IMF History (1966-1971) Volume 1

Chapter 29: Further Expansion of Activities

International Monetary Fund
Published Date:
February 1996
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

Consultations and Technical Assistance were not the only fields where the Fund’s responsibilities and functions grew in 1966–71. The Fund also became more active with regard to members’ payments arrears and their external indebtedness. In addition, its information activities were expanded and it extended its relations with other international agencies.

Payments Arrears Defined as Restrictions

Since the days of the Fund’s first operations, one of the problems in international finance was that of payments arrears. Such arrears arose from time to time in a number of member countries as a result of undue delays in payments and transfers for current international transactions. Some of the delays in payments which resulted in accumulated arrears were formal ones, specified in circulars or exchange control regulations. Members faced with weak balance of payments and reserve positions often introduced, for example, explicit compulsory waiting periods for foreign exchange or let de facto waiting periods develop by failing to make adequate amounts of foreign exchange available. There were also informal or ad hoc practices that gave rise to payments arrears. Applicants for exchange might, for instance, be “queued up,” with applications being processed on a first in, first out basis as exchange became available.

For many years the Fund had been concerned with payments arrears, viewing them as damaging to a member’s international financial relations and creditworthiness, as causing distortions in exchange and trade systems, and as likely to undermine prevailing exchange rates. The Fund also regarded undue delay by a member in making foreign exchange available for payments or transfers for current international transactions as a restriction under Article VIII, Section 2 (a), and under Article XIV, Section 2, of the Articles of Agreement, and thereby subject to the Fund’s review or approval.

Nevertheless, in practice, until late in 1970 the emphasis and treatment which payments arrears received in staff reports and in Executive Board decisions varied considerably between members. An Executive Board decision in respect of an Article XIV consultation included a reference to a member’s payments arrears if sufficient facts were available. Usually, payments arrears were not treated separately in the decision as a particular restriction, but were approved collectively with other restrictions for a temporary period. Only at times did decisions adopted at the conclusion of Article VIII consultations include payments arrears as one of the practices requiring the Fund’s approval. In other instances, no action was taken on payments arrears that were known to exist, with the result that the practice remained unapproved. There were also differences in the Fund’s treatment of payments arrears in connection with stand-by arrangements. Some stand-by arrangement documents included specific lines of action for the reduction or elimination of arrears; others referred to arrears but contained no specific performance criteria or policies about them. Differences in the treatment accorded payments arrears in consultation reports and stand-by arrangement documents stemmed partly from insufficient information about the practices in force and partly from doubt about whether particular arrears did in fact result from governmental limitations.

In order to make more uniform the Fund’s policies concerning payments arrears, the staff initiated a review in the second half of 1970. The staff believed that the Fund ought to give arrears greater attention. Not only did arrears have a destructive effect on confidence in international payments, but there was also a close interrelation between payments arrears and stand-by arrangements with the Fund. One interrelation with stand-by arrangements was that the Fund made its resources available to strengthen a member’s ability to meet its payments obligations, thus enabling the member to avoid arrears. Another interrelation between arrears and stand-by arrangements was that a stand-by arrangement aimed at creating confidence in a member’s situation and at quickly restoring new credits by trading partners. Confidence was likely to return more rapidly, thought the staff, if the Fund paid greater attention to the problem of arrears and worked out with members schedules for repayment of arrears.

In October 1970, with Mr. Southard as Acting Chairman, the Executive Board considered specific suggestions made by the staff for payments arrears, whether arising from formal or informal practices, to be treated consistently among members. Most of the Executive Directors supported the codification of rules concerning payments arrears that the staff suggested. However, some members of the Board, including Mr. Escobar (Chile), Mr. Phillips O. (Mexico), Mr. Rajaobelina (Malagasy Republic), and Mr. Williams (Trinidad and Tobago), had certain misgivings. They feared that the policy envisaged would involve some tightening of the Fund’s attitude on the use of its resources, particularly in the first credit tranche, the tranche which developing members used heavily after the general decision on stand-by arrangements of September 1968, discussed in Chapter 18. They were, however, assured that the elimination of arrears was not to be made a prerequisite for use of the Fund’s resources.

Following this consideration, the Executive Board adopted a decision on October 26, 1970. Undue delays in making foreign exchange available for the settlement of international transactions that gave rise to payments arrears were to be regarded as payments restrictions under Article VIII, Section 2 (a), and Article XIV, Section 2, whether the limitations on exchange were formal or informal.1 Attention was drawn to the harm that these restrictions caused to a country’s international financial relationships, and general guidelines for their treatment by the Fund were set forth. These guidelines allowed for the possibility of the Fund’s approval of the restriction involved, provided that the member presented a satisfactory program for its elimination. Similarly, when a member having payments arrears requested the Fund’s financial assistance, such assistance might be granted if the member’s financial program, inter alia, envisaged a phasing out of the arrears.

Greater Concern with External Debt Service

In the mid-1960s the staff began to attend a number of meetings between creditor and debtor countries, especially as the World Bank stepped up its efforts to arrange formal meetings of this type. The Annual Reports for 1964 and 1965 also contained passages dealing with external indebtedness.2 After 1965 the subject of the external debt of developing members received much more of the Fund’s attention.

Governors’ Interest

Increasing recognition of the problem of servicing of external debt by developing countries was reflected in the speeches at the Twenty-First Annual Meeting, held in Washington in September 1966. Mr. Jamshid Amouzegar (Iran), the Chairman, observed that more than half the inflow of development finance was being offset by debt servicing, and Mr. Schweitzer similarly noted that the debt servicing burden of developing countries had grown heavier.3 The problem was emphasized as well by Mr. Se Ryun Kim (Korea), Mr. Antonio Ortiz Mena (Mexico), Mr. Tan (Malaysia), and Mr. Abdullah Yaftaly (Afghanistan).4

By the time of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, in September 1967 in Rio de Janeiro, the problem had become “critical—even dangerous,” according to Mr. Kåre Willoch (Norway), Chairman of the opening session.5 Mr. Smole (Yugoslavia) stressed that the debt repayment problems threatened to nullify the net transfer of capital to the affected countries, and Mr. A. A. Atta (Nigeria), Mr. Abdalla Siddig Ghandour (Sudan), Mr. Abdul Rahman Al Habeeb (Iraq), Mr. N. M. Uquaili (Pakistan), and Mr. J. Milton Weeks (Liberia), among others, also addressed themselves to the problem.6 Mr. Horowitz (Israel) was concerned, for example, that what he called the “zero hour of equilibrium between capital flow and redemption” was only a few years away.7

That the creditor nations recognized the seriousness of the situation was apparent in the remarks of some Governors at the next Annual Meeting, the Twenty-Third, held in Washington from September 30 to October 4, 1968. Both Mr. Gunnar Sträng (Sweden) and Mr. Witteveen (Netherlands) made suggestions for dealing with debt servicing.8

Many references to debt burden and servicing problems were made at the 1969 Annual Meeting. The fifth general review of quotas was then under way, and Mr. Zeev Sharef (Israel) went so far as to suggest that the increasing influence of debt service, including retirement of debt, on the balance of payments of developing countries ought to be taken into account in fixing quotas of developing members. His reasoning was that, because developing countries had to devote an increasing share of their export earnings and capital imports to foreign debt service, the part of their reserves which could be used for financing cyclical or temporary contractions in their export earnings was limited.9

New Efforts by the Fund

It was in this environment that the Fund intensified its efforts to help developing members with problems associated with their external indebtedness.

