Last week, the government approved the last version of the “Strategic Poverty Program”.

This means that the new government is invited to implement it. This document is the most discussed point of implementation of state economic policy, t. to. It is assumed that he will predetermine the development of Armenia in the future. In this regard, it should be noted that the initiators of the creation of this program were the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which were subjected to sharply criticism in the late 1990s for the actual failure of their policies in the 80-90s in developing and transitional countries (Asian crisis (Asian crisis , Russian default, crisis in Argentina – only the visible parts of the huge “iceberg”). Reforms financed by these international organizations led to an even greater increase in the gap with rich countries, poverty and stratification in society, to the heyday of corruption, etc. D. After this criticism of the IMF and the World Bank at its annual meeting in September 1999. They decided to offer developing and transition countries to begin implementing programs to combat poverty. As of January 2003., They presented their programs for consideration in the IMF/WB 13 countries of Africa, 4 – Latin America and 4 – Europe and Asia. Moreover, for the first time during the development of programs, an active involvement of public and private organizations was provided. Interestingly – Armenia in this list is adjacent to such African, Latin American and Asian countries, like Angola, Kenya, Benin, Togo, Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua, Pakistan, Instance, Vietnam. , Laos, campaign and bangladesh. What are the characteristic features of the program, which seemed to be made for “popular discussion”, as was the case in communist times? First of all, these are eclecticism (various sections of the programs were prepared by various groups, with various approaches), unrealizability of the goals set (many goals in various sections simply contradict each other), insufficient analysis of the current situation and unilaterally assessments, the lack of a real monitoring mechanism, significant dependence on the external financing (despite the fact that such programs are aimed at reducing this dependence). However, this is not even the most dangerous, since any program can eventually be improved, especially since some parts of the program are prepared at a highly professional level.