How the IMF Manipulates Countries: Financial Control in the Modern Era

Published on May 7, 2025

Almost every one of us has taken out a loan at least once in our lives. Some borrow money to increase their capital, while others forecast interest rate drops and calculate that today's expensive money will become cheaper tomorrow. Individual circumstances shape our explanations of why credit seems good for our specific situation. But what happens when entire nations become the borrowers? Is the International Monetary Fund truly the global financial "SOS button" it claims to be, or does a darker reality lurk beneath its benevolent facade? In my comprehensive investigation How the IMF Manipulates Countries? The Invisible Hand of the Market, I expose the mechanisms through which this powerful institution shapes—and often damages—the economic destinies of countries worldwide.

What is the IMF and how did it originate?

The International Monetary Fund emerged from the economic chaos of the first half of the 20th century. The period witnessed extraordinary financial turmoil: World War I claimed over 15 million lives and cost participating countries $280 billion in modern terms. The pre-war gold standard collapsed, leading to catastrophic inflation—in Germany, prices by 1918 had increased 400 times compared to 1913.

After a brief recovery during the "Roaring Twenties," the Great Depression struck. Unemployment reached shocking levels: 25% in the U.S., 30% in Germany, and 22% in Great Britain. Industrial production plummeted—46% in the U.S., 41% in Germany. World trade decreased by an astonishing 66%.

World War II added further devastation. The economic damage was colossal: 1,710 cities, 70,000 villages, and 32,000 industrial enterprises destroyed in the USSR alone. The war's aftermath brought hyperinflation that defies comprehension. In Hungary, prices doubled every 15 hours, with overall inflation reaching 4 × 10^29 times—a number with 29 zeros, 100,000 times greater than the number of stars in the visible universe.

It was against this backdrop of economic apocalypse that 730 delegates from 44 countries gathered at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July 1944. Their mission: to rebuild the shattered global financial system. The IMF was born from this meeting, with the stated goals of promoting international monetary cooperation, facilitating trade expansion, maintaining currency stability, and providing temporary financial assistance to countries facing balance of payments difficulties.

As I reveal through extensive research in How the IMF Manipulates Countries, the organization's actions have frequently contradicted these lofty ambitions, serving instead the geopolitical and economic interests of its most powerful members.

How does the IMF's governance structure enable manipulation?

Despite claims of neutrality, the IMF's governance structure reveals the uncomfortable truth about power distribution within the organization. The fund is governed by a Board of Governors that includes representatives from each member country (usually the finance minister and central bank head). Day-to-day affairs are managed by the Executive Board of 24 executive directors.

The crucial detail lies in how these directors are appointed. The eight largest shareholders—the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—have their own representatives, while the remaining countries are organized into 16 groups, each with a single director. This arrangement ensures Western dominance of the Executive Board.

Even more telling is the distribution of voting power. As of 2024, voting shares are distributed as follows:

• USA — 17.44%
• Japan — 6.47%
• China — 6.41%
• Germany — 5.36%
• France — 4.24%
• United Kingdom — 4.24%
• Italy — 3.17%
• India — 2.76%
• Russia — 2.71%
• Brazil — 2.32%
• Remaining 171 countries — 29.00%

This distribution means the 19 largest countries control 71% of the votes, while the remaining 171 countries account for only 29%. Moreover, since major decisions require an 85% majority, the United States (with 17.44%) effectively holds veto power over all key IMF policies.

Harvard University Professor Dani Rodrik notes: "The IMF should act as a neutral technical organization, but in practice it often becomes an instrument of U.S. foreign policy." This observation is supported by the historical record—from 1944 until 2022, every single IMF Managing Director has been European, while Americans have traditionally headed the World Bank, a "gentleman's agreement" that reflects the Western grip on these institutions.

How does the IMF use "conditionality" to control borrowing nations?

The primary mechanism through which the IMF exerts control is what it calls "conditionality"—the requirements imposed on countries receiving loans. These conditions, described diplomatically as "voluntary-compulsory" in nature, fundamentally reshape national economic policies and often undermine sovereignty.

IMF conditionality typically includes:

• Liberalization of prices and trade (removing subsidies and protections)
• Implementation of tight monetary policy (high interest rates)
• Reduction of budget deficits (often by cutting social programs)
• Privatization of state enterprises (frequently sold to foreign investors)
• Banking system reforms (typically benefiting international financial institutions)

The IMF uses a sophisticated control system to ensure compliance, dividing loans into multiple tranches (installments) that are only released when specific conditions are met. If a country deviates from the prescribed policies, the IMF can freeze further disbursements until compliance is restored.

This phased approach allows the IMF to maintain ongoing leverage over borrowing countries' economic policies for years. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz observed: "The IMF is like a doctor who has only one prescription and prescribes it to all patients, regardless of their disease, and when the patient gets worse, increases the dose of the same medicine."

