- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: Why the IMF can be bad for your health
New Science Publications
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya Editors, Helen Knight, Celeste Biever, Richard Fisher, Sumit Paul-Choudhury Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1206 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Paul Marks, Linda Geddes [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] Michael Reilly [email protected] Jim Giles [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1201 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Editor Jo Marchant Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George, Eleanor Harris Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nigel McPaul Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Julia Brown, Sean O’Neill Art Director Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, Ryan Wills Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Kirstin Jennings Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Helen Thomson [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Stephen Battersby, Michael Bond, Michael Brooks, Marcus Chown, Rob Edwards, Richard Fifield, Barry Fox, Mick Hamer, Jeff Hecht, Bob Holmes, Justin Mullins, Fred Pearce, Helen Phillips, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Gabrielle Walker, Emma Young, Anil Ananthaswamy Press Office and Syndication UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1250 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Will Knight Editors Maggie McKee, Rowan Hooper, Tom Simonite Reporters David Shiga, Catherine Brahic, Sandrine Ceurstemont, Michael Marshall, Ewen Callaway Online Subeditor Dan Palmer Web team Neela Das, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Ken Wolf, Edin Hodzic, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey, Matteo Giaccone
www.newscientist.com
Hidden costs Struggling economies, beware international bodies bearing loans THE International Monetary Fund seemed like such a good idea. That idea, in the hopeful post-war days of the 1940s, was to have a bank that would rescue countries in financial difficulties and put them back on track. Like a wise uncle, it would loan them cash to tide them over, on the condition that they balanced their budgets by making “structural adjustments”. Unfortunately, this uncle has proved not to be as wise as was hoped. To achieve structural adjustments, governments have been forced to slash their spending on services needed for long-term economic health: education, agriculture and healthcare. Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for the negative impact of IMF loans. A decade ago, frustrated African doctors were calling it the Infant Mortality Fund because of what happened to child survival rates when it started guiding government spending. This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes (see page 6). In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame. The main problems here are ideology and
evidence – lots of the former and a lack of the latter. Since the 1970s, the IMF has followed the Chicago school of economists, who insist on “small government”. That means cutting expenditure, privatising state-owned services, removing government subsidies and so forth. The IMF’s measures of success (or otherwise) are almost exclusively economic. It seems to be in denial over growing evidence that achieving these goals damages things like people’s health and levels of schooling, even though these are essential to the long-term development of a nation. It is time to treat IMF programmes like the experiments they are, and measure outcomes using more than just economic indicators. There seems little point in restoring shortterm economic stability to a nation if its well-being and prospects for future prosperity are seriously damaged in the process. We can argue all day about political and economic ideologies, but what really matters is what is happening on the ground, where ideology becomes a matter of life or death. The TB study shows there is more than one way to measure the impact of economic policies. Such real, empirical measures must become a requirement for any effort to manage economies for the benefit of the people they serve. ●
Hope for the best, plan for the worst GOOD news at last. While we deal with the credit crisis, the food crisis, the oil crisis and whatever new crisis turns up next week, we can at least rest secure in the knowledge that humanity is not about to be wiped out. That’s according to researchers meeting in Oxford to survey the catastrophic events that might consign humans to history (see page 8). Discounting climate change, which is happening too slowly to qualify as a catastrophic event, the gathering concluded that, for now at least, our continued existence is not in question. Though it is a relief, there are lessons to be learned here. Many of the potential catastrophes under scrutiny are the preserve of, if not the direct result of, research in science and technology. That makes it imperative that researchers keep a sharp
eye out for potential threats. Scientists are often quick to complain that governments don’t pay enough attention to their concerns. But as the head of NASA’s asteroid survey pointed out in Oxford, the only reason we know no object larger than a kilometre across is heading our way is because a worried member of the US Congress initiated a sky survey. Scientists were not the first to flag up the threat. Support for state-funded science is dependent upon the perception that scientists are working to improve the public wellbeing. If there are issues the public should be concerned about, scientists should make sure they are raising them – and raising them first. Complacency about catastrophe might not wipe out humanity, but it could seriously undermine trust in science. ● 26 July 2008 | NewScientist | 5
