Does the IMF cause civil war? A comment
Does the IMF cause civil war? A comment
复制标题
国际货币基金组织会引发内战吗？
DOI：
10.1007/s11558-013-9167-z
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
I. Soysa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trude M. Midtgaard;K. Vadlamannati;I. Soysa
全球经济下滑加剧了人们对全球金融机构干预和政治稳定的担忧。Hartzell等人（International Organization 64：339-56，2010）发表的一篇文章声称，签署国际货币基金组织的结构调整计划（SAP）会增加内战的风险。作者声称，IMF的结构调整方案推动了自由化，这对人们的伤害严重到足以煽动内战。我们通过批判性地研究他们的理论和经验证据来推进辩论，特别是质疑他们关于国际货币基金组织计划对经济环境影响的关键假设，即谁实际上从自由化中获胜和失败，谁可能处于反叛的地位。使用他们的数据，我们发现，如果在定义内战时使用25人死亡的较低门槛，那么签署国际货币基金组织计划将对内战的爆发产生负面影响。这些结果表明，货币基金组织变量的可操作性以及使用大规模内战（1 000人死亡或以上）只是反映了持续冲突的影响，而不是自由化的影响。在延长了研究的时间段并对操作性进行了微小的修改后，我们发现货币基金组织的参与在任何时候都不能成功地预测内战的爆发。
The global economic downturn has heightened concerns about intervention by global financial institutions and political stability. One prominently-published article purports to show that signing on to an IMF structural adjustment program (SAP) increases the risk of civil war, Hartzell et al. (International Organization 64:339–56, 2010). The authors claim that IMF SAPs push liberalization, which hurts people badly enough that they foment civil war. We advance the debate by critically examining their theoretical and empirical evidence, particularly questioning their crucial assumptions about the impact of IMF programs on the economic environment in terms of who actually wins and loses from liberalization and who might be in a position to rebel. Using their data, we find that signing on to an IMF program predicts the onset of a civil war negatively if one uses a lower threshold of 25 deaths when defining civil war. These results suggest that the operationalization of the IMF variable as well as the use of large-scale civil war (1,000 deaths and above) simply capture the effect of ongoing conflict rather than the effects of liberalization. After extending the time period under study and making only minor changes to operationalization, we find that at no time does IMF involvement successfully predict the onset of a civil war.