), then the policies should be adjusted.
Bob, USA

Every problem on Earth relates to some human failure Russ Wollman, Raleigh USA

The IMF like every other helpless body trying desperately to solve the world's problems cannot bring lasting success. Every problem on Earth relates to some human failure. In the case of the disastrous level of economic imbalance, the primary name of the responsible failure is greed.
Russ Wollman, Raleigh USA

When are countries like Argentina going to admit that they are the cause of their problems? You can't prop up a social welfare state on the backs of earnings from workers in countries that live within their means and practice economic diversity.
Thomas Smicklas, Cleveland, USA

The IMF, like it or not, does benefit largely multi national corporations. As multi national corporations generate global wealth, surely this is a good thing as without wealth creators in the west, a lot more of the world would be in dire straits. The anti globalisation protestors, whilst noble in their cause, lack a financial plan or any coherent method of funding the worlds poorer nations - other than tax the rich even further.
Roger Morgan Freedlan, England

The US quite rightly has the most power in the IMF as it puts the most money in and has the most successful economy - the idea that you should give equal power to countries that are economic failures is crazy - if you want help with your own private business, do you ask a successful businessman or a unemployed crook?
Alan Leach, Southport, UK

The Fund has so far been ably led by astute economists and continues to provide tough common-sense measures Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

In its 60-year existence the IMF has bailed out several countries caught up in dire balance of payment difficulties. The Fund has so far been ably led by astute economists and continues to provide tough common-sense measures. But the central question is: Do recipient countries have the real stomach to swallow bitter economic pills? Is there genuine political will and clout to enforce prescribed policy reforms? Its prescriptions have not been always palatable and easy to swallow. However the Fund's existence is crucial and it has the unenviable task of directing governments on the straight and narrow paths of fiscal prudence!
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

Unfortunately the IMF's favourite austerity programs involve cutting or eliminating social payments and services to the poor and vulnerable. Then when the forced liberalisation programs put thousands out of work they have no social safety net. Result? Social instability and enormous suffering. The only winners tend to be the rich countries (mainly American) multinationals who now have unfettered access to these countries.
Richard Boesch, Xativa, Spain

The world needs the IMF. Its policies and philosophy are aimed at giving countries an economic goal and helping them out in times of unexpected economic or financial crisis. What they are not around to do is to implement the political objectives of the US (the biggest shareholder in the IMF) or to continually condone bad behaviour by lending money to failed and corrupt policy (Argentina)
Baz, London, US expat

The decline the Russian economy was the most comprehensive recession of the 1990s. The stunning growth of China was the biggest expansion of the 1990s. The former was achieved by following IMF policies practically to the letter. The latter was achieved by deliberately ignoring the IMF's advice.
Steffan John, Cardiff, Wales

The greatest challenge facing the IMF now is agriculture reform Richard, Dallas, Texas

The global economy is stable and is growing. It cannot continue to do so without the continued growth of the US and EU economies. The greatest challenge facing the IMF now is agriculture reform, which is the largest economic inequality on earth. It is doubtful the IMF will have any real success with this unless wealthy nations are led by true free-traders.
Richard, Dallas, Texas

It still remains to be explained why the US is the only country with veto power at the IMF. Naturally the IMF's policies directly reflect the wishes and policies of the US. The IMF's fundamental weakness won't be fixed until developing countries are given as much say in this organization as the US.
Paul, San Francisco, US

Is it not manifestly unjust and hypocritical of the IMF to demand that poor countries (who cannot afford to subsidise their own economies) should open their markets when the average US and European cow gets more in subsidies than most third world workers can earn in a year?

The IMF and WTO need to force the US and Europe to cease all such subsidies and to open the US and European markets to third world goods first. Until then, poor third world countries should be permitted to impose tariff barriers particularly to prevent subsidised US and European farmers dumping their goods on third world countries and destroying local farming (or forcing it to convert to supplying exotic fruit and vegetables to the US and Europe rather than meet local needs).
Keith Gymer, London, UK

The IMF should not hold so much cash Kevin Alexander, London, UK

The IMF should not hold so much cash. If instead they invested their reserves in bonds, for instance, they could generate substantial income to increase the funds they currently contribute. In general, using a carrot to encourage fiscal responsibility is a good idea, and has benefited many nations.
Kevin Alexander, London, UK

It has been repeatedly proven that lending to countries that have a corrupt legal/political infrastructure exacerbates the situation as the corrupt rich get richer, the country goes in deeper debt and the poor hardly benefit. Not too long ago, Pakistan was taking additional loans just to pay off the interest on previous IMF loans!
Nauman Fakhar, Raleigh, NC, USA

Before, you can develop policy you have to have a vision of the future economic model.
Aditya Mohan, Purchase, USA

I think many policies have not worked in the past because they were sophisticated, capitalist ideas implanted in developing societies and economies.
Carlos Dominguez, Madrid, Spain

It has taken too long for the IMF to realise that lack of funds is not the only thing holding developing nations back. More and more loans are not the answer! Conditions imposed on loanee countries, such as forced premature liberalisation of their economy, has led to problems such as South Asian economic crisis. Remember what the IMF was set up for - to aid developing nations with practical help not just economic theorising that has not been proved to work in reality.
Steve, Skipton, UK

There is a conflict of interest between the IMF and its stated objectives Martina, London, UK

It is not in the national interest of the US for a US-owned institution such as the IMF to develop nations who may weaken the US economy. The US does not intend to see the increasing wealth of others pose a serious threat to US 'leadership' and control. In a world where there is not sufficient resources to raise the living standards of 6 billion people to that of the 300 million, there is a conflict of interest between the IMF and its stated objectives.
Martina, London, UK

I would like to see the IMF give a personal apology to the people of Argentina and to do all they can to make up for the disaster they have caused in South America.
Mark Thomson, Edinburgh

The IMF (and the WTO to some extent) seem to be tools of the US to lever the markets of other countries open. A liberalised economy soon becomes a slave economy.
Paul, London, UK

Globalisation is good - look at countries like Taiwan and Vietnam. Not so long ago these countries were regarded as third-world but now, thanks largely to the embrace of global capitalism they are catching up fast with the west. The problem is, the IMF takes the blame for all the third-world's woes, rather than the corrupt leaders of these countries.
Richard, UK

The IMF has been a disaster for everyone.
Lisa Starrfield, Gregory, USA

It has succeeded in making the rich richer David, Portland, USA

It has succeeded in making the rich richer and taking jobs from individual countries and sending them to countries with cheap labour. They are actually proposing a world take over by the rich in which the rest of us will be lucky to own a shack to sleep in.
David, Portland, USA

To force undeveloped economies to liberalise at an unhealthy rate is both foolish and unethical, the IMF and the World Bank are symbols of western arrogance and the unrealistic repayments are usually at the expense of the infrastructure of the country and wellbeing of the population the IMF purports to be aiding. The IMF and the World Bank should think more about the populations of the affected countries and less about the needs of the self serving multi-nationals.
Daniel Dunsford, Manchester, UK