Human Rights and Structural Adjustment

Abstract

'Structural adjustment' has been a central part of the development strategy for the 'third world'. Loans made by the World Bank and the IMF have been conditional on developing countries pursuing rapid economic liberalization programmes as it was believed this would strengthen their economies in the long run. M. Rodwan Abouharb and David Cingranelli argue that, conversely, structural adjustment agreements usually cause increased hardship for the poor, greater civil conflict, and more repression of human rights, therefore resulting in a lower rate of economic development. Greater exposure to structural adjustment has increased the prevalence of anti-government protests, riots and rebellion. It has led to less respect for economic and social rights, physical integrity rights, and worker rights, but more respect for democratic rights. Based on these findings, the authors recommend a human rights-based approach to economic development.

Democracy’s Friend or Foe? The Effects of Recent IMF Conditional Lending in Latin America

“…In 2000 discontent and despair with the economic environment boiled over and a series of protests broke out throughout the country (Abouharb and Cingranelli, 2007). Farmers, public sector employees, and rural residents rallied against unemployment, poverty, and social service cutbacks, and demanded additional spending in rural regions.…”

Preparing Teacher-Researchers for Local-Global, Multicultural Classrooms: Prospects for Postcritical and Feminist Qualitative Methodologies

“…The theft, destruction, and willful pollution of people's home environments and resources are often directly related to racist and neo-imperial attitudes of development that privilege the economic desires of mostly (but not entirely, such as in the case of China and Japan) Euro-Western multinational corporations over the health and human rights of indigenous and racially minoritized peoples (Bigelow & Peterson, 2002). The racist attitudes and misguided assumptions of social Darwinism that perpetuate the travesties of internal neocolonialism in the U.S.-such as disproportionate impoverishment, incarceration, and wage exploitation (Tejeda et al, 2003)-mirror global institutional policies that perpetuate global apartheid (Alexander, 1996;Marable & Agard-Jones, 2008;Richmond, 1994) through actions such as structural adjustment lending, unfettered free trade laws, and military action in favor of corporate interests (Abouharb & Cingranelli, 2008;Chomsky, 2004Chomsky, , 2006Chomsky, , 2007Cobb & Diaz, 2008;Shah, 2010). At the heart of these attitudes and behaviors is a belief system guided by Eurocentric ideologies that promote market fundamentalism and a racialized hierarchy in which certain people, cultures, values, and knowledges are viewed as superior, while others are viewed as deficient and disposable.…”

“…This worldview blames impoverished people for their own supposed failures-or accepts such "failures" as a natural outcome for certain racial groups-while omitting all socio-historical context regarding the devastating and enduring consequences of colonialism, imperialism, and predatory global capitalism in people's lives (Bigelow & Peterson, 2002;De Lissovoy, 2009McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005;Tejeda et al, 2003). Rather, powerful international actors such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have proposed-and imposed-continued economic, social, and environmental exploitations as "solutions" to profound poverty and stratification, further exacerbating cycles of appropriation and impoverishment (Abouharb & Cingranelli, 2008;Bigelow & Peterson, 2002;Cobb & Diaz, 2008;Shah, 2010 ).…”

The World Bank’s Discourse on Social Inequality: A Policy of Appeasement?

“…The focus of the WB and IMF is to promote growth through neoliberal economic reforms supporting private property rights and an unregulated free market while also promoting better governance including weeding out corruption (Abouharb & Cingranelli, 2007). However, McNally (2006) argues that globalizing organizations, such as the WB, IMF, and WTO, have historically precipitated increases in social inequalities through bargaining for neoliberal/free-market-style economic restructuring.…”

“…The implementation of national social policies supported by the World Bank (WB), along with a strong political shift towards left-of-centre (LOC) positions since the early 21 st century, have been suggested as causes for the significant drop in social inequality. On the one hand, from the 1980s to the present, many researchers have argued that the WB"s involvement in Latin American economies has spawned significant increases in social inequality and poverty due to the implementation of WB neoliberal policies (Abouharb & Cingranelli, 2007;McNally, 2006;Wall, 2005). Alternatively, others have argued that a recent shift in WB policy, characterized by a substantive concern for fostering human rights and freedoms, a form of development which adheres to a social and environmental consciousness (Ruger, 2005;Goldman, 2007), has contributed to the decrease.…”