A Phrases concerning the-history-role/activities-nature of the IMF B Phrases concerning – subjective economic and political concepts – local policy – international policy.
Here's my summary of the kind of language used:
1. Quasi-intellectual terms ("big words for a dismal science"), e.g. disequilibrium, comprehensive analysis, policy strategy;
2. Spin-doctoring euphemisms, e.g. promote, facilitate, balance, co-operation, safeguards, monitoring, responsibilities, precautionary arrangements, endorsement, benchmarks. This also includes intimidating terms such as "surveillance";
3. Distancing terms, e.g. members, general economic situation, policy strategy.
(1) Is simply pretension. The average "comprehensive analysis" undertaken by the IMF is often curiously selective and self-serving.
Sam:
Not to mention cursory "kangaroo-court" economic judgements replete with clear contempt and disregard for the "natives". The latter are held to be cheats who are merely trying to extort as much money as they can and probably stash it in Swiss bank accounts (private ones, needless to say).
Tom:
(2) Is the most obnoxious section. These phrases mislead. They paint a picture of the stability and democracy that supposedly is Western capitalism. They paint an image of the IMF as a fair, unbiased, caring, and democratic organisation. These phrases also confuse in that they connect "nice terms" (like balance, co-operation and safeguards) with complicated and subjective economic terms. Thus the language often functions as a "pacifier", or perhaps as a "chaser", softening the blow of the "hard stuff".