Predicted Paper 3 Global · Q3B · 30-mark essay

The IMF and the World Bank

"Evaluate the view that the IMF and the World Bank do more harm than good. (30 marks)"

1. What a 30-mark essay wants

This is a 30-mark Section B essay, marked across AO1, AO2 and AO3. You must reach and sustain a clear line of argument.

Spec hook. Global governance: economic institutions; the power and effectiveness of international organisations. There is no source.

Build the answer around three themes. For each, set the strongest case on both sides and reach an interim judgement that points to your line of argument.

2. The case that they do more harm than good

The view rests on three strong points.

Conditionality. IMF loans come with structural adjustment conditions - austerity, privatisation and liberalisation - which critics argue harm the poorest and deepen recessions.
A democratic deficit. Voting is weighted by economic size, so wealthy states, above all the United States, dominate. By convention the IMF is led by a European and the World Bank by an American.
A one-size-fits-all model. The Washington Consensus applied a similar free-market package to very different economies, and the results have been uneven.

3. The case that they do more good than harm

The opposing case is genuine and must be argued at full strength.

Crisis stability. The IMF acts as a lender of last resort, providing emergency finance that can stop a national crisis spreading.
Development finance. The World Bank funds infrastructure and poverty reduction on a scale no single donor matches.
Reform and adaptation. Both bodies have softened conditionality and given more weight to poverty and to emerging economies than in the structural adjustment era.

4. The three themes

Theme	More harm	More good
Conditionality	Austerity harms the poor; deepens downturns	Stabilises crises; loans need safeguards
Governance and legitimacy	Weighted voting; Western dominance	Expertise and pooled resources; some reform
Development outcomes	Debt and dependency; uneven record	Infrastructure and finance no alternative provides

Line of argument. A defensible line: the view is overstated. The IMF and World Bank do real harm through conditionality and an unequal governance structure, but on balance they do more good than harm, because they provide crisis stability and development finance that no alternative currently offers.

5. Writing the answer

State your line of argument briefly in the introduction. Take each theme as a paragraph: the strongest counter-case, then your rebuttal, then an interim judgement. Keep the conclusion short and evaluative.

AO3 discipline. Every theme must reach a judgement that leads to your overall line. Listing criticisms and defences without deciding scores in the lower bands.