ammonnews.net

I first encountered the term "administrative dust" during a side conversation with one of the administrative experts at the King Hussein Business Park in the Dead Sea area. This was during a break at the tenth edition of the Middle East and North Africa ICT Forum, organized with great efficiency by the "Int@j" association, in partnership with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship and the Ministry of Investment, on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. I had the privilege of attending this event upon a kind invitation from the organizers.

The term caught my attention, and I found it intriguing, even though it isn’t commonly used as a direct translation in English.

However, its concept can be expressed using similar terms like "administrative chaos," which refers to management disarray. "Administrative dust" is a figurative term with a unique linguistic flavor in Arabic, reflecting the confusion or disarray that institutions may face.

I wanted to connect this term to an intriguing question posed by Dr. Jawad Anani in his recent article titled "The Implications of Trump's Economic Policy for America and the Arab World," published on the Al-Araby Al-Jadeed website on Thursday, November 21, 2024. Dr. Anani asked: "Will President Trump, his economists, and his ministers pressure international financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank to replace the currently applied Keynesian model with Milton Friedman's model, which advocates reducing the size and role of governments, lowering taxes, and minimizing market intervention?"

This question led me to ponder the connection between this newly introduced term and what could be described as "external administrative dust," referring to the potential impact of U.S. policies on the operations of the IMF and the World Bank.

The discussion of administrative dust here is not limited to internal disarray within institutions but extends to external interventions that may lead to priority disruptions and destabilization of these organizations' fundamental orientations. The Trump administration, with its "America First" approach, raised widespread concerns about the possibility of imposing political pressures on these institutions, which might push them to adopt policies serving U.S. interests at the expense of developing countries—the primary beneficiaries of IMF and World Bank support.

Thus, administrative dust could manifest in disrupted priorities, weakened internal governance, and global trust erosion in these institutions' independence. The Trump administration is not the only example of U.S. presidents intervening in these organizations' affairs. As the largest contributor, the U.S. has long used its influence to shape their policies.

For instance, during Reagan's era (1981–1989), the U.S. supported strict austerity policies imposed by the IMF on developing countries, resulting in deep social and economic crises in those nations. Similarly, during George W. Bush's presidency (2001–2009), World Bank funds were directed toward politically motivated projects like Iraq's reconstruction, drawing widespread criticism for using international funding to achieve U.S. geopolitical objectives.

Despite Trump focusing on reducing international commitments during his previous tenure (2017–2021), his administration did not shy away from influencing these institutions' policies to reflect U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

If U.S. intervention persists, other member states may find themselves in a difficult position, facing reduced assistance and growing divisions within these institutions. Such a scenario could push some countries to explore alternatives, such as strengthening cooperation with other economic powers like China or reducing reliance on these organizations altogether. However, diminishing U.S. influence is no easy feat, given the substantial impact the U.S. wields in vote distribution and global policy formulation.

To mitigate the impact of external administrative dust, the IMF and the World Bank must take decisive steps to preserve their independence. Among these measures are enhancing internal governance, reconsidering the voting system to reduce the excessive influence of a single state, and encouraging member states to form robust alliances to defend the institutions' autonomy.

Ultimately, "administrative dust" is not just a figurative term describing disarray but a reflection of real challenges faced by international institutions amidst political influences and external pressures. Maintaining the independence of the IMF and the World Bank requires a collective commitment from member states to ensure these institutions continue supporting the global economy free from political rivalries.