IMF and Bailouts

One of the main critiques of Stiglitz and his compatriots is that the reason the IMF has to be called in is the financial mismanagement of countries which require a bailout. I am personally sympathetic to this view, since the IMF, in an ideal world, would not need to exist. However, their existence is necessary due to the poor monetary situations in many nations. For example, a country such as Greece, which has poorly managed its economy for decades, needed an IMF bailout and the conditions which came with it. However, the resulting social instability, a byproduct of the bailout, was used as a criticism of the IMF. The rise of extremist political parties, such as Golden Dawn and SYRIZA, could be directly laid at the feet of the IMF. However, none of this would have happened if the Greeks did not manage their finances so poorly and lie to gain admission to the Eurozone. While IMF-imposed austerity is often characterized as unfair on the nations who are on the receiving end, they often have no one to blame but themselves. Greece may be example A, but you can point to nearly any country receiving an IMF bailout and immediately question their judgment. When persons such as Joseph Stiglitz characterize the IMF as unfair and biased, they may have legitimate points about its Western slant and often draconian impositions. However, when it comes to pointing out the reasons why these conditions of austerity, high taxes and economic restructuring needed to happen, the critics fall silent