In October and November 1967, in order to assess what more the Fund might do in the field of external debt, the Executive Board reviewed the problems of managing external debt that members had been encountering. This review included examination of the Fund’s experience with limitations on external indebtedness that had been incorporated into a number of the stabilization programs associated with stand-by arrangements approved by the Fund. The Executive Directors, as well as the management and the staff, considered external indebtedness to be one of the most sensitive areas of international finance, and were therefore resolved to proceed with the utmost caution. After its review, the Board agreed that discussions pursuant to annual consultations should cover external debt positions and policies and that the information obtained should be included in the staff’s reports. It further agreed that the Fund should continue its past collaboration with other international agencies, such as the World Bank, the Development Assistance Committee of the oecd, the Unctad, and the Committee on the Alliance for Progress of the Organization of American States (ciap), that were also concerning themselves with problems of foreign indebtedness.

In the next several years these policies were implemented. In its consultations the Fund indicated to members the usefulness of central registration of their external indebtedness and of careful assessment of the effects of different levels of external debt on their balances of payments. Many members evolved policies for managing their external debt. In consultations with those members having potentially serious debt problems, the Fund cautioned against the incurrence of further net foreign indebtedness.

At the request of the creditor and debtor countries involved, the staff continued, as it had since 1959, also to participate in multilateral debt renegotiation meetings. These were meetings with creditors on behalf of certain debtor members called under the auspices of ad hoc groupings and usually chaired by representatives of one of the main creditor governments. The negotiations aimed at rearranging the terms of repayment for certain categories of external debt or at refinancing or consolidating some of the external debt involved.

By the end of 1971 there had been 17 multilateral debt renegotiations on behalf of eight countries. Seven renegotiations on behalf of four countries—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Turkey—had transpired before the end of 1965. In the six years 1966–71 there were a further 10 debt renegotiations on behalf of another four countries. There were 3 renegotiations, in 1966, 1968, and 1970, on behalf of Ghana; 4 in 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1970, on behalf of Indonesia; 1 in 1968, on behalf of India; and 2 in 1968 and 1969, on behalf of Peru. As these figures indicate, the external debts of most of these eight debtor nations were renegotiated a number of times.

The Fund staff participated as observers and advisors in all of the multilateral debt renegotiations. A principal task of the staff was to prepare an analysis of the economic position and prospects of the debtor country. In some instances, the staff was requested to assess the economic consequences of various renegotiation proposals submitted to a meeting by the creditors and the debtor; and, when agreed by the creditors and the debtor, the staff at times prepared reports on the status of the various bilateral debt agreements and the evolution of the country’s debt position.

Another important part of the Fund’s action in regard to external indebtedness was the working out with several developing members of provisions in their financial stabilization programs dealing with indebtedness. Limits on medium-term external indebtedness were included in many financial stabilization programs, either as performance criteria or as statements of policy.

Review of Policies

After three years of implementing these policies, the Fund in the course of 1971 undertook to review its experience in working with members on the management of their external indebtedness and with multilateral debt renegotiations. The timing of this review was geared in part to a request by the ciap that the Fund join with other international institutions in a program of debt service studies.

The review included an assessment in April of the use of limitations on foreign debt as performance criteria in stand-by arrangements. The staff concluded that such limitations had been useful, but that they had to be precisely defined and easy to control. The staff further concluded that just how restrictive limitations on debt specified in stand-by arrangements should be should depend very much on the particular situation of the member: only in the most serious situations should it be necessary to ask a member to prohibit the authorization of a given category of new indebtedness.

The Executive Directors generally concurred with the staff’s conclusions, but they debated the guidelines that the Fund ought to use in setting debt limits. The existing practice was that debt limitations were set in terms of the amounts of new debt obligations of specified maturities that could be incurred. They considered whether limitations should be set instead in terms of maximum annual debt service payments. And they discussed the length of maturities that should be restricted. Mr. Massad (Chile) pleaded for flexibility in the Fund’s policies in regard to external indebtedness, saying that the Fund had to heed the close relationship between the contracting of foreign debt and the rate of economic development. In general, it was agreed that the existing policies would be continued.

In August 1971, just before the Annual Meeting, the staff appraised the experience of the Fund’s members with multilateral debt renegotiations, in conjunction with a study by the World Bank on the same subject, also done at the request of the ciap. In November, after the Annual Meeting, the Executive Directors discussed the staff’s study. They agreed with the conclusion that the debt renegotiation exercises had achieved the desired objectives of providing a substantial amount of balance of payments relief to the debtor countries concerned and of helping to prevent an undue retardation of capital flows from developed to developing countries. The direct balance of payments impact of debt renegotiations had been significant, and multilateral debt renegotiations had helped debtor countries to reorient their economic policies.

The general staff study on multilateral debt renegotiations was sent to the ciap and to the World Bank and the oecd, along with special studies that the staff prepared on the debt service of ten members (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Korea, Peru, and Turkey).

External Debt of Ghana

Inasmuch as the external debt renegotiation exercises represented a major effort by the Fund staff (as well as by the staff of the World Bank) over a number of years, it is worthwhile to elaborate on what was involved and what was accomplished. Ghana has been selected as illustrative.

On February 24, 1966 a new Government superseded the Government of Kwame Nkrumah, which had been in power since Ghana gained its independence in March 1957. The new Government faced a number of difficult problems that had resulted from the development strategy of the Nkrumah Government combined with a gradual decline after mid-1958 in world prices for cocoa, Ghana’s main export. Development policy from 1960 to 1966 had focused on the simultaneous achievement of rapid industrialization, increased agricultural productivity, and higher employment. The economic policies pursued, plus the low prices for cocoa, found Ghana at the end of 1965 with a declining rate of growth of real gross domestic product, sizable investments in numerous large projects of questionable economic merit and with long gestation periods, a depletion of Ghana’s once-large foreign exchange reserves, and an external indebtedness far in excess of what Ghana’s economic size or structure warranted. Debt service payments were putting a severe strain on the balance of payments, and certain payments were already in arrears. Confidence both at home and abroad had been seriously undermined.

