And I comment there:
Amazingly, that’s really not quite what the IMF paper does say. For example, this from Aditya:
“The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn’t delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off.”
The actual paper itself:
“There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.”
We know that Aditya read that paragraph because he refers to the last part of it.
So, neoliberalism good except for:
“However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:”
More specifically they talk about portfolio finance and hot money flows. These don’t seem to do much good and are destabilising when they leave again. Note that this is not, not at all and in no manner, about foreign direct investment: actually building factories and the like.
“It is surely the case that many countries (such as those in southern Europe) have little choice but to engage in fiscal consolidation, because markets will not allow them to continue borrowing. But the need for consolidation in some countries does not mean all countries—at least in this case, caution about “one size fits all” seems completely warranted.”
That’s not a blanket condemnation of it now, is it?
It’s almost as if Aditya saw what he wanted to in that paper rather than actually reported what it said.