Professional Documents
Culture Documents
politically difficultcould have positive effects on both demand and supply (for example, committing to an
increase in the retirement age over time).
Commandment VI: You shall be fair. To be sustainable over time, the fiscal adjustment should be
equitable.
Equity has various dimensions, including maintaining an adequate social safety net and the provision of
public services that allow a level playing field, regardless of conditions at birth. Fighting tax evasion is also a
critical component to equity. For VAT, a tax that is relatively resilient to fraud, tax evasion averages about 15
percent of revenues in G-20 advanced countries. Evasion for other taxes is likely to be higher.
Commandment VII: You shall implement wide reforms to boost potential growth.
Strong growth has a staggering effect on public debt: a one percentage point increase in potential growth
assuming a tax ratio of 40 percentlowers the debt ratio by 10 percentage points within 5 years and by 30
percentage points within 10 years, if the resulting higher revenues are saved. An acceleration of labor,
product and financial market reforms will thus be critical.
In the current context of weak aggregate demand, reforms that increase investment are more desirable than
reforms that increase saving. While both have positive long-run effects, investment friendly reforms
increase demand and output in the short run, while saving friendly reforms do the opposite. A word of
caution, though: the timing and magnitude of the effects of structural reforms on growth are uncertain: fiscal
adjustment plans relying on faster growth would not be credible.
Commandment VIII: You shall strengthen your fiscal institutions.
Sustaining fiscal adjustment over time requires appropriate fiscal institutions. The current ones allowed a
record public debt accumulation before the crisis. They are insufficient. This requires better fiscal rules,
including in Europe; better budgetary processes, including in the United States, where, at least for
Congress, the budget is essentially a one-year-at-a-time exercise; and better fiscal monitoring, including
through independent fiscal agencies of the type recently created in the United Kingdom.
Commandment IX: You shall properly coordinate monetary and fiscal policy.
If fiscal policy is tightened, interest rates should not be raised as rapidly as in other phases of economic
recovery. Calls for an early monetary policy tightening in advanced economies are misplaced.
Commandment X: You shall coordinate your policies with other countries.
In a number of advanced countries, the reduction in budget deficits must come with a reduction in current
account deficits. Put another way, if the recovery is to be maintained, the initial adverse effects of fiscal
consolidation on internal demand have to be offset by stronger external demand. But this implies that the
opposite happens in the rest of the world.
In a number of emerging market economies, current account surpluses must be reduced, and these
countries must shift from external to internal demand. The recent decisions taken by China are, in this
respect, an important and welcome step. Policy coordination will also be important in some structural areas:
for example, over the medium term, it will be critical to protect fiscal revenues from rising tax competition.
Obey these commandments, and chances are high that you will achieve fiscal consolidation and sustained
growth.
Emerging Market Countries and the Crisis: How Have They Coped?
Posted on April 19, 2010 by iMFdirect
By Reza Moghadam
How time flies: only a year ago, we were in the throes of the biggest global crisis since the Great
Depression. As the extent of the damage to institutions in financial centers became evidentstarkly
highlighted by the Lehman bankruptcyand the crisis started to affect emerging market economies (EMs), a
timely and coordinated countercyclical response was launched.
This helped stave off the worst of the crisis. The IMF supported the global response by increasing its
resources and overhauling its lending framework to help those facing financing pressures. A recovery is now
taking hold in many parts of the world.
Six months ago, we took a preliminary look at the design and performance of IMF-supported programs in
emerging markets. In a forthcoming paper, we are casting a wider netexamining factors that determined
the extent to which a broader group of EMs were affected by the crisis, the policy measures they have
taken, factors shaping the ongoing recovery, and sustainability considerations over the medium term.
In a nutshell, we find that countries that improved their policy fundamentals and reduced their vulnerabilities
in the pre-crisis period generally came out ahead during the crisis: they experienced smaller growth
collapses, had more space to take countercyclical policy measures, and are recovering faster from the
crisis. I describe below our results in more detail.