Almost immediately the new Government embarked on a fundamental reorientation of economic policy and began to introduce economic reforms. Many of the monetary and financial measures taken were worked out closely with the Fund, and in May 1966 the Fund approved a stand-by arrangement for Ghana and in July 1966 assigned a resident representative.10

Meetings on External Debt

Among other measures, the new Government that took power in February 1966 announced that it would honor Ghana’s obligations with regard to external debt. However, in June 1966 debt repayments were temporarily suspended after the Government asked for a rescheduling of payments on Ghana’s medium-term debt. Responding to this request, representatives of several major Western creditor countries met with representatives of Ghana in four meetings held in London between June and December 1966, under the chairmanship of the United Kingdom. These creditor countries were Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Members of the Fund staff were present at these meetings, as were members of the staff of the World Bank. The Fund staff assisted in the preparation of documents for the meetings.

The discussions were confined to a rescheduling of repayments on credits or loans provided by the Governments of the creditor countries to the Government of Ghana or to persons or corporations resident in Ghana; only credits granted or insured by the Governments or the competent institutions of the creditor countries were under consideration. Debt relief was limited to credits with an original maturity of more than 1 year but not exceeding 12 years and arising under, or relating to, contracts for the supply of goods or services, or both, from outside Ghana, concluded before February 24, 1966. The terms of this first rescheduling, which covered 80 per cent of the payments for interest and principal due during the consolidation period on insured suppliers’ credits, included a consolidation period of 2½ years (until December 31, 1968), a grace period following the consolidation period of 2½ years, and a repayment period of 8 years. In other words, there was a “stretch-out” of 13 years. Interest rates during the moratorium, averaging 6 per cent, were comparable to interest rates prevailing commercially at the time.

In accordance with what was also agreed in the 1966 meetings, the Government of Ghana requested the Government of the United Kingdom to convene another meeting in 1968 to consider a further rearrangement of Ghana’s external debt. Two meetings held in London in July and October 1968 under the chairmanship of the United Kingdom focused on a rearrangement of service payments on suppliers’ credits due after December 31, 1968, the end of the 1966 consolidation period. The terms and the coverage of the 1968 rescheduling were, with some exceptions, similar to those of the 1966 arrangement.

The result of the two reschedulings was to reduce debt service on suppliers’ credits in the years 1967 through 1970 to about one third of the amounts due under the original schedules and to avert the possibility of technical default. Relief was extended only for a rather limited period of time, however; substantial payments would still fall due in the early 1970s. The short-term nature of the arrangement was justified on the grounds that it would give the creditors an early opportunity to re-examine Ghana’s performance. Creditor countries wished to be assured that Ghana would pursue policies compatible with the objective of restoring internal and external economic stability.

Ghana’s stand-by arrangements with the Fund, involving among other things limitations on new borrowing, provided the basis for such assurances. But the Fund did more than authorize stand-by arrangements and participate in the debt renegotiation meetings. In order to help to increase the flow of resources to Ghana, the Fund in 1967 began to sponsor meetings, the basic purpose of which was to provide a multilateral framework for extending balance of payments assistance to Ghana. Because these aid meetings were an innovation for the Fund, they are described in a separate subsection below.

The debt relief that was arranged was an essential element in Ghana’s stabilization efforts from 1967 through 1969. Progress toward financial and economic stability slowed the rate of increase in domestic prices and the balance of payments developed favorably, partly because the inflow of grants and long-term official capital recovered. Economic growth in real terms was resumed, although at a rather slow rate. Very few new suppliers’ credits were contracted and arrears of profits and dividends were systematically reduced.

Nevertheless, by early 1970 projections of Ghana’s debt service showed that repayments of principal and interest on suppliers’ credits were likely to reach a peak in 1972 and would continue to be fairly large through 1978. The Ghanaian authorities believed that the earlier debt rearrangements, while affording immediate and sizable relief, had the defect of not being based on a realistic appreciation of Ghana’s balance of payments problem, and of providing a short-term solution to a long-term problem. In their opinion, the burden of debt repayment presented an insuperable obstacle to the economic development of the country; there was talk among some economists and experts that, perhaps, the Government of Ghana should not have announced that it would honor the debt that had accumulated before 1966. The Government requested that another meeting between creditor nations and Ghana be convened, possibly to arrange a long-term refinancing loan at a low interest rate from the creditor nations.

Accordingly, a Ghana debt conference was held in London, again under the chairmanship of the United Kingdom, in May and July 1970. Relief equivalent to half the principal and interest falling due in the two years from July 1970 to July 1972 was worked out. Thus, as 1971 ended, the Ghanaian authorities were still struggling with large external debt problems. But it had been agreed that a further review of the situation in the longer term should be undertaken before mid-1972 to consider, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, what additional measures might be required. The Fund and the World Bank were to be invited to assist countries participating in this further conference and to prepare documentation for it.

The Fund Chairs Ghana Aid Meetings

During the meetings on external debt in 1966, Ghana’s representatives raised the question of whether the external debt problems ought not to be considered in conjunction with what other external aid Ghana might receive, particularly financial assistance for balance of payments support. Representatives of creditor countries had accepted the view that debt consolidation could meet only part of Ghana’s balance of payments problem; hence, Ghana had a balance of payments problem wider than that of debt servicing.

Early in 1967 Ghana submitted an aide-mémoire to the representatives in Accra of potential donor countries, proposing a meeting under the chairmanship of the Fund to discuss Ghana’s aid requirements for 1967, and requested the Fund to have such a meeting. After having ascertained that such a role for the Fund would be agreeable to the countries concerned, the Fund issued invitations for a meeting in Paris in April 1967. Fund staff chaired the meeting and assisted in preparing documents. World Bank staff participated in the meeting and collaborated in the preparations for it.

The meeting was considered satisfactory, and a follow-up meeting was held in Accra in September 1967, again convened and chaired by the Fund with the collaboration of the World Bank. A third meeting was held in Paris in February 1968, and a fourth, also in Paris, in May 1969. Participating in these meetings, in addition to the Fund, the World Bank, and Ghana, were Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Development Assistance Committee of the oecd, and the United Nations Development Program.

The underlying assumption of the meetings was that a continuing dialogue among countries, both aid-giving and aid-receiving, and international institutions, which served them both, were beneficial to all concerned. The Fund, for the first time, provided the forum and the facilities for carrying out such a dialogue. Subsequently, the World Bank took over this responsibility, organizing a Consultative Group for Ghana, which held its first meeting in London in mid-1970, and Ghana pursued bilateral discussions with donor countries concerning its aid requirements.