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya Editors, Helen Knight, Celeste Biever, Richard Fisher, Sumit Paul-Choudhury Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1206 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Paul Marks, Linda Geddes [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] Michael Reilly [email protected] Jim Giles [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1201 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Editor Jo Marchant Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George, Eleanor Harris Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nigel McPaul Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Julia Brown, Sean O’Neill Art Director Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, Ryan Wills Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Kirstin Jennings Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Helen Thomson [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Stephen Battersby, Michael Bond, Michael Brooks, Marcus Chown, Rob Edwards, Richard Fifield, Barry Fox, Mick Hamer, Jeff Hecht, Bob Holmes, Justin Mullins, Fred Pearce, Helen Phillips, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Gabrielle Walker, Emma Young, Anil Ananthaswamy Press Office and Syndication UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1250 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Will Knight Editors Maggie McKee, Rowan Hooper, Tom Simonite Reporters David Shiga, Catherine Brahic, Sandrine Ceurstemont, Michael Marshall, Ewen Callaway Online Subeditor Dan Palmer Web team Neela Das, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Ken Wolf, Edin Hodzic, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey, Matteo Giaccone
www.newscientist.com
Hidden costs Struggling economies, beware international bodies bearing loans THE International Monetary Fund seemed like such a good idea. That idea, in the hopeful post-war days of the 1940s, was to have a bank that would rescue countries in financial difficulties and put them back on track. Like a wise uncle, it would loan them cash to tide them over, on the condition that they balanced their budgets by making “structural adjustments”. Unfortunately, this uncle has proved not to be as wise as was hoped. To achieve structural adjustments, governments have been forced to slash their spending on services needed for long-term economic health: education, agriculture and healthcare. Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for the negative impact of IMF loans. A decade ago, frustrated African doctors were calling it the Infant Mortality Fund because of what happened to child survival rates when it started guiding government spending. This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes (see page 6). In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame. The main problems here are ideology and
evidence – lots of the former and a lack of the latter. Since the 1970s, the IMF has followed the Chicago school of economists, who insist on “small government”. That means cutting expenditure, privatising state-owned services, removing government subsidies and so forth. The IMF’s measures of success (or otherwise) are almost exclusively economic. It seems to be in denial over growing evidence that achieving these goals damages things like people’s health and levels of schooling, even though these are essential to the long-term development of a nation. It is time to treat IMF programmes like the experiments they are, and measure outcomes using more than just economic indicators. There seems little point in restoring shortterm economic stability to a nation if its well-being and prospects for future prosperity are seriously damaged in the process. We can argue all day about political and economic ideologies, but what really matters is what is happening on the ground, where ideology becomes a matter of life or death. The TB study shows there is more than one way to measure the impact of economic policies. Such real, empirical measures must become a requirement for any effort to manage economies for the benefit of the people they serve. ●
Hope for the best, plan for the worst GOOD news at last. While we deal with the credit crisis, the food crisis, the oil crisis and whatever new crisis turns up next week, we can at least rest secure in the knowledge that humanity is not about to be wiped out. That’s according to researchers meeting in Oxford to survey the catastrophic events that might consign humans to history (see page 8). Discounting climate change, which is happening too slowly to qualify as a catastrophic event, the gathering concluded that, for now at least, our continued existence is not in question. Though it is a relief, there are lessons to be learned here. Many of the potential catastrophes under scrutiny are the preserve of, if not the direct result of, research in science and technology. That makes it imperative that researchers keep a sharp
eye out for potential threats. Scientists are often quick to complain that governments don’t pay enough attention to their concerns. But as the head of NASA’s asteroid survey pointed out in Oxford, the only reason we know no object larger than a kilometre across is heading our way is because a worried member of the US Congress initiated a sky survey. Scientists were not the first to flag up the threat. Support for state-funded science is dependent upon the perception that scientists are working to improve the public wellbeing. If there are issues the public should be concerned about, scientists should make sure they are raising them – and raising them first. Complacency about catastrophe might not wipe out humanity, but it could seriously undermine trust in science. ● 26 July 2008 | NewScientist | 5