Impact
The initial impact of the crisiswhether measured in terms of output contraction or widening of sovereign
spreadswas, as expected, more pronounced in EMs that were more integrated with the global economy
through trade and capital flows. However, accounting for these linkages, the impact was less intense in
countries with better pre-crisis fundamentals and lower external vulnerability indicators.
Holding more reserves helped, but only up to a point. Emerging markets with greater pre-crisis holdings of
international reserves relative to external financing needsperceived insurance against external
vulnerabilitysaw smaller output contractions. But this effect was pronounced only when reserves cover
was low or moderate. For countries with ample reserves, having more reserves carried little additional
benefit.
Avoiding excesses in the banking sector also helped. Countries that had domestic credit booms in the run
up to the crisis tended to experience credit busts during the crisis; these busts were more pronounced in
countries with fixed exchange rate regimes.
Response
Countries that entered the crisis with more policy space and less binding financing constraints were able to
react with more aggressive fiscal and monetary stimuli. Those with lower public debt and better budget
balances going into the crisis were able to accommodate the economic downturn better by letting their fiscal
positions ease more substantially.
Similarly, those with lower pre-crisis inflation and sovereign spreads were able to cut interest rates more.
There is also evidence that the exchange rate regime matteredflexible regimes were able to provide
greater monetary stimulus.
Recovery
There is evidence that countries that were able to increase public spending more rapidly have experienced
faster recoveries, providing a concrete example of how better fundamentalsor more policy spacehave
helped. The positive role of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism is also becoming evident:
countries with more flexible exchange rate regimes are recovering faster.
Exit
As emerging markets exit the crisis, they will need to tackle sharply different policy challenges. Those that
entered the crisis with high vulnerabilities face larger output losses (relative to pre-crisis projections). If
current account deficits persist, their external debt-to-GDP ratios could remain elevated.
Thus, this group of EMs will need to sustain adjustment over the medium term to bring vulnerabilities back
down to more moderate levels.
On the other hand, those with better pre-crisis fundamentals are already facing a cyclical conundrum: while
recovery in output and emerging inflation pressures would normally imply higher policy rates (in a Taylor rule
framework), such actions in the face of continued accommodative policies in the advanced economies could
prompt excessive capital inflows, possibly fueling asset price bubbles. This may be why many fastrecovering emerging markets are taking a cautious approach in withdrawing monetary stimulus.
Lessons
Fortunately, a crisis of this magnitude is a rare event. But the varied experience of emerging markets during
this crisis underscores an important lesson: good policies beget good outcomes.
Investing during good times to develop a sound policy framework that delivers stronger fundamentals and
lower vulnerabilities yields large dividends during crises. In the current crisis, low-vulnerability countries had
lower output declines, more space to undertake countercyclical policies, and quicker recoveries.
IMF Draws Lessons from the Crisis, Reviews Macro Policy Framework
Posted on February 12, 2010 by iMFdirect
As the crisis slowly recedes, the IMF has started to reassess the conduct of macroeconomic policy.
The Fund has just published a paper, Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy, part of a series of policy papers
prepared by IMF staff reassessing the macroeconomic and financial policy framework in the wake of the
devastating crisis. Several of the papers will be discussed at a conference to be held in Seoul, Korea, later
this month.
IMF Survey magazine has interviewed the Funds Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard on the reason for the
rethink. It was tempting for macroeconomists and policymakers to take much of the credit for the steady
decrease in cyclical fluctuations from the early 1980s on and to conclude that we knew how to conduct
macroeconomic policy. We did not resist temptation. The crisis naturally forces us to question our earlier
conclusions and thats what we are trying to do in this paper, hes quoted as saying.
Paul Krugman dubbed the paper interesting and important in his New York Times blog, while Richard
Adams in the Guardian described it as a break with years of economic orthodoxy and a stunning
turnaround.
Intellectual guidance
An editorial in the Financial Times said the paper demonstrates that the IMF intends to offer intellectual
guidance to a profession confounded by its failure to see the crisis coming.