External Debt: A Long-Term Problem

The external indebtedness of developing members remained a long-run and basic problem. Mr. Morales Bermúdez (Peru) observed at the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting, held in Copenhagen in September 1970, that debt refinancing had brought his country only temporary respite. He considered the difficulty of external debt of developing countries a basic one stemming from the way in which international economic relations were conducted. He stated that “commercial relations, the process of investment and loans, and the application of orthodox rules of economic policy are continuing to cause our countries serious harm through ‘external dependence,’ converting us into net exporters of capital.” He foresaw as the result the destruction of most of the Latin American monetary systems.11

As interest rates and the cost of borrowing rose still further, countries that had not previously encountered serious debt servicing problems were beginning to fear them, a point brought out also at the 1970 Annual Meeting by Mr. Kibaki (Kenya).12

The problems of developing countries, including the problems of debt servicing, were of major concern to Mr. Schweitzer. At the 1971 Annual Meeting he drew special attention to the consequences for developing countries of the crisis in international monetary affairs that had occurred after the suspension of official convertibility by the United States six weeks before. He used these words to sum up the several problems facing developing countries:

Inflation and balance of payments difficulties in the industrial world during recent years led to higher costs and restricted availability of international credit and to sluggishness in the flow of official capital and aid at a time when developing countries were faced with a rising burden of external debt. The present exchange rate uncertainties add a new and serious impediment to the development efforts of these countries, which also must contend with the effects of the U.S. import surcharge and the cuts in U.S. aid. All this is not an auspicious beginning for the Second Development Decade, when developing countries have the task of finding new avenues of productive employment for their growing populations.13

The Fund as a Center for Information

During the years described in this history there was also an expansion of the Fund’s activities in the fields of information and publication.

Information to Members

In this regard, the Fund’s primary responsibility continued to be to report to its members on a wide range of economic and financial topics. The Fund supplied members, for example, with information relevant to all its decisions and operations. The information given to members took the form mainly of detailed minutes of meetings of the Executive Board, of hundreds of reports and studies prepared by the staff, and of a great deal of statistical and factual material gathered from member governments. This information was necessarily confidential and was customarily dispatched by the Executive Directors to the authorities in the countries that elected or appointed them.

In the years 1966–71 there was a very marked increase in the flow of documents to member governments. In part, the increase was a reflection of the growth of membership and of the expansion of the whole range of the Fund’s activities. But in addition, the Fund had become a central source of information on economic and financial conditions in member countries. For their assessments of the economic situations in different countries, member governments relied more than ever on the Fund’s consultation reports, particularly the background reports for the annual consultations, entitled “Recent Economic Developments” and referred to informally as red reports.14 Usually over 100 pages long, these reports contained considerable information that members found useful in connection with their foreign aid programs, their studies of commodities, and their work on debt relief. By 1971, Executive Directors were requesting as many as 500 copies of red reports for transmittal to member governments. As we shall see in the next two sections, requests from international organizations for these reports also increased.


From the inception of the Fund, the Executive Board emphasized the need for confidentiality of the Fund’s consultations with members and of the Fund’s documents as a prime requirement of good relations with member governments. At the same time, they recognized that the general public was entitled to a regular accounting of the Fund’s resources and their use, and they placed emphasis on the desirability of a better understanding of the Fund’s activities among government officials, bankers, businessmen, professors, students, and others. Therefore, under policies and procedures developed by the Executive Board and the management, the Fund made public over the years a great deal of information about what it was doing and about subjects closely related to its work.

Press releases were issued following the Fund’s transactions and other important decisions of the Executive Board. A monthly newsletter called the “IMF Memorandum,” in English, French, German, and Spanish, was distributed to financial writers throughout the Fund’s membership. A broad range of publications (formal reports and documents, proceedings of meetings, staff studies, periodicals, books, pamphlets, and leaflets) explaining the Fund’s actions was made available. Some of these publications, such as International Financial Statistics (IFS), were the by-products of the Fund’s regular work. In other instances, as with the Annual Report on Exchange Restrictions, the Fund chose to publish information that the Articles of Agreement required it to report on to members in one or another form.

A list of the publications that the Fund had made available from its inception through December 31, 1968 was given in the earlier history.15 Several of the Fund’s publications—such as the Annual Reports of the Executive Directors, the Summary Proceedings of the Annual Meetings, the Annual Reports on Exchange Restrictions, reports of the Executive Board on primary product prices and on exchange rates, and an amended Articles of Agreement—have been mentioned in previous chapters. Some are reproduced, in whole or in part, in Volume II of this history. In 1972, for the first time, the Fund published a Catalogue of Publications, 1946–71.16

During the years reviewed here there was also an interesting change in the techniques used for preparing publications, especially those of a statistical nature. Following the establishment by the Fund and the World Bank of a Joint Computer Center in 1968, the Bureau of Statistics built up a Data Fund, an electronically operated data bank system. Thousands of statistical time series for international trade, prices, reserves, banking, and money supply—the data used in IFS and Direction of Trade (DOT)—were transcribed onto magnetic tapes which were stored for use on high-speed computers. The Data Fund, of course, facilitated the Fund’s research, as it became possible to rearrange the large mass of IFS data easily and neatly in alternative forms, such as ratios, percentages, indices, or charts, and to make comparisons of different economic indicators, either within a country or between countries, quickly and accurately. But it also transformed the publication of IFS and DOT because the copying and reconciling of figures previously done by hand were eliminated.

In order to report on its activities more fully, especially in the context of other international monetary developments, the Fund during 1971 planned a new publication, a semimonthly, to be called the IMF Survey to replace the International Financial News Survey (IFNS).17

Increased Flow of Information

The discussions that culminated in the creation of SDRs and recurrent crises in exchange and gold markets led to an intensified interest in all phases of the Fund’s work. According to a UN report, the Fund was mentioned more frequently in the late 1960s in the daily press than were most other international organizations. At the 1971 Annual Meeting, more than 640 financial writers, newsmen, and television commentators covered the proceedings.

As a consequence of these developments, the Fund stepped up appreciably its informational activities and other public contacts. In the six years ended December 31, 1971, the number of press releases issued averaged more than one a week, double the rate in the preceding two decades. The Fund continued all of its series of publications, published several books, reports, and pamphlets, and published more of them in French, German, and Spanish. Material contained in the Fund’s publications was cited, or even reproduced, more and more frequently as the Fund became the authoritative source of information on international financial and monetary topics.

