BIG Coalition takes aim at the IMF

THE Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition yesterday added its voice to the chorus of criticism directed at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), accusing the organisation of blatant opposition to the effective redistribution of wealth and of misleading Government with its advice.

The IMF last year advised Government that a N$100 grant to every Namibian below retirement age would be unaffordable. Not so, says the coalition.It says the IMF’s advice was based on a misrepresentation of actual research done.The IMF last year concluded that a BIG would cost the country 5,5 per cent of its total GDP, but apparently admitted to the coalition when confronted later that its figures were based on oversimplified gross-cost calculations.The real cost to Government based on net costs would in fact be between 2,2 and 3,8 per cent of GDP, the coalition maintains.”The BIG Coalition was dismayed to find that the IMF in its report to Government published the already proven wrong calculations,” Council of Churches (CCN) Secretary General Phillip Strydom said at a media conference in Windhoek yesterday.”When confronted by the BIG Coalition on Monday, November 13, the IMF’s chief of (its delegation to Namibia last week) Mr J Muller conceded again that the IMF had overstated the costs in its report to Government by at least two per cent.”Nevertheless he was adamant that the IMF would not correct its mistake, as it would not change the IMF’s position on the affordability of a BIG,” Dr Dirk Haarman of the CCN added.”When asked …for research evidence on which the IMF based its advice, the IMF admitted that they did not do any real cost calculation, nor have they done a tax effort analysis in order to determine affordability and sustainability levels”, Haarman said.According to him, the IMF’s attitude showed that it opposed a BIG “on ideological grounds, rather than due to economic or social considerations”.The IMF was also criticised by the Director of the Labour Research and Resource Institute (LaRRI), Herbert Jauch.Jauch called the organisation an opponent of the poor that influenced governments without taking responsibility or learning from its failures.”The blueprints of the IMF’s remedies have caused worldwide hardship and further devastation among the poor and were shown to be ill-suited for the Namibian condition,” Jauch said.”The IMF has conceded that its structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s did not succeed and that poverty actually worsened during that time.It claims to have changed since 1999, but there is no indication of such change (in its recent) actions.”The current IMF remedies (to deal with poverty) are shown to be neither geared to local conditions, nor meant to effectively empower the poor.The only rationale behind the IMF’s advice was to limit effective redistribution in Namibia,” Jauch said.By yesterday afternoon, the Chief of the IMF’s recent ‘Article IV Mission’ to Namibia had not replied to an e-mail request for comment on the criticism.Not so, says the coalition.It says the IMF’s advice was based on a misrepresentation of actual research done.The IMF last year concluded that a BIG would cost the country 5,5 per cent of its total GDP, but apparently admitted to the coalition when confronted later that its figures were based on oversimplified gross-cost calculations.The real cost to Government based on net costs would in fact be between 2,2 and 3,8 per cent of GDP, the coalition maintains.”The BIG Coalition was dismayed to find that the IMF in its report to Government published the already proven wrong calculations,” Council of Churches (CCN) Secretary General Phillip Strydom said at a media conference in Windhoek yesterday.”When confronted by the BIG Coalition on Monday, November 13, the IMF’s chief of (its delegation to Namibia last week) Mr J Muller conceded again that the IMF had overstated the costs in its report to Government by at least two per cent.”Nevertheless he was adamant that the IMF would not correct its mistake, as it would not change the IMF’s position on the affordability of a BIG,” Dr Dirk Haarman of the CCN added.”When asked …for research evidence on which the IMF based its advice, the IMF admitted that they did not do any real cost calculation, nor have they done a tax effort analysis in order to determine affordability and sustainability levels”, Haarman said.According to him, the IMF’s attitude showed that it opposed a BIG “on ideological grounds, rather than due to economic or social considerations”.The IMF was also criticised by the Director of the Labour Research and Resource Institute (LaRRI), Herbert Jauch.Jauch called the organisation an opponent of the poor that influenced governments without taking responsibility or learning from its failures.”The blueprints of the IMF’s remedies have caused worldwide hardship and further devastation among the poor and were shown to be ill-suited for the Namibian condition,” Jauch said.”The IMF has conceded that its structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s did not succeed and that poverty actually worsened during that time.It claims to have changed since 1999, but there is no indication of such change (in its recent) actions.”The current IMF remedies (to deal with poverty) are shown to be neither geared to local conditions, nor meant to effectively empower the poor.The only rationale behind the IMF’s advice was to limit effective redistribution in Namibia,” Jauch said.By yesterday afternoon, the Chief of the IMF’s recent ‘Article IV Mission’ to Namibia had not replied to an e-mail request for comment on the criticism.