By – Hritika Mishra

Abstract:

This article looks at how the legacy of colonialism endures in the contemporary world economy through debt-based control exerted by international organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Although the mid-twentieth century saw the termination of direct colonial authority throughout Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, economic sovereignty for these regions continued to be limited. The shift from empires to international lending turned overt conquest into contractual dependence. Through conditionalities attached to loans such as privatization, trade openness, and austerity, these organizations influence domestic policies within borrowing nations frequently at the expense of local concerns as well as democratic self-governance. The article employs Ghana’s history with debt as a case study in tracing how structural adjustment programs that began as tools of economic stability consolidated inequality and cemented dependence on external financing. The analysis places these trends within a broader neo-colonial framework as it contends that contemporary debt conditionalities serve control tools not dissimilar from those under pre-existing imperial governance. It terminates with calls for structural reform within international finance organizations, fair Global South representation as well as regional as well as South–South financial cooperation strengthening. True decolonization as argued within this article entails not simply political liberation but economic liberation from within the debt-driven hierarchies which continue informing international power relations.

Introduction:

In the nineteenth century, colonial powers seized control of territories through conquest and coercion. Today, control often arrives through contracts and conditions. When nations across Asia and Africa won independence, flags changed, anthems rose, and borders were redrawn. Yet economic independence remained elusive. Decades later, many of those same nations now negotiate their budgets in Washington, not their capitals. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank, born in the name of global cooperation, often dictate reforms that weaken domestic priorities in favour of the global North. Privatization, deregulation, and austerity are sold as modern necessities, but their effect is painfully familiar: dependency. This article argues that the debt-based global order represents a continuation of colonial domination, dressed in the language of fiscal discipline and progress.

Historical Continuities:

After decolonization, political power, which used to rest with colonial capitals like London and Paris, has now shifted to institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which now operate as arbiters of economic policy. European colonial powers such as Britain, France, and Belgium dominated major parts of Asia and Africa between the 17^th and 20^th centuries. The colonies served as sources of raw materials for European industries and as markets for the manufactured products they produced. This had major consequences for the colonies, as their economies were restructured to serve imperial needs, leading to the suppression of local industries and creating a dependency on the colonizer for capital, markets, and technology. 

By the mid-20^th century, most nations across Asia and Africa won independence, and borders were redrawn. This independence promised them freedom, but for many postcolonial states, the freedom arrived incomplete. While decolonization ended direct political control, the colonial economic structures persisted. These newly independent states inherited economies that were heavily shaped by colonial trade patterns, such as unequal terms of trade that were maintained by the global system. Colonial powers thus shifted to indirect influence through bilateral aid and loans and trade agreements that favoured the global north. 

At the end of World War II, the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. These institutions were made to focus on post-war reconstruction and to help avoid economic collapse. Over time, both institutions became major lenders to developing countries. Currently, loans often carry conditionalities that require the borrowing countries to implement specific economic reforms before receiving funds. These conditions are often based on the principles of neoliberal economic ideologies such as privatization, trade liberalization, deregulation, etc., and have become a modern tool of economic control. Colonialism extracted resources and dictated the economic policies through direct political rule. Modern debt conditionality functions as a subtle form of neo-colonialism and shapes the domestic policies of borrowing nations to benefit foreign powers. 

The conditionality trap:

These loans are often depicted as lifelines to help struggling economies; however, they often come with instructions for economic transformation dictated by lenders. Once a country accepts an international loan, the conditionalities often extend beyond repayment schedules and come with conditions that reshape entire countries. Common conditions include privatizing state-owned enterprises, cutting subsidies for essentials such as fuel and food, liberalizing trade, and deregulating markets. The conditions are described to be tools for efficiency, fiscal discipline, and growth; however, they often deepen dependency and erode sovereignty.

Ghana’s debt history serves as a significant example illustrating how loan conditionality operates as a mechanism of economic control over the years. During the 1980s, Ghana carried out several reforms, including eliminating subsidies, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and liberalizing trade, to obtain a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Although these actions stabilized macroeconomic metrics, they exacerbated inequality, strained public services, and reinforced external reliance.

Even after many years, Ghana continues to heavily depend on foreign funding. In June 2025, the World Bank sanctioned a $360 million loan to aid Ghana’s national budget, enhance social safety nets, and combat poverty, bringing total disbursements under the program to $660 million. A month later, the IMF released $367 million as part of a $3 billion rescue plan approved in 2023, raising total IMF assistance to approximately $2.3 billion. These loans include conditions for fiscal reform, reflecting previous SAP requirements. Critics contend that these arrangements limit Ghana’s policy independence, compelling it to focus on debt repayment rather than public investment.

Sovereignty in Shackles:

Debt conditionality is not just an economic agreement; it represents a significant political limitation. When countries take loans from entities such as the IMF or World Bank, they relinquish substantial authority over their financial plans and policy objectives. Choices regarding taxes, subsidies, and public expenditure are frequently influenced by creditor discussions or Washington, D.C., rather than being made in local legislatures. This weakens democratic accountability, since elected governments adopt reforms imposed by outside lenders instead of their constituents. This dynamic reflects colonial governance: both assert they operate for the sake of development while exerting control in the name of guidance.

Conclusion:

Altering this pattern necessitates reevaluating the structure of international finance. Reforming institutions like the IMF and World Bank to guarantee fair voting rights and representation for borrowing countries is an essential initial action. Regional options, like the African Development Bank or BRICS Bank, provide avenues to lessen reliance on conventional lenders. Efforts for debt cancellation and movements for debt justice need to be broadened to address the structural inequality in worldwide lending. South–South collaboration can foster financial systems based on mutual respect instead of exploitation. Colonialism used to harvest resources; neo-colonialism harvests futures. The struggle for true sovereignty requires fundamental reform and a rethinking of global economic governance.

Author’s Bio:

Hritika Mishra is a second-year student in the five-year integrated law programme at Jindal Global Law School. Her research interests lie in law, policy, and social justice, with a particular focus on gender rights, child and youth justice, and the role of legal systems in promoting equitable outcomes.

Image Source: https://www.counterview.net/2025/08/how-imf-conditionalities-sow-seeds-that.html