Personal appearances became another regular part of the Fund’s activities. In the years described in this volume, Mr. Schweitzer became a familiar figure as he traveled to all regions of the globe, representing the Fund at numerous financial meetings and accepting many speaking engagements. He also maintained communication with the press through numerous off-the-record interviews and general press conferences, and made several televised appearances. Mr. Southard and senior staff officials likewise undertook many speaking engagements and represented the Fund at international meetings. Information through personal contact was increased in other ways as well. A number of seminars were organized for university professors and outside economists. And the Information Office kept its doors open to outside inquiries and nonofficial visitors, often informally briefing newsmen and representatives of other communications media about the Fund.

Not only was the Fund to an increasing extent a center for dispensing information to the outside world, as it were, but the need for the Executive Directors and the staff to keep closely informed of important new developments taking place externally and of trends of opinion in the Fund’s fields of interest also became much greater than in earlier years. For this purpose, periodicals from all over the world were sifted and reports from news-gathering associations were rapidly disseminated throughout the Fund.

As the year 1971 came to a close, interest in the Fund’s affairs was being stimulated even further by the start of discussions, at the highest political levels, to reform the world monetary system. Moreover, the topics being discussed were becoming increasingly technical. It was evident, therefore, that the Fund’s informational activities would continue to expand.

Relations with UN, GATT, and OECD

At several points in previous chapters, mention has been made of the Fund’s relations with special groups that were working on international monetary issues, such as the Group of Ten and the Group of Seventy-Seven, and with global, regional, and subregional organizations in the economic and financial field, such as the World Bank, the oecd, the Unctad, the ciap, arid the fao. As the world became more closely knit, liaison with other groups and organizations in the economic field became an essential part of the Fund’s work. The Fund enhanced its cooperation with other groups partly in the belief that its competence in areas where it had primary concern or jurisdiction could help to serve the broader informational needs of many organizations, and partly because the Fund, in return, would gain greater insight into members’ interests and problems. This cooperation also sought to avoid duplication of effort on the part both of organizations and of government officials.

The Fund’s representatives participated in meetings at all levels—plenary sessions, committee meetings, and working groups—of a growing number of organizations, and representatives of more organizations came to the Annual Meetings of the Board of Governors, which continued to be held jointly with the Board of Governors of the World Bank. In addition, the exchange of documents and information between the Fund and other organizations and the number of informal staff contacts expanded steadily.

UN Family

As a specialized agency of the United Nations, the Fund had always had close relations with that body and a staff member served as Special Representative to the United Nations. The Managing Director continued to make his annual address to the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc), presenting the Fund’s Annual Report. It was usual for a number of Executive Directors and senior staff to attend plenary sessions of the Ecosoc. The Managing Director or the Deputy Managing Director participated in meetings of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (acc). In 1966 Mr. Schweitzer also attended the first session of the Interagency Consultative Board of the newly established United Nations Development Program (undp), which was held in New York, and in July 1968 he went to the first joint meeting of the acc and the Committee for Program and Coordination, in Bucharest. In 1969, 1970, and 1971 he also attended such joint meetings. Mr. Southard represented the Fund at the twenty-fifth anniversary meeting of the United Nations in New York on October 24, 1970.

Other staff members represented the Fund in preliminary meetings and subcommittee activities of the acc; at the General Assembly; at the Committee for Development Planning of the Ecosoc; at the first session of the Industrial Development Board; and at the Governing Council of the undp, including the special meetings in 1969 to consider the report by Sir Robert Jackson on the capacity of the development system of the United Nations.18

The Fund staff continued to attend the meetings of the various regional economic commissions of the United Nations—the Economic Commissions for Africa (eca), Asia and the Far East (ecafe), Europe (ece), and Latin America (ecla)—and to go to working party and committee meetings of these commissions. A few details illustrate the extent to which the Fund participated. In the fiscal year 1966/67, for example, observers were sent to the Sub-Regional Meeting on Economic Cooperation in West Africa at Niamey, and to the Tenth Session of the Working Party on Economic Development Planning and its Fourth Workshop on Problems of Budget Classification and Management in Countries of the ECAFE Region, both of which were held in Bangkok. In the fiscal year 1969/70, the Fund was represented at meetings of the Committee on the Development of Trade of the ece, the Committee of Trade of the ecafe, and the Committee of the Whole of the ecla, and at an informal meeting of the ecafe on regional payments and trade liberalization. In 1970/71 Fund representatives participated in two Extraordinary Meetings of the Committee of the Whole of the ecla, held in New York, the first to review the work of the ecla and the second to review the situation in Peru following a disastrous earthquake. In that year, too, staff members attended the meeting of Government and Central Bank Officials on Regional Trade and Monetary Cooperation of the ecafe, in Bangkok, and the Ad Hoc Meeting on Methods for International Trade Projections of the ece, in Geneva.

From time to time the staff attended meetings of ad hoc groups that were assembled by the United Nations to consider specialized topics. These meetings included, for instance, those of a Committee of Experts on Development Planning, an Inter-Regional Seminar on the Planning of the Foreign Trade Sector, an expert group on the measurement of capital flow to the developing countries, an Inter-Regional Seminar on Government Accounting and Financial Management, and a Round Table on Export Credits. The staff also participated in the Fourth Session of the Commission on International Trade Law, held in Geneva.

The agency of the United Nations with which the Fund has had a virtually continuous relationship was the Unctad. In fact, it was primarily in order to maintain close relations with the Unctad and with the gatt that an office was set up in Geneva in 1965.19 Thereafter, the Fund was represented at numerous meetings of the regular committees and of special groups of the Unctad, both in Geneva and in New York. Of particular interest to the Fund was the Committee on Invisibles and Financing Related to Trade, the Expert Group on International Monetary Issues (discussed above in Chapter 4), the Intergovernmental Group on Supplementary Financing, the Special Committee on Preferences, and the Unctad Intergovernmental Group on Trade Expansion, Economic Cooperation, and Regional Integration Among Developing Countries. By 1971, keeping in touch with the work of the Unctad absorbed the full-time services of one staff member of the Fund’s Office in Geneva.

