Weekly Response Paper: Week Seven
Word Count: 720

There is a resounding amount of discontent directed at the core of structural adjustment, the World Bank theory created to aide in the improvement and progress of developing nations. Despite all the good intent through which it was created, this development policy seems to have done nothing but accentuate the havoc its subject countries currently find themselves in. Rapley classified this development theory as neoclassical, a strain of thought which ultimately accepts that there are winners and loser, this legitimized by the fact that the losers are using scarce resources in an inefficient manner. This is the nature of S.A.P. policy which seeks to accelerate growth and eliminate waste (Rapley 2002). The greatest enemy, as viewed by S.A.P. theory, is the state, therefore it aims to reduce its capacity to a secondary role in order to grant efficiency to the operation of markets; much of this done through programs such as fiscal austerity and privatization (Rapley 2002). As stated earlier, the good nature of these experiments are quite clearly seen. The World Bank approaches these situations with an end goal in mind: the stabilization of developing societies, an instance that, as they argue, cannot be achieved without the “foreign investment, increased powers and freedoms of entrepreneurs and investors, and increased incentives and competition;” (Rapley 2002) all of which are supposedly borne under the mantle of structural adjustment. Despite its supposed intent, pundits feel that the implementation of these said policies have had the converse effect on African economies, the end result of this being poorer economic performance (Rapley 2002). Schatz further develops the World Bank notion of harmful government as the cause of poor economic performance, the reasoning behind the implementation of S.A.Ps in