Nicoletta Batini, Mario di Serio, Matteo Fragetta, and Mr. Giovanni Melina
This paper estimates multipliers for spending in clean energy and biodiversity conservation to help inform stimulus measures for a post-COVID-19 sustainable recovery. Using a new international dataset, part of which was especially assembled for this analysis, we find that every dollar spent on key carbon-neutral or carbon-sink activities—from zero-emission power plants to the protection of wildlife and ecosystems—can generate more than a dollar’s worth of economic activity. The estimated multipliers associated with green spending are about 2 to 7 times larger than those associated with non-eco-friendly expenditure, depending on sectors, technologies and horizons. These findings survive several robustness checks and suggest that ‘building back better’ could be a win-win for economies and the planet.
This paper responds to the Board’s call for a review of the Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) after about a year of implementation. The review covers the period from December 2009 to the April 2011 meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Washington. It considers the Fund’s inputs against the background of the evolving MAP and discusses expectations for this work going forward. The paper does not review the G-20 MAP itself. The implications of broader G-20 Fund cooperation for the Fund’s own surveillance will be discussed in the forthcoming TSR.
Mr. Thomas F Alexander, Ms. Claudia H Dziobek, Mr. Marco Marini, Eric Metreau, and Mr. Michael Stanger
To derive real GDP, the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA) recommends a technique called double deflation. Some countries use single deflation techniques, which fail to capture important relative price changes and introduce estimation errors in official GDP growth. We simulate the effects of single deflation to the GDP data of eight countries that use double deflation. We find that errors due to single deflation can be significant, but their magnitude and direction are not systematic over time and across countries. We conclude that countries still using single deflation should move to double deflation.