The International Monetary Fund (IMF) [1] was formed in 1945 to ensure the stability of the international monetary system. The Fund’s mandate was updated in 2012 to include all macroeconomic and financial sector issues that may bear on global stability. Since the global crisis, particularly since 2010, the IMF has tackled more and more areas.
A recent 2017 proposal proposes further IMF work on social protection, continuing IMF recent reforms to social security, welfare and labour systems. Austerity or fiscal consolidation reforms are very unpopular as they have detrimental impacts on populations. In several European countries, national Constitutional Courts found IMF-supported austerity cuts against the law and anti-constitutional (see for instance, Latvia 2009, [2] Romania 2010 [3], Portugal 2013-14 [4]). As IMF staff does not have the expertise on this area, they look at social protection expenditures from a fiscal viewpoint, a cost that can be cut in order to reduce fiscal deficits, ignoring the negative social impacts that austerity cuts may cause.
The letter below to IMF Directors has been signed by more than 50 prestigious economists and development specialists, concerned on IMF’s social protection and labour reforms.
To Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director
To Executive Directors of the IMF
As a group of economists, academics and development experts, we are writing to express concern over the IMF “independent” evaluation of The IMF and social protection [5], and its recommendations approved by IMF Board on July 2017.
We are particularly concerned by IMF advice on social security reforms, led by a fiscal objective, combined with labor reforms that weaken wages and collective bargaining, these reforms have a high human cost and will result in more poverty and inequality.
These reforms and austerity adjustments also depress household income, contract domestic demand and are slowing down global recovery.
Austerity cuts to multiple social protection programs are reducing social protection coverage and benefits. Old-age poverty is increasing in many countries as a result of inadequate pension reforms.
Further, we are very concerned about recent proposals to cut employers contributions to social security (see IMF Policy Paper on Fiscal Policy 2015 [6] and WEO April 2016 [7] chapter 3 on labor taxes/tax wedge) as this would destroy public social security systems and increase inequality.
These reforms have negative social impacts and represent high political costs to governments.
Precisely, world governments agreed in the SDGs to extend social protection systems for all, including social protection floors (SDG 1.3), instead of narrow-targeting safety nets for cost-savings. The IMF endorsement of the SDGs requires supporting global commitments.
Universal social protection [8], normally achieved by a combination of public social insurance and social assistance, is supported by all main development organizations due to its positive developmental impacts. Child and maternity benefits increase productivity and help to incorporate women into the labor market; disability and old-age pensions support household income; unemployment support assists those without jobs and has a counter-cyclical function during economic downturns. Adequate social protection benefit levels reduce poverty and inequality, promote human development, social cohesion and political stability.
The IMF does not have expertise on social protection. Advice to countries on social security reforms should be left to the ILO, the UN agency with the mandate for social protection and labor. Other UN organizations can support to extend of coverage, in the context of SDG 1.3. Additionally, representative trade unions must be consulted and strengthened, not weakened, to ensure collective bargaining processes that ultimately will bring prosperity to countries and reduce inequality.
Sincerely,
Original source: IDEAs [9]
Links
[1] http://www.imf.org/en/About
[2] http://www.dw.com/en/latvia-pension-cuts-ruled-out/a-5043430
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/romania-cuts/update-1-romania-court-rejects-austerity-measures-agency-idUKLDE65N18H20100625
[4] https://euobserver.com/news/124434
[5] http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/pages/EvaluationImages279.aspx
[6] https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/042015.pdf
[7] http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Too-Slow-for-Too-Long
[8] http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/NewYork.action?id=34
[9] http://www.networkideas.org/news-analysis/2017/12/53-economists-write-to-imf-directors-on-approach-to-social-protection/
[10] https://sharing.org/topic/poverty-and-hunger
[11] https://sharing.org/topic/inequality
[12] https://sharing.org/topic/global-governance
[13] https://sharing.org/topic/finance-and-debt