The Fund sent staff not only from its Geneva office but also from headquarters to sessions in 1967 and 1969 of the United Nations Trade and Development Board (the permanent organ of the Unctad), and to the Second Session of the Unctad in New Delhi in February and March 1968. In addition, prior to the 1968 Unctad Conference, a mission representing a group of developing countries (the Group of Seventy-Seven) met with the Managing Director and members of the staff in Washington in December 1967 and presented for information the “Charter of Algiers,” which contained the developing countries’ program for action at the forthcoming Conference. Later on, in response to Decision 29 (II) adopted by the Unctad at its Second Session, the staff prepared a study entitled “The Use of Commercial Credits by Developing Countries for Financing Imports of Capital Goods,” which was transmitted to the Secretary-General of the Unctad on January 16, 1970.20


During the years reviewed here the Fund continued to have close relations both with the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (gatt) in Geneva and with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd) in Paris.21

As in the past, the Fund’s representatives attended the General Sessions of the gatt, as well as the consultations held by the Committee on Balance of Payments Restrictions with regard to import restrictions, import deposit requirements, and import surcharges imposed for balance of payments reasons. In the six years ended 1971 the Fund was represented at gatt consultations with many countries, including Brazil, Ceylon, Chile, Ghana, Finland, Greece, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Republic, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. And the Fund staff participated in a working party on the United Kingdom’s import deposit scheme.

For countries consulting with the gatt on restrictions imposed for balance of payments reasons, in accordance with arrangements that had been worked out years before, the Fund supplied the gatt with copies of the Fund’s consultation reports (not only the red reports but also the staff’s report on its discussions with member officials). It also sent to the gatt the decisions reached by the Executive Board at the conclusion of Article XIV consultations.

The staff attended a number of other meetings of subsidiary bodies of the gatt, such as those of the Council of Representatives and the Committees on Trade in Industrial Products and Agriculture, and the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments. Most of the meetings of the gatt were attended by the staff of the Fund’s Office in Geneva; gatt affairs came to absorb the full-time services of one staff member in that office. At times, staff members from headquarters went to Geneva to attend particular meetings of the gatt.

The Fund had active working relations with the oecd, mainly through its Office in Europe (Paris). In addition to joint activities mentioned elsewhere in this volume, the Fund was invited to attend the annual meetings of the Ministerial Council and the meetings of the Executive Committee in special session. Mr. Schweitzer attended meetings at the ministerial level. Staff members, designated as representatives of the Managing Director rather than of the Fund, attended the meetings of a number of the committees of the oecd. Most notable were the Economic Policy Committee and its Working Party 3 (discussed in particular in Part One above), the Economic and Development Review Committee, the Board of Management of the European Monetary Agreement, and the Development Assistance Committee (dac) including its several working parties.

During the years reviewed here the Fund continued to supply the oecd with copies of its consultation reports, including the staff reports (formerly called Part I), on countries that were members of the oecd. The staff attended meetings of a Special Group on Trade with Developing Countries set up by the dac to consider the special tariff treatment that developing countries might receive in the markets of developed countries, and participated for several years with the oecd in a study on the improvement of capital markets and a study on a code of liberalization for capital movements.

Relations with other Organizations

The Fund maintained close ties with the Bank for International Settlements (bis), in Basle, principally by means of frequent informal discussions between the Managing Director and bis officials.

The Fund’s Office in Europe (Paris) maintained close contacts with the European Economic Community in Brussels, the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg, and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and with some nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Among the organizations composed of Caribbean and Latin American countries, the Fund’s relations with the Organization of American States (oas) and its Committee on the Alliance for Progress (ciap) were probably the most continuous. During the years reviewed here the Fund’s representatives, for example, in 1966 went to the fourth annual meetings of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (Ia-Ecosoc) in Buenos Aires at the expert and the ministerial levels, as well as the seventh meeting of the ciap that preceded them. In February 1967 members of the staff attended the Third Special Inter-American Conference of the oas, also in Buenos Aires, which was preceded by an extraordinary meeting of the Ia-Ecosoc at the ministerial level. In June 1967 staff representatives went to the fifth annual Ia-Ecosoc meeting in Viña del Mar, Chile, and in June 1969 and February 1970, to the next annual meetings of the Ia-Ecosoc at the expert and ministerial levels. The Fund’s representatives also regularly attended special meetings of the ciap. Among other activities, they, as in previous years, participated informally in an advisory capacity in a series of interagency meetings arranged by the ciap secretariat. And, of course, the external debt studies discussed above were at the request of the ciap.

There were any number of contacts between the staff and other Latin American organizations. The Fund customarily sent representatives, for example, to the annual meetings of the Board of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank (idb), to meetings of Central Banking Experts of the American Continent, to meetings of the Central American Monetary Council, and to meetings of the Center for Latin American Monetary Studies (cemla). The Fund was represented at the inaugural meeting of the Caribbean Development Bank in January 1970. Fund staff went to the First Subregional (Andean Area) Meeting of the Latin American Association of Development Financing Institutions, in Lima, and then to the first and second meetings of Central Banks of Signatory States of the Andean Subregional Integration Agreement, in Quito in June 1970 and in La Paz in November 1971. On March 1, 1971 the Managing Director attended a special meeting in Buenos Aires of the idb on the occasion of the installation of a new president of that organization.

In 1969 and 1970 the staff went to meetings of the Inter-American Center of Tax Administrators (ciat), and participated in a ciat workshop on the use of automatic data processing in tax administration. A joint study by the Fund staff and the executive secretariat of the Central American Monetary Council on the state of economic integration within the Central American Common Market was undertaken as well.

There was a growing participation with organizations in other geographic regions, especially the regional development banks. Staff members attended, for instance, the inaugural meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Tokyo in November 1966 and, thereafter, its annual meetings. The Fund was represented at a special meeting in July–August 1969 of experts on economic growth in Southeast Asia, organized by the Asian Development Bank. The Fund continued to be represented at the annual meetings of the African Development Bank, and in September 1971 staff went to the inaugural meeting in Rabat of the Association of African Central Banks. Reflecting its interest in commercial credits, the Fund began in June 1968 to send representatives to the meetings of the Union d’Assureurs des Crédits Internationaux (Berne Union).

In addition to participation in meetings, the Fund’s cooperation with other organizations took the form of an exchange of documents. More and more organizations made requests for the Fund’s consultation reports on countries that were common members. For some years, as we have seen above, the Fund had been regularly making available copies of its consultation reports to the oecd and to the gatt on countries that were members of these organizations. In 1964 a procedure had been set up by which other organizations, upon request, might receive copies of Part II of consultation reports (later the red report) on common members, provided that the Executive Director elected or appointed by the country which was the subject of the report had no objection.

