Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 59 items for :

  • Financial Institutions and Services: Government Policy and Regulation x
Clear All
International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept.

The IMF Executive Board announced on August 3 that it had completed the ninth review of Turkey’s economic program supported by the three-year Stand-By Arrangement. The Board’s decision will enable Turkey to draw SDR 1.2 billion (about $1.5 billion) immediately from the IMF. The text of News Brief No. 01/73, as well as a statement issued on July 28 by IMF First Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer (see page 262) is available on the IMF’s website (www.imf.org).

International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept.

Following are edited excerpts from IMF Managing Director Horst Köhler’s remarks to the members of the Deutsche Bundestag on April 2 in Berlin. The full text is available on the IMF’s website (www.imf.org).

Salim M. Darbar, R. Barry Johnston, and Mary G. Zephirin

This paper highlights that the Washington Consensus helped fill the need for an economic policy framework following the discrediting of central planning and import-substitution trade strategies. Latin American governments championed the Consensus in the early 1990s, and the policy agenda delivered some of the things it was supposed to—healthier budgets, lower inflation, lower external debt ratios, and economic growth. But unemployment rose in many countries and poverty remained widespread, while the emphasis on market openness made states vulnerable to the side effects of globalization.

Camilla Andersen

The subject of IMF reform is a hardy perennial. The recently concluded Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank saw the Fund’s membership endorse the thrust of IMF Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato’s proposed medium-term strategy for the institution. But that has not precluded others from voicing their own views. At an oversubscribed conference held on the eve of the Annual Meetings, the Institute for International Economics (IIE) assembled an impressive array of experts—many of them former IMF staff—to discuss what the IMF needs to do to stay relevant in the 21st century.

International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Capital Markets Department

Abstract

In the 10 years since the global financial crisis, regulatory frameworks have been enhanced and the banking system has become stronger, but new vulnerabilities have emerged, and the resilience of the global financial system has yet to be tested.

International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept.

Following is the edited text of the statement issued by the finance ministers and central bank governors of the Group of Seven on April 28 in Washington.

Mr. Eduard H. Brau, R. C. Williams, Mr. Peter M Keller, and Mr. M. Nowak

Abstract

Experience with multilateral debt restructurings with official creditors and with international banks in the second half of the 1970s was described in External Indebtedness of Developing Countries, issued in 1981.1 The present paper reviews recent developments, covering the period through early October 1983. It discusses the external debt problems that countries have experienced and the arrangements made for restructuring official and commercial bank debt. The paper does not deal with the broad economic conditions that are essential if debtor countries are to be successful in their adjustment efforts over the medium term. These conditions will include, inter alia, adequate flows of official and private capital on reasonable terms, economic policies in the industrial countries that will promote a noninflationary recovery and a resurgence of world trade, and greater access to markets for developing countries.

Mr. Marc G Quintyn and Mr. David S. Hoelscher

Abstract

This paper draws lessons on the general principles, strategies and techniques for the effective management of systemic banking crises.1 Lessons outlined in this paper derive from the accumulated experiences of IMF staff. Principles and practices of crisis management derived from earlier crises have already been discussed by the IMF Executive Board and subsequently published.2 Recent financial sector crises and their resolution have raised new issues and provided additional experiences. Specifically, banking crises in Argentina, Ecuador, Russia, Turkey, and Uruguay have occurred within the context of highly dollarized economies, high levels of sovereign debt, and/or severely limited fiscal resources. These factors have introduced new challenges as the effectiveness of many of the typical tools for bank resolution has been affected.

Mr. Atish R. Ghosh, Mr. Juan Zalduendo, Mr. Alun H. Thomas, Mr. Jun I Kim, Ms. Uma Ramakrishnan, and Mr. Bikas Joshi

Abstract

The enormous economic and social costs of the financial crises that struck various emerging market countries at the turn of the last century underscore the importance of crisis prevention. The first line of defense is the country’s own policies, regulatory and supervisory framework, and institutions. The IMF can assist these efforts through its surveillance activities, provision of technical assistance, and promotion of standards and codes. But the IMF may also contribute to crisis prevention more directly by providing financial support—either disbursed or made available contingently. While IMF-supported programs are generally associated with crisis resolution, recent analytical work suggests that such programs may also be useful for crisis prevention. Drawing on this work, this occasional paper examines possible roles of IMF-supported programs in crisis prevention.

Mr. Atish R. Ghosh, Mr. Juan Zalduendo, Mr. Alun H. Thomas, Mr. Jun I Kim, Ms. Uma Ramakrishnan, and Mr. Bikas Joshi

Abstract

The financial crises that struck a number of emerging market countries in the 1990s and early twenty-first century were characterized by sudden reversals of capital flows that had pervasive macroeconomic consequences, including abrupt current account adjustment and collapsing real exchange rates and economic activity (Figure 2.1).1 But while the consequences of these crises were broadly similar, their causes appear to be quite different. Turkey (1993), Mexico (1994), and Russia (1998) experienced public sector funding crises. In contrast, the 1997 East Asian crises were mainly private sector phenomena. In Brazil (1998–99), Turkey (2000–01), and Argentina (2002) public sector debt dynamics played a key role; in Turkey, it was both a financial crisis and a banking crisis, while in Argentina, along with the public sector financing problem, there was a run on the banking system, which brought down the currency board and led to currency depreciation and default, as well as a banking crisis. On the other hand, Uruguay (2002) experienced a banking crisis caused by withdrawals of Argentine deposits that spilled into a public sector debt problem and a balance of payments crisis.