The short paper, the FT argues, cuts to the heart of what macroeconomics got wrong before the
crisis and what it teaches us about how policy must change.
The paper also treads controversial ground, the FT writes. To speed up fiscal policy it moots automatic
tax cuts or transfers triggered by thresholds such as a given rate of unemployment. It says central banks
might aim for higher inflation to make room for more aggressive cuts. If not always convincing why seek
higher inflation instead of tools to enable negative nominal rates? such high-calibre brainstorming is
welcome. No less is needed to reform a failed orthodoxy of which the IMF was once the guardian.
Weighing in, the Economists Free Exchange blog says: Perhaps the important thing to take away from this
discussion is that to central bankers, inflation is a bogeyman. But to good economists, inflation is merely a
variable, an economic indicator over which governments have some control and which they can manipulate
to good or ill effect.
Better performance
Another interesting quote comes from Joseph Stiglitz in the French economic daily La Tribune.
Asked how the IMF handled the current crisis compared with the Asian crisis of the 1997-98, he said Much
better than last time! He attributed the improved response partly to the Managing Director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn, known as DSK.
We have been lucky that DSK, who was not wedded to past policies, was at the helm of this institution
when the crisis occurred. The IMF advised large economies to implement stimulus policies whereas, during
the crisis in [Asian] emerging markets at the end of the 1990s, the Fund had imposed austerity policies.
that sacrifices will need to be made to fully reap its benefits. For whether pegger or floater, a countrys ability
to adjust in the face of new challenges is the true test of whether it is fit for life in the eurozone.
Closer cooperation with supervisors in western Europe can help prudential measures become more
effective. Credit booms driven by capital flows from western European parent banks are hard to stop,
especially when faced with supervisors only from the (often smaller) recipient country.
Building up fiscal buffers
The second major lesson is the need for more prudent fiscal policy. This is a policy of saving money
when revenues are growing instead of increasing spending and boosting public wages. Prior to the crisis,
fiscal positions in emerging Europe looked goodbetter than in other emerging market regions. But those
good-looking headline numbers masked a deterioration of the underlying fiscal position. Public expenditure
was surging, financed by a temporary revenue boom. This not only further contributed to overheating; it also
set the stage for large fiscal deficits. So when revenue plummeted in 2009 and fiscal deficits increased
sharply, many countries had no choice but to cut spending precisely when this was most painful.
When revenue takes off during the next boom, it should be used to build up fiscal buffers rather than
boost expenditure. Politically, this may be very challengingwhen revenues abound there is strong pressure
to increase expenditure or cut taxesbut this will help dampen the boom and create fiscal space that can be
used to soften the impact of the next recession.
In search of balanced growth
Going forward, growth in the region should become more balanced, and less dependent on
domestic demand and capital inflows. Much of the shift will come about through private sector actions.
Now that profits in the nontradable sector (finance, real estate, construction) have shrunk, investments will
seek more promising venues. More balanced macroeconomic policies and wage restraint can also help
maintain balanced growth by preventing the overheating that pulls resources from the tradable to the
nontradable sector.
Above all, it will be importantwhen the next boom comesto be wary of claims that this time will
be different. Such narratives often have some plausibility and attractiveness in the heat of the moment.
But a careful analysis of the drivers of growth, current account deficits, asset price developments, and credit
growth should always be used as a reality check.
system as a whole will experience such knock-on effects. This means seeking to dampen the swings in
credit and financial cycles that can produce financial system volatility that can damage both the stability of
financial markets and the broader economy.
Means of implementation
A basic practical issue is how macro-prudential policies can be incorporated with the traditional set of policy
tools.
One option would be some type of capital surcharge or levy based on the degree of systemic risk created by
any specific financial institution. In addition to classic micro-prudential requirements for minimum capital to
back individual institutions, the new approach would add a new capital layer that takes into account the
systemic importance of an institution. The idea would be to modulate an institutions behavior by making it
more costly to pursue those activities that contribute to the build-up of systemic risk.
