BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare

Since Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences[1]. [1]Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf
The role of managing director

For its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund[1]. [1]Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html
Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making

Capitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise.  Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.
Gradual and abrupt change

To paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system[1]. Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8.  The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund. [1]Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html
Unbalanced decision making

The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort[1]. It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.   [1]Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html
It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence

The success of a student depends on many factors, like innate talent, the ability for hard work and concentration and socio-economic background. This means that any progress that a student can make is largely outside of a teacher's control. This will result in some teachers being rewarded just because they happen to teach in a good environment to 'advantaged' children whereas other teachers who do a good job in a bad environment to 'disadvantaged' children are just unlucky.
Teachers will attempt to cheat the system

Cheating is inevitable in any bureaucratic system that holds educational institutions accountable- in any way- for the outcomes of the educational processes that they supervise. Teachers will have an incentive to cheat the system, for example by altering students' test results or giving them easier tests.[1] On a more 'macro' scale, teachers will have an incentive to only want to teach at 'good' schools with 'advantaged' students who have both the will and the ability, because their chances of a good performance there are higher. [1] Jacob and Levitt, “Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating”, 2003
It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.

Teachers will start 'teaching to the test' to ensure their classes make the grade. Independent, creative, self-reliant thinking will therefore be discouraged as the teacher focuses on getting as high test results for their pupils as they can regardless of whether they really understand the concepts behind what they are doing. If the primary goal of education is to create critical thinking citizens, then merit pay may hinder rather than help achieve that goal.
It is impossible to implement.

Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result. Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive. Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues. It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system.
It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.

It is unfair to reward extra achievements on top of the base level. To provide societal value from education, the base level of performance in education is already set very high. This means that even teachers who perform at base level are already working very hard to provide the societal value we require. Any difference above that already very high level is likely the result of luck and talent, both on the part of students and teachers themselves. Rewarding fortunate individuals for something they themselves didn't create is unjust and can only make other jealous. Moreover, many students may enter the school system- at various stages- accompanied by a range of external advantages and disadvantages. A student’s home environment is a major influence on their ability to achieve when in the school environment. Although a teacher’s pastoral role is growing, there is little that they can do to address poor parenting, or to encourage the engaged, stimulating parenting that produces some of the most able pupils.
It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.

It will not give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Teaching is a calling, not something you choose for the money. Teachers are what we call 'intrinsically motivated': they want to realize an ideal, in this case, educating and raising responsible citizens. Recasting this ideal into a financial reward system actually demotivates teachers who feel the inherent value of their work now suddenly has become sullied by chiefly monetary rewards, which is why performances pay hasn’t worked in many places.[1] [1] White, Performance pay for teachers is a terrible idea and here’s why, 2011
It will attract more teachers

It will not attract more teachers. As said above, teaching is a calling. Many of the expected new teachers will be motivated solely by the increased pay, not by any intrinsic motivation. Because they are not intrinsically motivated, they will underperform. They might leave again after a year, but in that year they will have taught a class without the requisite skills and inspiration, possibly spoiling the educational experience of an entire class for the rest of their lives.
It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence

Teachers are the single biggest influence on student performance. Even though many factors influence student performance, the teacher is still the most important schooling factor. For example, having an effective versus and ineffective teacher has been shown to be equivalent to a class size reduction of 10-13 students[1] and can make the differences of more than a full year’s learning growth.[2] [1] Rivkin et al, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement”, 2005 [2] Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality.” 1992
Teachers will attempt to cheat the system

Cheating can be prevented by ensuring that the person giving and grading the test is not the same as the person preparing the students for the test. Likewise, the 'macro'-problem can be prevented by designing good measurement systems. If performance is measured as comparing results of individual students across time, then it doesn't matter whether a student comes from a 'disadvantaged' background. The same goes for innate talent: we can design a measurement that rewards any improvement in significantly less talented children sufficiently high to ensure that teachers are motivated in teaching them.
It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.

It will not create uncritical 'learning drone' students. Creative and critical thinking begins with the basics: literacy and numeracy. Even learning to the test will result in literate and numerate students who can then move on to much more critical thinking. We can then define successful criteria that measure general critical thinking skills, like have students write essays or pass oral exams. Narrowing of the curriculum is a concern in later stages of education, but the growth of a critical approach to humanities subjects has ensured that rote learning has been de-emphasised in these areas. Critical outcomes, nonetheless, remain measurable.
It is impossible to implement.

It is possible to implement. Testing students is not that difficult. After all, we have been examining students with all kinds of standardized test ever since formal education began. Similarly, we can know what teacher is involved in what result: the biology-teacher is relevant for biology, not French or arithmetic. The economist Dale Ballou, in his 2001 article “Pay for performance in public and private schools” determined that the prevalence of merit-based pay in private schools demonstrates that it can be cost effectively implemented in complex institutional settings[1]. [1] Ballou, “Pay for performance in public and private schools.” 2012.
It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.

Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.
It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.

For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils.[1] [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries:  Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007
It will attract more teachers

eaching salaries for years have remained steady or even declined. This made teaching as a job unattractive and so the influx of new, talented teachers halted. Although the effect of fiscal changes on teachers’ pay has been minimal (controlling for the consequences of the financial crisis), high productivity has become central to many private sector pay schemes. As a result, the contrast between non-responsive pay for teachers and high rewards for talented private sector employees has become more pronounced. With the opportunity to increase income through performance, teacher pay can rise, making it a more attractive profession financially.
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.

Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be able to vote for a leader again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party’s candidate. Limiting individual leaders to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system of checks and balances. improve this
Term limits on leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the judiciary.

The executive, at least in Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government, already has the extra power of being an individual wielding the entire power of the branch of government. There are always competing power groups within legislatures, so it can never run the risk of becoming tyrannical in the same way the executive can. Term limits are an essential check on the huge individual power that the executive bestows on leaders. improve this
A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.

While some continuity is desirable in leadership, it is not worth the costs of allowing a single individual to retain so much power for so long. If there are crises to face or long-term legislative agendas to push forward, the leader may still offer insight and support out of office and may back a candidate to succeed him who will continue his policies. The boons of continuity can thus be maintained without the risks of despotism and corruption that too long held office encourages. improve this
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.

A leader who has to constantly concern himself with re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision. Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs.[1] [1] Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1683594
The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.

Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government.[1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office.[2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,”[3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism. [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/ [3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th    May 2007, Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/29/tonyblair.labour1
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.

Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly.[1]  Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely.[2]Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public. [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0 [2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.

Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement.[1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world. [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest

A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform.[1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government. [1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/