What if the IMF was created after World War I?

Maybe we'd have Newfoundland around, at least:

If the IMF had existed in 1933, it would have granted emergency debt relief to Newfoundland. The country would have never given up democracy or independence. Indeed, democracy is now a pre-condition for IMF aid.

But as no institution such as the IMF existed in 1933, Newfoundland was compelled to choose between democracy and default.

The story of Newfoundland during the 1930s continues to be a unique tale of how the British Empire coped with a debt crisis in a small country.

But it is also a reminder of why in the aftermath of World War II the nations of the world created the International Monetary Fund. They did not want nations to ever again confront a choice between debt and democracy.


Was there any will economically, diplomatically, ideologically, after the Great War to create something like the Bretton Woods system, GATT, the IMF, etc.? Maybe a less painful and acrimonious end to that conflict?
 
Maybe we'd have Newfoundland around, at least:




Was there any will economically, diplomatically, ideologically, after the Great War to create something like the Bretton Woods system, GATT, the IMF, etc.? Maybe a less painful and acrimonious end to that conflict?
Indeed, democracy is now a pre-condition for IMF aid.
Source?
 
Yeah, but maybe they didn't get their taste of austerity until closer to the end of the 20th century.
The IMF has always asked for some sort of 'fiscal adjustment' when doing an intervention, certainly in the 70s and 80s ones it was there. Because that is the reason most country's call in the IMF, they have ran out of money. Usually foreign exchange, sometimes because they are unable to borrow any more and occasionally because they literally cannot print large notes fast enough. Some balance of tax rise and/or spending cut was asked for, or at least showing those changes had already been made and would come into effect soon.

That said you are correct that the decision to adopt a one-size-fits-all 'Washington Consensus' approach in the late 90s was a disaster. Well disastrous for some countries, it did work well for others, it wasn't a bad plan just one that didn't work everywhere. Sadly the success were used to justify continuing the approach and the failures blamed on the country with the problem.

Maybe we'd have Newfoundland around, at least:
As with so many places the IMF gets called to, the real problem in Newfoundland was politics not economic (to the extent that the politics had caused/made worse the economic problem). The article in question is dodgy at best, the Newfoundland government asked London to suspend self government in 1932 and the Royal Commission was not even launched till 1933 and the British government provided assistance before the Commission had even been launched.

What it does get right is that the Newfoundland government was dodgy as sin at the times, a mob of 10,000 people attacking parliament is bad at any times. But the entire Newfoundland population was less than ~250,000. Getting 5% of the entire population of your country to riot is a sign of deep seated problems.

On the actual question, could an IMF type organisation come in and hand out some massive loans and averted all that? Probably not, because it was the democratically elected government that wanted to end self-rule. There was a general election in 1932 (after the riots forced the previous government to resign and call fresh elections). The UNP's manifesto explicitly said they wanted to suspend self-rule and have British commissioner run the country. They subsequently won 24 out of the 27 seats, so I feel secure in saying this plan had popular support.
 
Probably not, because it was the democratically elected government that wanted to end self-rule. There was a general election in 1932 (after the riots forced the previous government to resign and call fresh elections). The UNP's manifesto explicitly said they wanted to suspend self-rule and have British commissioner run the country. They subsequently won 24 out of the 27 seats, so I feel secure in saying this plan had popular support.
Now on a tangent I'm imagining scenarios where decolonizing states opted to place themselves under indefinite trusteeship of the U.N. - or even more crazy, the IMF itself!
 
Top