Other proposals to control systemic risk focus on quantity rather than price-based restrictions, including
constraints on size or legal structure or certain activities by financial institutions. In general, however, pricebased instruments tend to be more effective because quantity-based instruments may be more subject to
gaming and regulatory arbitrage.
Because systemic risks refer not only to institutions but also to markets, new measures should be
considered that would make key markets more resilient.
Effective Implementation through Cooperation
Like so many other policy challenges facing modern, globalized markets, a cooperative solution is required.
Policymakers need to ensure that macro-prudential policies in differing countrieswhen designed and
implementeddo not contradict or offset each other.
Supervisors also need to focus on cross-border exposures. The effective resolution of large and complex
financial institutions that operate in multiple jurisdictions will need to rely on a clearly-designed cross-border
framework to reduce moral hazard and support financial stability. On this point, the IMF has proposed a
pragmatic approach. We hope a small set of countries that house the most interconnected firms will begin to
make progress in this area.
For many countries, an open question remains regarding which agency should design and implement
macro-prudential policies a new global body, a central bank, or the existing micro-prudential regulatory
body? In general, participants in the Shanghai conference favored this job being awarded to central banks.
Whatever path is chosen, however, the regulators must be supported by good information gathering, clear
mandates and powers, effective tools, and, perhaps most important, cooperation between authorities
nationally, and across borders.
The crisis has also confirmed the importance of debt relief and donor assistance in creating fiscal space,
and in supporting the fight against poverty (photo: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters)
Almost one-third of the low-income countries are augmenting their automatic fiscal loosening with a
discretionary stimulus, mostly through current spending. Many low-income countries have sought to
preserve or increase social spending, and IMF-supported programs have shown flexibility by allowing
automatic stabilizers to work and by accommodating fiscal stimulus.
Room for larger deficits
The fiscal easing has been more prevalent in countries with low or moderate risk of debt distress prior to the
crisis. The combination of debt relief and sound policies led to falling debt ratios before the crisis, providing
room to accomodate larger deficits during the crisis. We can see this in both Central America and subSaharan Africa. Countries with higher risks of debt distress had more limited room to expand deficits
because of financing constraintsand many of these countries tightened fiscal policy by cutting non-social
spending.
This experience confirms the importance of following prudent fiscal policies in good times, to be able to use
fiscal policy to cushion shocks in bad times. And so, as the global economy recovers, countries will need to
rebuild their fiscal space.
The crisis has also confirmed the importance of debt relief and donor assistance in creating fiscal space,
and in supporting the fight against poverty. But major donor countries now face large deficits and rising debt
of their own. In these circumstances, they could scale back support to low-income countries, in spite of
Gleneagles commitments to double aid to sub-Saharan Africa.
Continued support to low-income countries must remain a priority. These countries still face daunting social
and infrastructure challenges. Some still have elevated risks of debt distress that predate the crisisIm
thinking here of countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tajikistan, or Togo. Lets face itsupport
to low-income countries is still a small fraction of total spending in advanced countries (a mere 1 percent of
expenditures, on average).
While the advanced countries will need to tighten fiscal policy in the future, cutting funds for aid would cause
severe harm to low-income countries, without making a significant difference to their own fiscal problems. At
the same time, the onus is on low-income countries to continue improving the way foreign aid is spent,
through strengthening public financial management, fighting corruption, and better prioritizing expenditure.
Share this:
Email
Studies say increasing retirement age in European Union by two years could save equivalent of 40 percent
of GDP in net present value terms (photo: Johannes Eisele/AFP)
First, governments can reform their institutional fiscal framework to make it more likely that fiscal adjustment
takes place when the time for action arrives. The precise framework will depend on country-specific
circumstances. Possible reform options include fiscal responsibility laws, numerical fiscal rules (to take effect
only when conditions normalize), fiscal councils tasked with monitoring fiscal developments, improvements
in budgetary procedures, and increased fiscal transparency.
The example of Germany is worth noting. In June, the German parliament adopted a new constitutional
fiscal rule that limits the structural deficit of the federation to 0.35 percent of GDP from 2016 onward and
requires structurally balanced budgets in the states from 2020.