The organizations subsequently requesting and receiving red reports on this ad hoc basis included the Asian Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, the Caribbean Free Trade Association, the European Free Trade Association, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank on behalf of the Morocco Consultative Group and on behalf of the Tunisia Consultative Group, the International Coffee Organization, the International Labor Organization, the Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress of the Organization of American States, and a number of agencies of the United Nations, such as the Development Program, the Economic and Social Office in Beirut, the Economic Commission for Africa, the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, the Economic and Social Council, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.22

Cooperation with the World Bank

The Fund has always had a special relationship with the World Bank, frequently called its sister organization because both institutions were born at the same time at Bretton Woods and, from the beginning have lived side by side in Washington. Many Executive Directors have served simultaneously on the Boards of both organizations in what were called interlocking directorates, and over the years there has been a great deal of informal interchange at the management and staff levels. The nature and degree of informal contacts and of the exchange of information and documents have varied, depending, among other things, on the type of problem concerned, on the jurisdiction and interest of each institution in a given problem or member country, and even on the particular Fund and Bank staff involved. Informal collaboration has inevitably been more regular and closer on some subjects and on some member countries than on other topics and members. Fund-Bank cooperation in the study of the stabilization of primary product prices, in multilateral debt renegotiations, and in work on some member countries has been cited in previous chapters. Mention also has been made of a Joint Computer Center, of publications issued jointly, and of coordination in the housing of participants in training programs.

Fresh Arrangements in 1966

In January and February of 1966, further steps were taken to achieve systematic coordination between the Fund and the Bank, particularly in their mutual dealings with member governments, and to define their spheres of primary responsibility. The idea was to assure, to the fullest extent feasible, a consistent view at the staff level by both organizations on economic policy matters relating to individual members and to avoid unintended conflict or overlapping that might lead to contradictory or inconsistent advice to members. Because the professional staffs of the two institutions were greatly enlarged, more formal arrangements for the exchange of factual information, of plans for sending missions, and of views on countries seemed necessary to provide guidance to the staff involved. Previously, when the conduct of their respective affairs was in fewer hands, the senior officials of the two organizations could handle these matters more informally.

It was agreed that the Fund had primary responsibility for exchange rates and restrictive systems, for adjustment of temporary balance of payments disequilibria, and for evaluating and assisting members to work out financial stabilization programs. On the matters thus identified, the staff of the Bank, particularly those on field missions, were to inform themselves of the established views and positions of the Fund and adopt these as a working basis for their own activities. On the other hand, the Bank was recognized as having primary responsibility for the composition and appropriateness of development programs and project evaluation, including development priorities. On these matters, the Fund staff, particularly those on field missions, were to adopt the views of the Bank. This division of responsibility meant that each institution, including missions, undertook not to engage with member countries in critical reviews of matters that were within the jurisdiction of the sister institution. In spheres which were not the primary responsibility of either institution, such as the structure and functioning of capital markets, the capacity of a member to generate domestic savings, the financial implications of economic development programs, and foreign debt problems, the staff of the Fund was to acquaint itself, before visiting a member country, with the views of the Bank, and vice versa.

Arrangements were also set out for collaboration in the field. Each institution agreed to be receptive to a request from the other to have a staff member accompany a mission as an observer, subject to the approval of the member government concerned; formulas were devised to preserve the autonomy of the observer. It was agreed that in appropriate situations it was desirable to have parallel missions, i.e., with both institutions visiting the same member at the same time and working closely together. In lieu of parallel missions, on occasion a staff member from the sister institution might work on certain subjects of the mission of the other institution, or even be completely integrated into the mission of the other institution.

Fund Participation in Aid-Coordinating Groups

Another important part of collaboration with the World Bank concerned the participation of Fund staff in consortia and consultative groups sponsored by the Bank. In July 1965, as the World Bank was planning to intensify its efforts to improve the coordination of development assistance provided by donor countries and intergovernmental institutions, Mr. George D. Woods, President of the World Bank, invited Mr. Schweitzer to send representatives to the consortia and consultative groups that the Bank would be arranging. Previously, the Bank had organized consortia for India and Pakistan and consultative groups for Colombia, Nigeria, the Sudan, and Turkey, in which Fund staff had participated on an informal basis. Now the Bank was expecting not only to strengthen the existing consortia and consultative groups but also to initiate new coordinating arrangements where it seemed likely that such arrangements could significantly improve the prospects for development. During the 1965 Annual Meetings, a general meeting of interested donor governments and intergovernmental organizations was to be convened under the World Bank’s auspices, and immediately after the Annual Meetings there were to be separate meetings pertinent to particular recipient countries. The Executive Board approved participation in these meetings for the next 12 to 18 months, and Mr. Schweitzer so informed Mr. Woods.

Thereafter, the number of meetings for aid coordination arranged by the World Bank increased substantially. In the course of the next year the Bank convened nine meetings, some in Washington and some outside the United States, concerning nine developing countries. Several were meetings of already established consultative groups, including recently established groups for Malaysia and Thailand; others, such as the meetings on Korea and Peru, were preliminary, to discuss the need for, or appropriate timing of, the establishment of more regular consultative machinery. As we have seen in the foregoing section, copies of the Fund’s red reports were supplied where appropriate and under agreed procedures. At the various meetings, the Fund staff made brief factual statements describing in general terms the country’s relations with the Fund and its economic situation, and answered questions raised by capital exporting countries.

The pattern thus established continued. During the 1966 Annual Meetings the World Bank again convened a general meeting on aid coordination to which the Fund was invited. The Executive Board approved, and Fund staff, along with representatives of 18 donor countries, the dac, the idb, the African Development Bank, and the undp, joined the staff of the World Bank in the meeting. In the 12 months after September 1966 Fund representatives attended meetings of the consortium on India and the consortium on Pakistan, as well as several other meetings on coordination of aid to Ceylon, Colombia, Ghana, Korea, Malaysia, Morocco, and Tunisia.

At the third general meeting on coordination of aid programs, which was held during the 1967 Annual Meetings in Rio de Janeiro, the consensus was that the program had been useful and that it should be carried on in the future very much as it had been during the previous 12 months. The authorization of the Executive Board for the staff to attend these meetings, which was expiring, was extended. The staff continued to participate closely in many of these groups. From the end of 1967 through the end of 1971 there were meetings of the consortium on India, the consortium on Pakistan, the consultative groups on development assistance to East Africa, Korea, the Philippines, and Tunisia, and meetings on aid to Ceylon and Ghana.

In a similar way in the years reviewed in this volume the Fund staff participated in a consortium on Turkey sponsored by the oecd and in meetings of an intergovernmental group convened by the Netherlands Government to coordinate aid to Indonesia.

