Certainly, the IMF helped South Korea out of its economic crisis and the nation has almost recovered to its previous affluence, but there is still widespread opposition to IMF loans. Many concerned members of the global community openly attack “the presumptuousness of the IMF package that forced structural reforms on local governments, demands that vastly exceed the authority of the IMF, which best serves as the lender of last resort. Whatever structural reforms may be appropriate, they are the jurisdiction of the local governments, not the IMF.” (Ha and Teahyun, 63) However, the mandates for structural reform did bring South Korea out of its economic crisis and expand its economic potential. A writer for The Economist pointed out that, “For all their national loathing of the IMF, Koreans’ response to the crisis was to embrace the IMF’s financial reforms and make them their own, from the newly elected government to banking and business leaders, and even to the unions, which eventually acquiesced in many of the changes.” (The Lost (Half) Decade, The Economist) The controversy surrounding IMF involvement in foreign countries is ironic; the resuscitation of South Korea’s dwindling economy is evidence of the effectiveness of IMF policies.
