(Untitled)

[malefax]

I've been reading "The Fate of Africa", by Martin Meredith -- very interesting history. One of the things that I've gotten from it is the origin of IMF austerity programs. Basically, after African countries gained their independence in the fifties and sixties, they generally instituted presidential one-party systems, which went on to treat the

Comments

[malefax]

From my reading, the various organisations of African states were politically meaningless. Since countries owe debt, not regional associations, and countries run budgets and control fiscal policy, IMF intervention tends to work on a country by country basis. You can't lend money to the OAS.

What would be interesting would be if such regional associations operated on their own initiative to deal with economic problems -- whether those of individual members or those affecting the region as a whole. OPEC is an example of a coalition of countries with shared economic interests that operate in a co-ordinated fashion to manage those interests for the joint benefit of members. It seems to me that most regional associations are economically toothless (I am no expert here) and my guess is that one reason why is that countries in the same region are likely to have as many differences as similarities in their economic situation and needs. Being able to work together despite differing economic needs and situations requires, among other things, a great deal of trust, goodwill, and finesse, and historically I think those have been insufficient to the task.

As for the introduction of the Brazilian Real, my cursory research indicates that it was a homegrown solution to runaway inflation that was instituted by a new finance minister (Fernando Cardoso) after 30 years of failed attempts. Foreign influence, if any, seems to have been limited to providing some of the ideas that were implemented. I can't comment on to what extent that occurred, though.