Ever since Donald Trump has come in power in U.S.A his economic policies and outlook have been making headlines. Trumps stand on multilateral institutions has been a topic of hot contention among the economists of the world. Some say this stand of Trump can be motivated by IMF’s dissing of his tax reforms which he talked about during his presidential election campaign. After statement such as withdrawal from funding the multilateralism institution, a certain bit of scepticism has crept in the countries of the world who are part of such institutions.
When Trump pulled out of TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) it made headlines. Trump’s favouritism towards bilateral negotiations was one of the main reasons behind this move. Trump stands on a firm point of view that bilateral negotiations are more viable economically as it only involves just two parties, who also are the parties concerned. Trump and his administration have said that bilateral negotiations are easier to negotiate. Plus, U.S.A will have high leverage in such negotiations. China’s engagement primarily in bilateral negotiations is also a major reason why they want to indulge in such a practice.
Some debate Trump’s administration has this stand because of the populist outlook of the government. As multilateral negotiations hamper the very essence of this notion.
Multilateral institutions have a very big impact on the economy of the globe. An institution like WTO (World Trade Organisation) helps in creating international standards as well as create the efficiency advantages of a broader market. Institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund give loans to its member nation to help them mild down any economic issue which they might be facing. World bank especially gives lots of funds to countries facing problems like malnutrition, poverty etc.
Multilateral institutions have their share of criticism as far as some saying that they fund corrupted countries and funds which they give is not sufficient. Criticism also is done regarding their policies, as they fund only large-scale infrastructure, not small-scale ones which may actually help the poor. IMF on other hand faces criticism as the amount which they lend is not that big and at times insufficient
Both bilateral negotiations and multilateral negotiations have their pro and cons. It’s a good thing that countries have both these tools in their toolbox. Howsoever, Trump push may hit relevance of these institutions but the sheer participation of almost all countries in these institutions outweigh it. More leaders with similar outlook may hamper multilateral institutions and their relevance.
- Loves to read books and play video games. Also a science enthusiast with interest in astrophysics and astronomy.