Health, pension reforms
Second, various reforms in health and pension entitlements, though politically not easy, can be undertaken
without jeopardizing economic recovery.
These reforms will not have a large impact on the todays deficit, but can dramatically improve long-term
fiscal trends and signal commitment to fiscal sustainability. They will not undermine demand if well
structuredwith a focus, say, on increasing the retirement ageor if they are passed now but implemented
gradually.
These reforms can have powerful effects. For example, it is estimated that increasing the retirement age in
European Union countries by two years can save the equivalent of some 40 percent of GDP (in net present
value terms).
In sum, postponing fiscal tightening does not mean postponing fiscal action.
Recent experience suggests we have made some progress in this direction. The number of conditions we
use to monitor structural reforms in low-income country programs has fallen by a third compared with the
early 2000s. Around 40 percent of these conditions are focused on measures to improve public resource
managementbetter expenditure control systems, auditing and publication of government accounts, more
efficient tax administration, and so onthat almost everyone agrees are critical to policy effectiveness. And
it should be no surprise that, as we have streamlined, more reforms are being implemented now than in the
pastownership in action.
Theres one more step. Earlier this year, we redesigned the way that conditionality is applied to structural
reforms in all IMF-supported programs. From now on, loans will no longer include conditions on specific,
timebound measures. Instead, progress will be assessed as part of the regular program reviewsthis will
encourage more focus on the objectives of the envisaged reforms, and give governments more flexibility in
attaining their goals.
In my final posting tomorrow, I will talk about another aspect of the IMFs more flexible approach in lowincome countries, which has to do with how IMF-backed programs monitor and control countries debt
burdens.
Central banks' decision on when to start winding down current crisis policies depends in part on the
difference between potential and actual output. Photo shows Bank of England (photo: Shaun Curry/AFP)
So what are policymakers to do? The first step is to ask economists to do their best to correctly estimate
potential output in the aftermath of the crisis. The more that is known about what is happening to potential
output, the less reason there is to worry about getting it wrong. The IMF is one such source of independent
advice on potential output. Recent country reports produced by IMF staff have used a variety of
methodologies to produce such estimates. Examples from the European Department include reports on
France (Box 3 of the report), Ireland (Box 1), Sweden (Box 5), the United Kingdom (Annex 3), and similar
work is in the pipeline for other countries. Another example is the report on the United States.
Naturally, the assessments by individual country desks take into account specific country circumstances. For
instance, the hit to potential output in the United Kingdom is estimated to be larger than in, say, France
because of the larger role of the financial sector as an engine of growth of value added in the United
Kingdom in recent years, implying a bigger hit to the capital-labor ratio and total factor productivity after the
crisis. Complementing such individual country analysis, the forthcoming World Economic Outlook and the
Regional Economic Outlook for Europe, both to be released in early October 2009, will have a deeper
discussion of the impact of the crisis on potential output in a cross-section of countries.
The second step for policymakers is to deal with the unavoidable uncertainty. For fiscal policy, there is a
good case to err on the side of caution. Enough is known about the fiscal costs of the crisis to suggest that
the need for consolidation is large, even if its precise size is still debated. In light of the looming fiscal
pressures from Europes aging societies, this calls for decisive action as soon as the cycle allows.
As for central bankers, they should also act on the information they have, although researchers such as
Athanasios Orphanides (now Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus and member of the ECBs Governing
Council) have sensibly suggested that central banks should tread carefully by reducing the importance of the
output gap in their decision making.
More generally, policymakersbe they in the central bank or in the ministry of financewould do well by
communicating their assumptions about potential output growth to the public. When the time comes to wind
down stimulus packages and raise interest rates, the public will be better prepared to understand why fiscal
adjustment has become necessary and will better absorb the guidance they receive on inflation
expectations.
Again, these issues will be discussing more fully in the forthcoming October issue of the Regional Economic
Outlook for Europeso stay tuned.