Civil Disobedience

In 1994, the World Bank published its report Adjustments in Africa: Reforms, Results,

and the Road Ahead in response to the growing worldwide criticism that International Monetary

Fund (IMF) and the World Bank contributed to the economic decline of Sub-Saharan Africa

(Rempel, 482). The report proclaimed the success of the World Bank’s macro-economic policies

in the African countries under Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP). SAP which is

implemented in 1980 aimed “to promote economic stabilization and structural changes, and to

improve foreign investments and reduce government expenses” (Dia Sow, 23). It was composed

of economic and political reforms that will alleviate the socio-economic conditions of African

countries. Proponents of SAP optimistically argued that through the proper implementation of

SAP conditionalities, there will be an assurance of economic growth which then “leads to the

overall improvement in the social conditions of the people” (Vida, 1). This assertion is reinforced

by the World Bank report which emphasized the positive socio-economic impact in countries

that implemented and complied “conditionalities” that accompanied the loans under SAP.

Stefano Ponte explained that the report implies that “better policy quality favors higher rates

growth” (541). Simply, the countries that applied superior degree of implementation and

provided greater effort in implementing the policies of IMF and World Bank gained better

results. However, the report does not provide a reflection of reality. Social development is hardly

seen in the continent. Africa continuously experiences economic drought, social unrest, and

political instability. The conditionalities imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on their

economic recovery programs played fundamental role in the social, political, and economic

disaster in Africa.
 The first conditionality imposed to African governments is the general fiscal austerity.

Kevin Shillington explained, “Governments were required to balance their budget” (448). This

precondition aimed to reduce government spending to avoid additional loans that may possibly

augment financial responsibilities. The impact of the austerity measures was felt in the cuts of

government services. According to Brian Crisp and Michael Kelly, “Prices of goods and services

rise as subsidies for food, transport, energy, and other items are removed” (542). Additionally,

thousands of government employees lost their jobs as governments reduced their services. This

helped increase the unemployment rate in Africa. The drastic cut in government budget resulted

to inevitable growth of poverty and inequality in the African regions.

Civil disobedience and widespread violence are the end result of broken social contract.

Frances Stewart explained that “social stability is based on hypothetical social contract between

the people and the government” (343). As long as the government delivers the services that are

required from them, civil disobedience is less likely to occur. If the government is able to

provide the reasonable economic and social conditions among its constituents, widespread

violence is prevented. However, once economic decline is experienced, social unrest can be

expected. Stewart claimed that “programmes from the International Monetary Fund – usually

associated with cuts in government services – cause conflicts” (344). His assertion is supported

by economic studies which demonstrated the relationship of incidence of conflicts and declining

economy of developing countries.