Loans from the International Monetary Fund are often designed to help developing countries stabilise their economies and address financial crises. However, such assistance typically comes with conditions. Governments that receive IMF support are usually required to implement economic reforms intended to strengthen market competition and encourage private-sector growth. These reforms frequently involve reducing the role of the public sector and restructuring state-run services. According to David Cingranelli, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University, the prevailing assumption has long been that countries must accept a difficult transition away from state-led economic models toward more market-oriented systems in order to receive IMF assistance.

Cingranelli recently co-authored a study examining whether IMF programmes align national economic policies with what citizens actually want. The research, published in Socio-Economic Review, was conducted with Rod Abouharb of University College London and Bernhard Reinsberg of the University of Glasgow. Their work investigates whether IMF-supported reforms truly conflict with public opinion or whether, in some cases, they may actually reflect citizens’ economic preferences. The question revisits long-standing debates about whether IMF programmes primarily benefit international financial stability or impose policies that ordinary people in borrowing countries oppose.

In practice, IMF-backed reforms can require governments to eliminate or reduce programmes such as public employment schemes, food subsidies, or other welfare measures designed to support poorer populations. Policies may also involve privatising services like water systems or utilities, changes that often generate public controversy. The IMF, which consists of 191 member countries and is funded largely by wealthier democracies in Europe and North America, provides financial assistance, policy guidance, and technical expertise with the goal of promoting economic growth and stability. Countries apply for IMF loans during periods of fiscal stress, with the expectation that economic restructuring will help restore stability and encourage private-sector development.

Cingranelli has long studied the impact of IMF lending. In 2007, he and Abouharb published Human Rights and Structural Adjustment, which argued that IMF and World Bank programmes often harmed vulnerable populations. Their earlier work suggested that forcing governments to adopt unpopular economic policies could undermine democracy and fuel political instability. In that analysis, the IMF was portrayed as a “Bad Samaritan,” encouraging reforms that made life harder for ordinary citizens. However, the researchers later observed a puzzling pattern: countries receiving IMF structural adjustment loans were more likely to be procedurally democratic, meaning they protected basic rights such as voting, free speech, and press freedom.

This observation prompted Cingranelli to revisit the issue nearly two decades later with a more detailed empirical analysis. The new research shows that public attitudes toward IMF-style reforms vary depending on political systems. In many democracies, citizens tend to prefer stronger protections from market forces than those promoted by IMF programmes, which helps explain protests against reforms in countries such as Greece and Kenya. In contrast, surveys suggest that people living under authoritarian governments—including countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe—often desire greater economic freedom than their governments permit. In these cases, IMF programmes can actually move policy closer to public preferences.

The researchers found that when autocratic governments maintain tight control over economic activity, citizens may welcome reforms that expand private enterprise and market opportunities. Historical examples include several Eastern European countries that emerged from Soviet influence and strongly supported economic liberalisation. In such contexts, IMF lending can function as a “Good Samaritan,” helping push governments toward policies that citizens favour. Yet the overall picture remains complicated. IMF-driven reforms do not necessarily lead to greater democracy, even though democracies are more likely to receive IMF loans. As debates continue over the role of global institutions in development, the study highlights the importance of examining how economic reforms interact with both political systems and public preferences.

More information: Rod Abouharb et al, The role of IMF programs in aligning national economic policy with domestic preferences, Socio-Economic Review. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwaf093

Journal information: Socio-Economic Review Provided by Binghamton University