What are Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and how do they work?

Unlike conventional loans issued in dollars or other national currencies, IMF lending occurs through Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)—a synthetic reserve asset created by the fund. SDRs represent a claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members and are calculated based on a basket of five currencies: the U.S. dollar (41.73%), euro (30.93%), Chinese yuan (10.92%), Japanese yen (8.33%), and British pound (8.09%).

This arrangement means the dollar and euro together make up more than 72% of the SDR's value, ensuring Western currency dominance within the system. SDRs cannot be used directly to purchase goods or services—they must be exchanged for usable currency through other IMF members, creating another layer of dependency.

The total volume of issued SDRs (660.7 billion, equivalent to approximately $943 billion) remains quite small relative to the global economy—the U.S. GDP alone is about $25 trillion. This limited pool ensures the IMF can maintain tight control over access to this lifeline funding.

Notably, the IMF restricts how SDRs can be used, generally favoring financing imports over infrastructure development. As my research reveals, if a country wishes to build a new airport, financing will often be denied. But if the goal is establishing imports beneficial to IMF member states, the organization will be more favorable and likely to organize a tranche.

What are the most shocking examples of IMF intervention gone wrong?

The historical record reveals a disturbing pattern of economic devastation following IMF intervention. Argentina stands as perhaps the most striking case study in IMF policy failure. From 1989 to 2001, Argentina received loans totaling $57 billion from the IMF. In exchange, it implemented a comprehensive program of neoliberal reforms, including:

• Fixed exchange rate of peso to dollar (1:1)
• Privatization of 90% of state enterprises
• Trade liberalization (reduction of import duties from 65% to 10%)
• Deregulation of the financial sector
• Reduction of social spending

The results were catastrophic. Unemployment rose from 7% to 25%. Poverty increased from 15% to 53%. External debt grew from $60 billion to $160 billion. The share of imported goods in the domestic market grew from 22% to 65%, decimating local industry.

When crisis struck in 2001, the IMF first provided an additional $8 billion loan (August 2001) but then refused further assistance in December, precipitating a full-scale economic collapse. Argentina declared default on $80 billion of external debt—the largest sovereign default in history at that time.

The consequences included:

• GDP decrease of 28% (from $284 billion to $204 billion)
• 57.7% of the population falling below the poverty line (21 million people)
• 27% of the population in extreme poverty
• Unemployment exceeding 25%
• National currency depreciating by 70%
• 5,000 industrial enterprises closing

Following the default, approximately 28% of Argentina's economy was bought up during the economic recession by foreign entities, primarily from countries whose interests were well-represented at the IMF. This pattern—crisis, followed by asset acquisition—appears with disturbing regularity in countries following IMF prescriptions.

How did the Asian Financial Crisis demonstrate IMF policy failure?

The East Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 provides another stark example of IMF intervention exacerbating economic distress. Before the crisis, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, and the Philippines had demonstrated impressive economic growth—the so-called "Asian economic miracle." For two decades, these countries showed average GDP growth of 7-8% annually, with poverty decreasing from 60% to 20%.

When currency speculators attacked the Thai baht in July 1997, the IMF stepped in with large assistance packages: $17.2 billion for Thailand, $40 billion for Indonesia, and $58.4 billion for South Korea. But this help came with harsh conditions that many economists believe deepened the crisis:

1. Tight monetary policy: Interest rates were raised to extraordinary levels (70% in Indonesia, 18% in Thailand, 25% in South Korea)
2. Tight fiscal policy: Government spending was cut by 1-3% of GDP during an economic contraction
3. Structural reforms: "Troubled" banks were closed, state enterprises privatized, and capital controls removed—exactly the wrong medicine during a financial panic

The results were devastating:

• Indonesia experienced a GDP decrease of 13.1%, unemployment rose from 4% to 12%, and poverty increased from 11% to 40%. Political chaos led to the fall of Suharto's 32-year regime and interethnic violence.
• Thailand lost 10.5% of GDP, unemployment rose from 1.5% to 6%, and 56 financial companies declared bankruptcy.
• South Korea saw GDP decline by 5.8%, 17,000 companies went bankrupt, and unemployment rose from 2.6% to 7.7%.

Notably, Malaysia rejected IMF assistance and instead implemented capital controls, fixed its currency exchange rate, and stimulated its economy through government spending—policies directly contrary to IMF recommendations. The result? Malaysia recovered faster and with less economic damage than its neighbors.

As Stiglitz, then chief economist of the World Bank, noted: "The IMF not only did not help prevent the crisis, but also contributed to its deepening with its recommendations." He compared the IMF's policy prescription to "recommending bloodletting to a patient with high blood pressure."

