FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The IMF After Strauss-Kahn

London.

In France, Dominique Strauss-Kahn epitomised to the point of self-parody the “gauche caviar” (champagne socialism): the Marrakech riad, the libertine lifestyle and a very, very wealthy wife. If Christine Lagarde succeeds him as director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), there will no doubt be a radical change of style within the institution. To start with, the media will no longer have to cover extra-marital affairs with subordinates or worse. Strauss-Kahn’s flamboyant leadership will be replaced with a more down-to-earth one.

Lagarde has the discreet charm of the French bourgeoisie. Her uptight and sometimes demure manners will offer a stark contrast with Strauss-Kahn’s bling and brash personality. The French finance minister should be a great hit in Washington: she speaks an American-accented English, studied in the US and worked as congressional assistant. The financial media have adored her for a while: in 2009, the Financial Times ranked her the best finance minister of the eurozone, and Forbes magazine named her the 17th most powerful woman in the world. But if her record as finance minister is anything to go by, she should definitely not be given the job.

Elusively Gallic, but emphatically orthodox when it comes to economic choices, her appointment would signal a return to textbook monetarist policies. The 55-year-old former corporate lawyer has no background in economics. After graduating in law, she became the first female chairman of the law firm Baker & McKenzie in 1999. She was also the first female minister in charge of economic policy in France. But should speaking fluent English, being a woman and European qualify Lagarde as next IMF director?

It is, indeed, astonishing that one the major architects of the punitive and ineffective bailouts in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, should now found herself at the helm of the IMF. The European Union has proved incapable of designing a proper anti-crisis policy for the eurozone. Both the US administration and the IMF had to intervene to prompt a Franco-German led eurozone to take steps to prevent an impending catastrophe. In May 2010, the EU eventually launched the ?700bn Financial Stability Mechanism. Not only did the funds prove insufficient to reach their stabilising objective, but a lack of leadership was also blatantly exposed. While Germany urged more austerity measures on Greece, Ireland and Portugal, Christine Lagarde warned Greece that it was at risk of default if “it didn’t do more to bring its public finances into order.” No doubt that the quasi-bankrupt Greek government will have found it helpful.

First, Lagarde sided with the European Central Bank in opposing any form of restructuring of the Greek debt. Then, she softened her stance and agreed to a new bailout along the same austerity lines that made the previous bailout fail. In true neoliberal fashion, the candidate to the IMF directorship supported the idea that Greece should privatise state assets, to be sold to Chinese buyers. These failed policies have inflicted nothing but unnecessary suffering on European peoples, and have largely contributed to boosting a resurgent far right across Europe. Lagarde was one of their main instigators.

As finance minister, Lagarde has mostly been the executor of Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies. It is hard to find one single decision, debate or policy that she has initiated or imposed her mark on. At home, her voice has hardly been heard in economic debates, let alone in political debates in general.
Lagarde’s choice as IMF director seems all the more inappropriate insofar as she could soon be placed under investigation for having allegedly misused her powers to help Bernard Tapie ? a former business tycoon and friend of Sarkozy ? in a business dispute with the French state (whose interests Lagarde was supposed to represent). In an out-of-court arbitration ordered by Lagarde, the state was made to pay ?403m to Tapie. Socialist MPs have challenged the probity of her decision, arguing that to remove the case from the courts was largely to Tapie’s benefit. This, they consider, “had the aim of favouring personal interests to the detriment of public interest.”

Last week, Jean-Louis Nadal, the public prosecutor of the court of cassation (France’s highest court of appeal), has ensured that details of the role played by Christine Lagarde in the Tapie dossier be made public. In an 18-page document, Nadal backed the Socialist MPs’ allegations and stated that “Lagarde had indeed acted in a way to defeat the law … and to help Tapie gain a favourable decision, against an earlier judgment of the court of cassation [which had been favourable to the state].” After the Strauss-Kahn fiasco, the IMF might be embarking on a Lagarde debacle.

Philippe Marli?re is a Professor of French and European politics at University College, London (UK). He is a regular contributor to The Guardian, Le Monde and Le Monde Diplomatique. He can be reached at p.marliere@ucl.ac.uk.

 

More articles by:

Philippe Marlière is a Professor of French and European Politics at University College London (UK). Twitter: @PhMarliere

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savoir
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail