Criticizing structural adjustment programmes

Civil society organizations and environment and development NGOs, in both industrial and developing countries, have led in criticism of structural adjustment efforts of the World Bank, which are often designed in Washington or with a borrowing government's finance ministry with little prior consultation of affected populations. Bank programmes and projects have been widely criticized for waste, environmental destruction, social dislocation and even corruption. A particular criticism is that the programmes do not benefit poor people or target poverty reduction. In response, the Bank has adopted a plan to increase popular participation in projects and policies; increased lending for health, education and population; cancelled several dam and large infrastructure projects which might have damaged the environment and displaced people; and initiated a joint Bank-NGO review of the social and economic impact of structural adjustment. However, it is claimed that changes in practice still lag behind changes in rhetoric and in policy.

1. Critics of the World Bank, especially environmentalists in the USA, have been responsible for the recent deep cuts in funding for low-interest loans for development through the IDA programme.

1. Providing artistic criticism
2. Criticizing

1. Slowing pace of structural adjustment
2. Developing sustainable development policy
3. Developing policy structures
4. Adopting integrated approaches to sustainable development

1. Training in structural adjustment policy

1. Facilitating economic structural adjustment

1. Mitigating social consequences of structural adjustment programmes
2. Enhancing political sustainability of structural adjustment policies

1. Deterioration of development process
2. Deteriorating balance between financial assistance and structural adjustment

1. Unsociable
2. Uneconomic
3. Criticism
4. Adjustment