Was the IMF involved in corruption and scandals?

Some of the most troubling aspects of IMF operations emerge when examining specific cases of alleged corruption and misappropriation of funds. The Russia case of 1998 stands out for its scale and brazenness.

In July 1998, the IMF allocated $4.8 billion to Russia, followed by smaller tranches totaling about $340 million. Just three weeks later, investigations revealed that all the money had been transferred to banks in the U.S., Britain, and Switzerland—effectively disappearing from Russia's economy at a time when the country faced imminent default.

The routing of these funds raises serious questions:

• The first payment of $2.3 billion went to the "Bank of Sydney," which was registered offshore and functioned only from July 1996 to September 1998—vanishing a month after the transaction.
• Another $2 billion was converted to pounds sterling and transferred to London's National Westminster Bank.
• Almost $1 billion went to Credit Suisse in Switzerland, an institution repeatedly accused of money laundering.
• $1.4 billion moved to the Bank of New York and then to its Geneva branch (Bank of New York Inter Maritime) before landing in the corporate account of "United Bank," owned by oligarchs Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky.

When Russian State Duma deputy Viktor Ilyukhin asked Prosecutor General Yuri Skuratov to investigate, Skuratov initiated a criminal case and requested that the Central Bank reveal the details of the transfers. Within weeks, Skuratov himself became the target of criminal allegations. By order of President Boris Yeltsin, the prosecutor was suspended, and the case was classified "Top Secret."

In his book "Dragon Variant," Skuratov later wrote: "The investigation I started could have led to the disclosure of the largest corruption scheme in the history of new Russia. Among the figures were people from the president's inner circle. When standard methods of pressure did not work, dirty technologies came into play."

This pattern—IMF funds disappearing into private accounts, followed by obstruction of investigations—raises profound questions about the fund's oversight mechanisms and whose interests it ultimately serves.

What is the "Washington Consensus" and how does it relate to IMF policy?

The term "Washington Consensus" was coined by economist John Williamson in 1989 to describe a standard set of policy recommendations offered by Washington-based institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury. Originally encompassing ten principles—including fiscal discipline, tax reform, trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation—the concept has become synonymous with neoliberal economic policies imposed on developing countries.

In some circles, the Washington Consensus has been interpreted more sinisterly as a deliberate strategy to gain control over developing economies. According to this view, the approach involves introducing "agents" into target countries to advocate for reforms and loans, then leveraging the resulting debt burden to acquire national assets when countries inevitably struggle to repay.

While such conspiracist framing may overstate the case, the historical pattern is undeniable: countries following IMF prescriptions have frequently ended up selling national assets to foreign investors at drastically reduced prices. In Russia, for example, assets worth more than $500 billion were privatized for approximately $7 billion during the post-Soviet transition period supervised by the IMF.

Sergei Glazyev, a former economic advisor to President Yeltsin, characterized this process as "the largest operation in human history to redistribute national wealth in favor of a narrow circle of people without any obligations on their part."

The Washington Consensus approach has been criticized by numerous economists, including Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, who argue that these one-size-fits-all policies fail to account for institutional capabilities and social consequences. Moreover, they often produce results directly opposite to stated goals:

• Instead of economic growth—recession and stagnation
• Instead of poverty reduction—increased poverty
• Instead of macroeconomic stability—new crises
• Instead of more efficient resource allocation—concentration of wealth

Cambridge University Professor Ha-Joon Chang offers a particularly incisive critique: "Virtually all developed countries, including the UK and USA, used protectionism, state enterprises, and regulation of foreign investments in the early stages of their development—directly opposite to what the IMF and World Bank advise developing countries today."

Are there alternatives to the IMF model?

The emergence of alternative financing models represents perhaps the most significant challenge to IMF dominance in recent decades. BRICS nations (initially Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now expanded to include Egypt, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia) have established the New Development Bank (NDB) with an initial capital base of $100 billion.

Unlike the IMF, the NDB operates on the principle of "one participant—one vote," regardless of economic size or contribution. This means no country has veto power, creating a more equitable governance structure. The NDB focuses primarily on infrastructure projects rather than macroeconomic stabilization and actively promotes lending and settlements in national currencies, reducing dollar dependency.

By 2024, the New Development Bank had approved more than 80 projects in BRICS countries and other developing nations for a total of about $30 billion. This remains modest compared to IMF lending, but represents a significant alternative channel for development finance.

China has become an even more substantial global lender in its own right, directing approximately $240 billion in emergency aid to various countries and financing projects in 140 nations. Chinese lending differs from the IMF model in several respects:

• Focus on specific infrastructure projects rather than macroeconomic policies
• Absence of political conditions regarding economic reforms
• Preference for bilateral arrangements rather than multilateral frameworks
• Extensive use of collateral in the form of natural resources or infrastructure

This approach has been criticized as "debt-trap diplomacy," particularly when borrowers struggle to repay loans secured by strategic assets. The case of Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port, leased to China Merchants Port Holdings for 99 years after Sri Lanka couldn't service its Chinese loans, is frequently cited as an example.

