Testing and Measuring the Role of Ideas: The Case of Neoliberalism in the International Monetary Fund

Abstract

How much weight should be assigned to a particular factor in explaining an outcome? How should an abstract concept be linked to empirical indicants? These methodological problems—known as the “how much” and “how to” problems, respectively—have raised serious obstacles for ideational researchers. However, they have generally failed to deal with these problems adequately. To offset the limitations of existing studies, this paper provides new methodological guidance to researchers confronting these problems. In particular, quantitative methods are suggested for managing the “how much” problem, and a new indicator based on an individual's organizational background is proposed to deal with the “how to” problem. To develop the argument, this guidance is applied to examine the effect and measurement of the emergence within the International Monetary Fund of neoliberal ideas prescribing liberalization of capital controls.

The Economics of the Democratic Deficit: The Effect of IMF Programs on Inequality

“…Additionally, staff preferences are also determined by the IMF's organizational culture (Chwieroth 2013). Studies have tracked IMF decision-making to a "neoliberal" ideational culture prevalent among IMF officials resulting from their educational background (Chwieroth 2007). The finding that program countries with policy-makers whose beliefs are closer to this ideational culture receive favorable treatment from the Fund supports this argument (Nelson 2014).…”

“…The finding that program countries with policy-makers whose beliefs are closer to this ideational culture receive favorable treatment from the Fund supports this argument (Nelson 2014). According to this line of research, IMF decision-making is biased towards "neoliberal", market-based responses to economic problems while Fund officials advocating for government intervention in market processes and outcomes are underrepresented (Chorev and Babb 2009;Chwieroth 2007Chwieroth , 2010Stiglitz 2002). …”

Seeing like the IMF: Institutional change in small open economies

“…This is not to imply a straightforward causal link whereby the Fund is able to determine the direction of economic reform. Rather, we want to suggest that the Fund can be an influential source of ideas for institutional change by shaping the range of alternative choices that policymakers have at hand (see Chwieroth, 2007).…”

Paradigm Shift in the Global IP Regime: The Agency of Academics

“…Yet, few case-studies have shown that networks of economists can also act like epistemic communities and mobilize their socially recognized expertise to influence policymakers (Drake and Nicolaïdis 1992;Ikenberry 1992;Verdun 1999;Chwieroth 2007;Kogut and Macpherson 2011). Unfortunately, studies applying the concept of epistemic communities to other fields of knowledge remain few and far between.…”