The big idea: Global development is shaped by big IGOs and IFIs. They can drive development — or impose policies that critics say harm the poor.
The main institutions
- The World Bank and IMF lend money and set conditions.
- The WTO writes trade rules.
- The UNDP runs development programmes.
- World Bank — lends money and gives grants for development projects (roads, schools, energy).
- IMF (International Monetary Fund) — lends to countries in financial crisis, usually with conditions.
- WTO (World Trade Organization) — writes and enforces the rules of world trade.
- UNDP (UN Development Programme) — runs development programmes and publishes the HDI.
Money comes with conditions: IFIs like the IMF and World Bank do not just give money — they attach conditionality: the borrowing country must make certain reforms (cut spending, privatise, open markets) to get the loan.
Supporters say
- The conditions ensure money is well spent.
Critics say
- The conditions can harm the poor.
- They override a country's own choices.
This is the heart of the debate over these institutions.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
These institutions are hugely powerful — their money and rules shape whole economies. But that power is unevenly shared, and their record on development is fiercely debated.
How IGOs and IFIs help development
The World Bank funds roads, power, schools and clean water; the IMF can stabilise a country in financial crisis; the WTO gives poorer countries access to world markets and a rules-based system; and the UNDP runs health, education and governance programmes — providing money, expertise and coordination that poor countries could not manage alone.
Why critics attack them
Critics say IFI conditions (austerity, privatisation, rapid market-opening) have harmed the poor, that rich countries dominate their voting and rules, that trade rules favour the powerful, and that their one-size-fits-all policies ignore local realities — so the institutions can serve rich-country interests rather than development.
Case study — IFI loans and their conditions: When a country faces a financial crisis and turns to the IMF for a loan, the money typically comes with conditions: cut public spending, privatise state industries, open markets.
Supporters argue
- The conditions restore stability.
- They stop waste.
Critics point out
- Austerity can mean cuts to health, education and food subsidies.
- These cuts hit the poorest hardest, sometimes sparking unrest.
- The reforms reflect the priorities of the rich countries that dominate the institution.
The lesson: IFIs bring vital finance and expertise, but their conditions and power structure mean their impact on development is genuinely contested.
The key point: IGOs and IFIs (World Bank, IMF, WTO, UNDP) are powerful development actors that provide money, rules and expertise — but their conditions and the fact that rich countries dominate them mean their impact is debated: they can drive development or impose harmful, one-size-fits-all policies.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
Do global institutions help or harm development? And are they fair, or do they serve the rich? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
The fairness problem
Voting power in the IMF and World Bank is weighted by economic size, so rich countries hold most of the votes, and WTO rules can favour powerful economies — so critics argue the institutions are undemocratic and tilted toward the interests of the wealthy.
The case for reform, not abolition
Defenders argue the institutions do essential work no one else can — funding, crisis lending, trade rules — so the answer is to reform them (fairer voting, gentler conditions, more local input) rather than to abolish them.
One view
- Global institutions are essential engines of development.
- They bring money, stability, rules and expertise.
Another view
- They impose harmful conditions.
- They serve the rich.
Two perspectives — weigh them: Strong essays judge that IGOs and IFIs do vital work but have a genuinely mixed record. So the realistic conclusion is usually reform — fairer voting and gentler, locally-sensitive conditions — rather than abolition or blind faith.
How IGOs and IFIs come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether institutions like the IMF and World Bank help or harm development, or whether they are fair. Weigh their vital functions against conditionality and rich-country dominance, then judge.
The 15-mark markband (what moves you up)
Bands 1–6
Mostly descriptive; perspectives not identified.
avoid
Bands 7–9
Clear knowledge, but perspectives identified, not explored.
7–9
Bands 10–12
Well-supported argument; perspectives explored.
10–12
Bands 13–15
Balanced, compelling; perspectives explored AND evaluated.
13–15
Discuss the view that international financial institutions do more harm than good to development.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Treating the institutions as all-good or all-evil. Weigh both.
2. Confusing them. World Bank (projects) ≠ IMF (crisis loans) ≠ WTO (trade rules).
3. Ignoring conditionality and voting power. They drive the debate.
4. Listing conditionalities. Weigh a named programme's costs against its results.
5. No judgement. Conclude — usually reform, not abolition.