inequality and the troika March 19, 2014Posted by Bradley in : inequality , trackback
Last week the European Parliament adopted a highly critical resolution on Employment and social aspects of the role and operations of the Troika (a resolution based in part on input from people affected by the policies in question). For example the resolution regrets:
that the conditionality imposed in return for the financial assistance has threatened the EU’s social objectives for several reasons: the EU was ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the problems that arose, not least the immense sovereign debt crisis, a situation that demanded an immediate response in order to avoid bankruptcy; while the programmes are of specific duration, a number of the measures stipulated under these programmes shouldn’t have been long-term in nature; the measures are particularly burdensome, mainly because the worsening of the economic and social situation was not noticed in time, because little time was allowed to implement them, and because proper impact assessments were not made of their distributional impact on different groups of society; despite appeals by the Commission, EU funds left over from 2007-2013 framework have not been used in a prompt manner; the measures could have been accompanied by better efforts to protect vulnerable groups, such as measures to prevent high levels of poverty, deprivation and health inequalities resulting from the fact that low income groups are especially dependant on public health systems
Ironically, on the same day the IMF Survey Magazine contained an article with the title Sound Policy Design: the Efficient Way to Cut Inequality which cited the IMF’s recent staff discussion Redistribution, Inequality,
and Growth and policy paper on Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality. This work suggests that inequality was a factor which contributed to the onset of the crisis. But, as the European Parliament points out, the IMF’s responses to the crisis have also exacerbated inequality in the “rescued” countries.