The global financial crisis might have changed other aspects of IMF policy, but when it comes to the treatment of foreign and domestic creditors, it is business as usual. In the current issue ofGovernance, Aitor Erce of the Bank of Spain argues that after the crisis, the IMF insisted that member states honor their commitments to foreign creditors, while being less rigorous about government commitments to domestic creditors and suppliers. “The Fund,” says Erce, “continues to privilege foreign creditors at the expense of domestic creditors.” Moreover the Fund does not fully understand how its policy aggravates the risk of economic dislocation and continued recession. Read the article.
The established view in political science is state first, and then democracy. . . . [But] the very introduction of democratic politics may contribute to the further development and strengthening of the state.
Giovanni Carbone and Vincenzo Memoli, Governance, January 2015
By Donald Moynihan. In recent contributions to Governance, Stephen Del Rosso and Richard French raise the alarm about the gap between the academics and policymakers. These are two different worlds, and its natural some gap exists, but it may not be quite the “canyon” suggested, and there are some practical steps we can take to bridge the gap.
First, Del Rosso and French’s concerns center on political science. While I will defer to other political scientists who wish to rebut their argument, its sufficient to note that political science is not the only field relevant to governance, and other fields, such as economics and public policy, do play a role in policymaking. Del Rosso ties the fall of political science on an “obsession with method.” I don’t think this is quite right. Better methods generally buy us better causal insights, and presumably policymakers care about this. Few doubt the influence of economists, who have been at the vanguard of methodological innovation.