Similarly in Uganda, researchers point out that loans secured from the World Bank and IMF during the pandemic came in exchange for the adoption of policy and institutional reforms. Researchers describe how the IFIs’ influence included “prescriptions for government to take a hands-off approach to the country’s development and to place greater priority on the oil and gas sector.” The fast-tracked extractivist projects supported by IFIs within the country’s oil and gas sector have had major negative impacts on the livelihoods of surrounding local communities and led to massive physical and economic You can’t have a recovery with the same bad medicine. What we can see of IFIs’ track record in the COVID-19 response, and prior to, calls into question their role in the recovery and in addressing any future crises. Many actors are looking at the recovery as a chance to make windfall profits, and governments and corporate leaders are already selling old extractive projects and corporate boondoggles as the solution to restarting their economies. displacement, with women the most adversely affected.39 THE ABILITY OF COUNTRIES AND COMMUNITIES TO IFIs’ COVID-19 response risks driving countries further into debt crisis, undermining any chance for a sustainable recovery. IFI loans have contributed to skyrocketing public debt for developing and middle income countries. In order to meet debt obligations, governments are increasingly adopting austerity measures and cuts to social spending. In 2020, Bangladesh received around 2.0 billion USD from the IMF and other multilateral development partners, a large part of which was meant for pandemic response. Yet researchers point out how Bangladesh’s growing foreign debt has undermined both its COVID-19 response and the possibility of recovery. “Fiscal constraints have limited the government’s ability to protect the population.” Currently, for each US dollar paid to creditors, Bangladesh can only afford to invest 41 cents on public education and healthcare. By 2023, 98% RECOVER FROM THE COVID-19 CRISIS WILL NOT BE DETERMINED BY TOP-DOWN, ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PRESCRIPTIONS. Some civil society groups are working to push the IFIs to change, to support a more sustainable and peoplecentered recovery, shifting to grant and concessional non-conditional lending and rebuilding social protection systems. Others are looking for alternatives to the IFI architecture and crisis capitalism, including south-south cooperation, decentralized systems of solidarity and mutual aid, a greater role for rights-based and humanitarian institutions, and multilateral funds for debt relief and social security. What is clear is that the ability of countries and communities to recover from the COVID-19 crisis and the longstanding ecological and equity crises will not be determined by top-down, onesize-fits-all prescriptions. It will depend on creative solutions that are developed from the ground up and accountable to communities and civil society, especially those who will most bear the effects of these crises. of government revenues will go to debt payments.40 An Oxfam analysis of IMF COVID-19 support to 85 countries found that 85% of loan agreements indicate government plans to undertake austerity measures once the pandemic health crisis abates.41 39 “Research on the Influence of International Financial Institutions on Uganda’s COVID – 19 Recovery Agenda”, SEATINI, November 2021. 40 Country Assessment Report on COVID-19 Recovery Loans Provided by Bilateral and Multilateral Financial Institution in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt, Change Initiative and NGO Forum on ADB, August 2021 41 “Adding Fuel to Fire: How IMF demands for austerity will drive up inequality worldwide”, Oxfam International, August 11, 2021, https:// policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/adding-fuel-to-fire-how-imfdemands-for-austerity-will-drive-up-inequality-worl-621210/. WHERE DID INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS’ COVID-19 FUNDING GO? 11