Oshana is a country in Sub-Saharan Africa. At independence in the early 1960s the country was one of Africa's leading exporters of copper. Until the mid 1970s the country prospered and living standards grew steadily. In 1975, however, the price of copper fell by half and did not recover. Moreover, drought struck the country, hitting hard the subsistence agriculture sector. In light of these developments and the oil crises of the 1970s, the country began to accumulate a staggering debt. An increasingly unaccountable government, meanwhile, marked by a President for Life and single party rule, had resulted in a diversion of state resources into private accounts and an accompanying deterioration in infrastructure and services. By the late 1980s, with a dramatic fall in living standards, increasing corruption, and spurred on by developments in neighboring countries, urban residents of the capital city of Oshana began to call for the President for Life to step down and for a transition to democratic, multiparty rule. Following weeks of strikes and riots, the leader finally conceded to the protestors' demands and promised a transition to democratic rule. In the meantime, the country's economic decline had reached crisis proportions and the only way of obtaining new resources from any donors, bilateral or multilateral, was to agree to the adoption of a structural adjustment program.

Should the government agree to the adoption of a structural adjustment program?

What do you need to know to answer this question?