Nevertheless, many developing countries increasingly view Chinese financing as preferable to IMF conditions. As one African finance minister told me during my research: "At least with the Chinese, we get tangible assets—ports, railways, power plants. With the IMF, we get endless conditions and debt without development."

How is the global financial system changing, and what role might Digital Currencies play?

Several trends suggest we're witnessing a significant transformation of the international financial order established at Bretton Woods:

• De-dollarization: The dollar's share in world foreign exchange reserves has decreased from 71% in 2000 to 58% in 2023, with more countries concluding bilateral agreements to use national currencies in trade.
• Alternative payment systems: After Russia's disconnection from SWIFT, many countries accelerated development of systems like Chinese CIPS, Russian SPFS, and Indian RuPay.
• Central bank gold purchases: Since 2010, central banks have become net buyers of gold, acquiring 450-600 tons annually as they seek to reduce dollar dependence.
• Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Over 90% of central banks worldwide are exploring or developing digital currencies, potentially transforming global payment systems.

The IMF has taken a particular interest in CBDCs, with Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva actively promoting their development. In a 2023 speech at the Singapore Financial Technology Festival, she emphasized the need for a "common public digital infrastructure layer" connecting national digital currencies.

While advocates tout benefits like financial inclusion and reduced transaction costs, critics warn that CBDCs could enable unprecedented governmental control over individual financial activities. These concerns include:

• Total surveillance: Governments gaining complete visibility into all transactions
• Programmable money: Currency that can be restricted to specific purchases or vendors
• Time-limited currency: Money programmed to expire if not spent within designated periods
• Instant confiscation: Ability to freeze or seize funds without judicial process
• Financial exclusion: Potential to disconnect "undesirable" individuals from the economic system

Stanford University Professor Darrell Duffie warns: "With CBDC, the central bank can see all transactions. Imagine that data about what you buy is collected and used to evaluate your 'social credit,' as is already happening in China. This can radically change the relationship between citizens and the state."

The convergence of the IMF's enthusiasm for CBDCs with its history of imposing conditions on sovereign nations raises important questions about the future of financial freedom and national autonomy.

What does the future hold for global finance?

As we approach what may be the end of the Bretton Woods era, several possible futures present themselves:

Harvard University Professor of International Political Economy Dani Rodrik proposes a concept of "reasonable globalization" that would provide more autonomy for national governments, limit capital mobility to reduce financial crises, recognize diverse economic models rather than imposing a single template, and reform international financial institutions to better represent developing countries.

Economist Robert Skidelsky, biographer of John Maynard Keynes, envisions a new global monetary system featuring a basket of reserve currencies with weights reflecting countries' shares in world trade, mechanisms for symmetrical correction of current account imbalances, global regulation of capital flows, and an international lender of last resort that would provide liquidity without imposing structural reforms.

My own research suggests we're moving toward a more multipolar financial system, with regional blocs developing their own financing mechanisms and payment systems. Whether this leads to greater equity or simply replaces Western dominance with new forms of dependency remains an open question.

What's clear is that the current system—with the IMF at its center—has failed to deliver on its promises of economic stability and development for many countries. As London School of Economics Professor Robert Wade notes: "The IMF creates a cycle of dependence. Countries take loans to repay previous loans, while privatizing their assets and reducing social spending. This is not a path to development, but a road to eternal debt bondage."

Conclusion: Breaking the Debt Cycle

The evidence is clear: countries that follow IMF prescriptions often find themselves trapped in cycles of debt and dependency that benefit creditor nations and financial institutions rather than local populations. As I have documented extensively in How the IMF Manipulates Countries, there is a consistent pattern of economic deterioration following IMF intervention.

Yet alternative models exist. Countries like Malaysia during the Asian crisis, Bolivia under Evo Morales, and Iceland after the 2008 financial crisis demonstrated that rejecting orthodox IMF policies can lead to faster recovery and more equitable outcomes. These examples share common elements: maintaining control over key economic sectors, limiting speculative capital flows, investing in social programs, diversifying economies, and preserving policy autonomy.

The question facing the world today is not whether the IMF model is failing, but what will replace it in the emerging multipolar financial order. Will we see a genuinely more democratic and development-oriented system, or simply new forms of economic domination? The answer depends not just on the actions of powerful states and institutions, but on the ability of citizens worldwide to understand these complex dynamics and demand greater accountability from those who shape the global economic architecture.

Share This Article

Subscribe to Newsletter

Available Now