Further Steps Toward Fund-Bank Collaboration

In the latter part of 1969 and early in 1970, the Fund and the Bank reviewed their experience of collaboration, with the purpose of finding ways to work together still more closely. Several factors prompted this review. Executive Directors of each institution had been asking for greater cooperation to make the fullest possible use of the expertise and information of the other, to minimize the duplication of requests to member governments for information, and to reduce to a minimum the risk of inconsistent policy advice. Moreover, the Fund was planning to increase its activity in the area of consultations and the World Bank under President Robert S. McNamara (who had taken office on April 1, 1968) was embarking on a substantially enlarged program of economic analyses of member countries. The report of the Pearson Commission, which was published in 1969, recommended that “the World Bank and the IMF, in countries where both operate, adopt procedures for preparing unified country assessments and assuring consistent policy advice.”23

After intensive conversations at various levels, the two organizations agreed that the practices that had been evolving since the 1966 understanding ought to be generalized and more uniformly observed. There were to be mutual briefings before Fund missions or Bank economic missions departed and debriefings after their return. There were to be increased efforts by the two institutions to use the same basic data, and common statistical definitions and series. Drafts as well as final documents were to be exchanged. To take advantage of the specialization of each institution, there was to be an experimental program in which there would be incorporated into one another’s economic reports sections drafted by staff of the other institution.

The Executive Board approved these broad procedures in April 1970 and authorized a general invitation to the Bank to send a staff member as an observer to attend the Fund’s Executive Board discussions on members in connection with Article VIII and Article XIV consultations and in connection with requests to use the Fund’s resources; Mr. Schweitzer so informed Mr. McNamara.

These procedures were subsequently implemented. As far as missions were concerned, for instance, in the fiscal year 1969/70 there were 5 cases of parallel missions and there was 1 case of overlapping missions (that is, a mission from each organization was in the field simultaneously for at least a few days). Apart from meetings of aid-coordinating groups, staff of the Fund joined 10 missions of the Bank; staff of the Bank participated in 2 of the Fund’s missions; and the Fund sent missions to a member especially to coordinate with a resident Bank mission. In the fiscal year 1970/71 there was even greater interrelation between missions of the two institutions. There were 10 cases of parallel missions and 4 cases of overlapping missions; staff of the Fund joined 16 Bank missions, apart from aid-coordinating meetings; and staff of the Bank joined 6 Fund missions. Likewise, after these new efforts at collaboration in 1969/70, informal interchange at the management and staff levels accelerated.

Fund-Bank Relations in Sum

The history of Fund-Bank relations from 1966 to 1971 clearly reflected the efforts of the two institutions to work more closely together. Both organizations, recognizing the wide and growing range of their common interests and the mutual advantages of working together to the maximum extent feasible, began to seek more ways to cooperate. Closer collaboration was not always feasible because of differences in the areas of responsibility of the two institutions, in the nature of the tasks they performed, in their objectives, and in their methods of working. Complicating factors on the Fund side included, for instance, the need for strict secrecy and urgent decision concerning certain actions of member governments, such as in connection with stand-by arrangements or changes in exchange rates. Another complicating factor was the Fund’s primary concern with relatively short-run economic circumstances and their balance of payments implications, whereas the World Bank directed its efforts mainly to long-term resource allocation and economic development. Nonetheless, as of the end of 1971, the management of each institution was taking steps to ensure that there was minimum duplication of effort, that the advice given to members was consistent, and that cooperation did not depend on the particular staff involved. Coordination of mission activity, of technical assistance provided to members, and of work on broad economic problems and policies was increasing.24

In addition to the interrelationships outlined above, the Fund and the Bank had for many years sought to harmonize their policies with regard to internal administrative matters, including staff policies and benefits. In the six years 1966–71 there were new and major efforts to coordinate the administrative policies of the two institutions.

E.B. Decision No. 3153-(70/95), October 26, 1970; Vol. II below, pp. 214–15.

See History, 1945–65, Vol. I, pp. 553–54.

Address by the Chairman of the Boards of Governors and Opening Address by the Managing Director, Summary Proceedings, 1966, pp. 5 and 17.

Statements by the Alternate Governor of the Fund and the World Bank for Korea, the Governors of the Fund and the World Bank for Mexico and Malaysia, and the Governor of the World Bank for Afghanistan, Summary Proceedings, 1966, pp. 76, 125–26, 26, and 66–67.

Address by the Chairman of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank, ifc, and ida, Summary Proceedings, 1967, p. 6.

Statements by the Governors of the World Bank for Yugoslavia, Nigeria, the Sudan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and the Governor of the Fund and the World Bank for Liberia, Summary Proceedings, 1967, pp. 76, 192–93, 206, 87, 202, and 200.

Statement by the Governor of the World Bank for Israel, Summary Proceedings, 1967, p. 105.

Statements by the Governors of the World Bank for Sweden and the Netherlands, Summary Proceedings, 1968, pp. 169 and 187.

Statement by the Governor of the Fund for Israel, Summary Proceedings, 1969, pp. 243–44.

Among the economic reforms that the new Government effected were the introduction in February 1967 of a new cedi and a devaluation of that cedi in July 1967, actions that have already been described in Chap. 23.

Statement by the Governor of the World Bank for Peru, Summary Proceedings, 1970, pp. 111–12.

Statement by the Governor of the Fund and the World Bank for Kenya, Summary Proceedings, 1970, p. 140.

Opening Address by the Managing Director, Summary Proceedings, 1971, p. 13.

See Chap. 28 above, pp. 576–77.

History, 1945–65, Vol. I, pp. 555–57, and Vol. III, pp. 545–59.

Vol. II of this history also contains a list of the publications of the Fund for the years 1966–71; see pp. 335–39 of that volume.

IFNS ceased publication in June 1972 and the first issue of the IMF Survey appeared in August 1972.

United Nations, A Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System (Geneva, 1969), 2 vols.

History, 1945–65, Vol. I, pp. 559–60.

In 1972 the Fund’s relations with the Unctad became closer still. The Group of Twenty-Four had emerged as the “financial arm” of the Group of Seventy-Seven, and Mr. Schweitzer participated in the ministerial meeting of the Group of Twenty-Four in Caracas on April 6 and 7, 1972. In addition, Mr. Schweitzer addressed the Third Unctad Conference in Santiago on April 25, 1972.

For background on the Fund’s relations with these organizations, see History, 1945–65, Vol. II, Chaps. 15 and 16. For further discussion of the Fund’s relations with the gatt, see Edgar Jones, “The Fund and the GATT,” Finance and Development, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 30–33.

Shortly after the close of 1971, arrangements similar to those with the oecd for receiving the Fund’s consultation reports were agreed with the eec.

Partners in Development, Report of the Commission on International Development (New York, 1969), p. 220.

The Bank’s relations with the Fund have also been described at some length in the World Bank’s history. See The World Bank Since Bretton Woods, by Edward S. Mason and Robert E. Asher (Washington, 1973), Chap. 16, especially pp. 544–58.

    Other Resources Citing This Publication