INTERNATIONAL financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank habitually lambast governments of developing countries for their fiscal profligacy and mercilessly chastise them for their lack of commitment to implement rapid and deep programmes of economic austerity.

The IMF is especially notorious for its lack of empathy with governments that will not cut budget expenditure and reduce public sector employment in the shortest possible time. If developing country governments fail to adhere to such austerity programmes they are raked over the coals for poor management, subsidising the poor, and corruption.

When the poor and, in many instances, the middle classes, cannot take any more reductions in their real standard of living, they often resort to anti-government riots and violence. Governments then attempt to restore order by use of their security forces and inevitably governments in developed countries rebuke developing countries for their wanton disregard for human rights.

The governments and people of developed countries criticise the rest of the world for irresponsible economic policies and repressive security policies, smug in their belief that their citizens are too civilised to riot and their security forces never have to use excessive force.

But there are social limits to enduring economic austerity in every society. People will behave the same way when they are unemployed and hungry. These suffering people are not “sick”, as British Prime Minister David Cameron believes, by which he meant they were not exhibiting the famous “stiff upper lip”.

If the British — who consider themselves and are considered by many to be a people famous for their democracy, the capacity to endure hardship and their stoic perseverance — can be pushed beyond the limit of economic endurance then it can happen anywhere. Africans do it, Latin Americans do it, Asians do it and yes, Europeans do it. First lesson is, people are the same everywhere.

The second lesson is that economic adjustment and austerity must be designed to be socially and politically feasible because of the social limits to economic austerity. That limit varies from society to society, depending on the level of economic development, the standard of living, which government social programmes are reduced or eliminated, and number of persons who become unemployed.

Perhaps the most important determinant is the period of time over which the austerity is to be accomplished. This belief that adjustment should be accomplished in the shortest possible time is an economic theory that bears no relationship to reality. It is really an invitation to a government to commit political suicide.

The third lesson is that the IMF must be realistic in the demands that it makes on governments everywhere, but in particular those in developing countries. Right here in Jamaica, the alternative is an administration which has shown antagonism to the Fund’s policy prescriptions. But no country should be asked to implement an IMF-designed economic austerity programme which goes beyond the social limits of endurance.

The substance and pace of adjustment must be within the social limits of economic austerity in Jamaica; if not, like everywhere else, there will riots. In that scenario nobody wins. The IMF will simply blame the victim, ie the government for not being willing to do the right thing.

Suicide is never the right option!