Rui Verde says there is a "simple technical-methodological problem" that stems from "the paradigm the IMF follows for its interventions having nothing to do with Africa," since it "is based on theoretical models of the functioning of an advanced market economy in the West that fail to take into account the history, institutional context, knowledge of local communities, and the entire sociopolitical framework of Africa."
In an analysis of the IMF's various interventions in Angola, titled "IMF in Angola: A History of Failures," the researcher at the University of Paris Cité and the University of Oxford reviews the technical and financial assistance programs in sub-Saharan Africa's second-largest oil producer and emphasizes the lack of reforms that transform the economy and do not focus solely on improving public finances and macroeconomic indicators.
"The IMF's intervention in 2021 helped Angola avoid an immediate financial crisis, but it did not resolve the structural problems that prevent the country from achieving inclusive and resilient growth; the lack of diversification, institutional fragility, and the absence of a clear strategy to combat poverty and inequality continue to limit Angola's economic potential," argues the also member of Chatham House.
One example he points to is the defense of the removal of fuel subsidies, one of several unpopular measures the IMF has advocated for Angola, as well as for other African countries, arguing that this state spending should be channeled into investment and support for the most disadvantaged segments of the population.
This measure, says Rui Verde, "appears to have a financial rationale of saving public spending, and many economists support it. However, the reality is that it significantly worsens the people's standard of living, which is already fragile, has cascading inflationary consequences, and makes little sense when the fuel distribution market does not operate competitively, but has a structure of oligopolistic dominance."
Furthermore, he continues, "the State maintains operating expenses promoted by the regime's elites that are unsustainable and absurd, which creates fundamental imbalances in the Angolan political-economic system that the IMF is either unaware of or unwilling to understand."
The researcher insists that "the failure of IMF programs in Angola" has deep roots that go beyond merely economic issues—they involve historical, political, epistemological, and institutional dimensions, resulting from having designed the programs "based on standardized macroeconomic models, focused on fiscal stability and market liberalization, often ignoring the unique contexts of African economies."
The Fund, he concludes, also fails "by underestimating the complexity of African institutions," characterized by "a lack of administrative capacity, the prevalence of systemic corruption, and state capture by political elites."
These problems, he believes, are not sufficiently addressed in technical and financial assistance programs, which should be "creating a new economy, not applying recipes from one model to a completely different one."
