‘Structural adjustment’ has been a central part of the development strategy for the ‘third world’. Loans made by the World Bank and the IMF have been conditional on developing countries pursuing rapid economic liberalization programmes as it was believed this would strengthen their economies in the long run.
We argue that, conversely, structural adjustment agreements usually cause increased hardship for the poor, greater civil conflict, and more repression of human rights, therefore resulting in a lower rate of economic development. Greater exposure to structural adjustment has increased the prevalence of anti-government protests, riots and rebellion. It has led to less respect for economic and social rights, physical integrity rights, and worker rights, but more respect for democratic rights. Based on these findings, the authors recommend a human rights-based approach to economic development
Replication Dataset & Do File (Zip)
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Strategic Shift to Forced Disappearance
- Do Non–Human Rights Regimes Undermine the Achievement of Economic and Social Rights?
- The WTO helps member states keep the peace only when it increases trade
- Does the WTO Help Member States Clean Up?
- Does the WTO Help Member States Improve Governance?
- Is More Trade Always Better? The WTO & Human Rights in Conflict Zones
- De Facto Judicial Independence and Physical Integrity Rights
- The Paradox of the WTO: Development, Good Governance and Human Rights