This is a Spanish version of the article: Argentina: 20 years on, has the IMF really changed its ways? It has been initially published at FARN website.

En julio, los argentinos experimentaron un déjà vu con los anuncios del gobierno de despidos masivos y congelamiento de salarios como parte de las medidas de ajuste ligadas a un préstamo del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). Miles de funcionarios públicos se ven obligados una vez más a asumir duras medidas de austeridad. De acuerdo con el programa del FMI se introducirán medidas selectivas de asistencia social para compensar la situación.

The G20 Finance Ministers of the world’s largest economies met in Buenos Aires last weekend, but their failure to tackle pressing global problems, including the threat of trade wars and a looming debt crisis, highlighted how ineffective the G20 has become.  Given that the G20 cannot tackle key issues, is promoting ineffective initiatives, and has largely become a rubber stamping body for other actors, the time is ripe to rethink how the global economy is governed, and to promote alternatives.

This article has also been published by Triple Crisis. 

Argentinians are experiencing deja-vu this month as the government announces massive layoffs and a hiring freeze as part of an adjustment package attached to a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Thousands of public servants are being forced yet again to swallow the bitter pill of austerity, which the IMF programme - published last Friday - aims to patch up through increased targeted social assistance.

The committee overseeing the UK government’s expenditure has published a searing report on Private Finance Initiatives (the UK version of Public Private Partnerships - PPPs). The Public Accounts Committee raises serious concerns about the “risks to value for money for the taxpayer” and identifies shortcomings in the assessment of their benefits. The report states that “it is unacceptable that after 25 years the Treasury still has no data on benefits to show the PPP model provides value for money”. The UK Treasury, meanwhile, continues to insist that it does. 

On 2 July, the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD DAC) will decide whether to change the rules on how debt relief is reported as Official Development Assistance (ODA). There is a serious risk that these changes could create loopholes allowing donors that use debt-based instruments to inflate their aid levels at the expense of the poorest countries.

Eurozone finance ministers convened for a crucial Eurogroup session in Brussels on 21 June and agreed on a last-minute set of new debt reprofiling measures for Greece. The package of maturity extensions, interest deferrals and €15bn in new loans from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) means that the Greek debt stock is likely to rise further in coming years.

Last week the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) released its 2018 report on untying Official Development Assistance (ODA).

In a landmark ruling on 31 May, the Belgian Constitutional Court upheld the country’s anti-vulture funds law, rejecting a legal challenge by a particularly notorious fund. NML Capital, an opaque vulture fund listed in the offshore financial centre of the Cayman Islands, had tried to shelve the Belgian law and intervene in democratic decision-making in Belgium. The ruling means the law remains in force, and agreements by the European Parliament and the United Nations imply that it is on the way to becoming an example for a worldwide solution to the challenges that vulture funds pose to the fair and speedy resolution of debt crises.

Tied aid is currently used to buy goods or services from the country providing the ODA. In other words, it puts the commercial objectives of companies in donor countries ahead of the priorities of people in the global south.

Recent criticism of Chile’s ranking in the Doing Business Report (DBR) has once again put the report in the spotlight, with renewed calls for scrapping the highly controversial annual World Bank publication.