Ms. Yevgeniya Korniyenko, Magali Pinat, and Brian Dew
Anecdotal evidence suggests the existence of specific choke points in the global trade network
revealed especially after natural disasters (e.g. hard drive components and Thailand flooding,
Japanese auto components post-Fukushima, etc.). Using a highly disaggregated international trade
database we assess the spillover effects of supply shocks from the import of specific goods. Our
goal is to identify inherent vulnerabilities arising from the composition of a country’s import basket
and to propose effective mitigation policies. First, using network analysis tools we develop a
methodology for evaluating and ranking the supply fragility of individual traded goods. Next, we
create a country-level measure to determine each country’s supply shock vulnerability based on the
composition of their individual import baskets. This measure evaluates the potential negative
supply shock spillovers from the import of each good.
Ms. Patrizia Tumbarello, Ezequiel Cabezon, and Mr. Yiqun Wu
The small states of the Asia and Pacific region face unique challenges in raising their growth potential and living standards relative to other small states due to their small populations, geographical isolation and dispersion, narrow export and production bases, exposure to shocks, and heavy reliance on aid. Higher fixed government costs, low access to credit by the private sector, and capacity constraints are also key challenges. The econometric analysis confirms that the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have underperformed relative to their peers over the last 20 years. Although these countries often face more limited policy tools, policies do matter and can further help build resilience and raise potential growth, as evidenced in the recent business cycle. The Asia and Pacific small states should continue rebuilding buffers and improve the composition of public spending in order to foster inclusive growth. Regional solutions should also continue to be pursued.
Abstract What do climate change, global financial crises, pandemics, and fragility and conflict have in common? They are all examples of global risks that can cross geographical and generational boundaries and whose mismanagement can reverse gains in development and jeopardize the well-being of generations. Managing risks such as these becomes a global public good, whose benefits also cross boundaries, providing a rationale for collective action facilitated by the international community. Yet, as many public goods, provision of global public goods suffer from collective action failures that undermine international coordination. This paper discusses the obstacles to addresing these global risks effectively, highlighting their implications for the current juncture. It claims that remaining gaps in information, resources, and capacity hamper accumulation and use of knowledge to triger appropriate action, but diverging national interests remain the key impediment to cooperation and effectiveness of global efforts, even when knowledge on the risks and their consequences are well understood. The paper argues that managing global risks requires a cohesive international community that enables its stakeholders to work collectively around common goals by facilitating sharing of knowledge, devoting resources to capacity building, and protecting the vulnerable. When some countries fail to cooperate, the international community can still forge cooperation, including by realigning incentives and demonstrating benefit from incremental steps toward full cooperation.
Good evening. It is a great honor to be invited to deliver this year’s Dimbleby Lecture, and I would like to thank the BBC and the Dimbleby family for so kindly inviting me—and especially David Dimbleby for his warm words of introduction.
This chapter presents the content of the Richard Dimbleby lecture, which has been delivered by an influential business or a political figure every year since 1972. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, delivered the 2014 lecture at Guildhall in London on February 3. The 44 nations gathering at Bretton Woods have been determined to set a new course based on the principle that peace and prosperity flow from the font of cooperation. Fundamentally, the new multilateralism needs to instil a broader sense of social responsibility on the part of all players in the modern global economy. A renewed commitment to openness and to the mutual benefits of trade and foreign investment is requested. It also requires collective responsibility for managing an international monetary system that has travelled light-years since the old Bretton Woods system. The collective responsibility would translate into all monetary institutions cooperating closely mindful of the potential impact of their policies on others.
2015 is a pivotal year—a year when the international community will commit to a shared vision on goals for international development through 2030 and beyond. Achieving these Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require a partnership among advanced, emerging, and developing economies, and international institutions to ensure that the required policies are put in place and that sufficient private and public resources are mobilized.
The Fund, with its global membership and mandate at both the national and multilateral levels, is uniquely positioned to contribute to this compact and help implement it. As new deliverables, the IMF is considering:
1. Boosting the access to IMF resources provided to developing countries, better positioning them to handle balance of payments needs as they pursue growth;
2. Expanding diagnostic and capacity-building support for countries seeking to scale up investment to tackle infrastructure gaps;
3. Sharpening the focus of operational work on equity, inclusion, and gender, drawing on ongoing analysis and work of other institutions;
4. Increasing the focus on and resourcing of work on fragile/conflict-affected states;
5. Selective expansion of capacity-building efforts in the areas
Full text is also available in French and Spanish.