Republic of Tajikistan: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund in
Current site
Google Scholar Close
Publication Date:
14 Apr 2005
eISBN:
9781451837056
Language:
English
Keywords:
ISCR; CR; Tajikistan; wage; debt; remittance; Tajik economy; a number of debt cancellation; government and government-guaranteed; debt profile; creating flow; regularization agreement; Debt sustainability; Debt service; Fiscal stance
Download PDF (617 KB)

This Selected Issues paper analyzes the sources of recent growth in Tajikistan. It concludes that economic growth has been mainly driven by the services sector and a surge in remittances that have been mainly used for private consumption and small-scale private investment. The paper summarizes the recently introduced revisions to the Tax Code, which are an evolutionary step in simplifying the tax system and setting the base for better revenue administration. It also examines the likely impact on households of increasing electricity prices to cost-recovery levels.

Abstract

This Selected Issues paper analyzes the sources of recent growth in Tajikistan. It concludes that economic growth has been mainly driven by the services sector and a surge in remittances that have been mainly used for private consumption and small-scale private investment. The paper summarizes the recently introduced revisions to the Tax Code, which are an evolutionary step in simplifying the tax system and setting the base for better revenue administration. It also examines the likely impact on households of increasing electricity prices to cost-recovery levels.

IX. External Public Debt Developments and Sustainability1

This chapter reviews the substantial progress made by the Tajikistan authorities in improving external debt sustainability. However, it notes that the debt profile still needs to be managed prudently, especially from a fiscal sustainability perspective.

A. Historical Trends

1. In 1991, Tajikistan started its development as an independent state without external debt, but debt accumulated rapidly during the 1990s. In the early years of transition, against the backdrop of a chaotic political situation, civil conflict, poor governance and cessation of transfers from the central budget, the authorities had to import petroleum products, grain, and consumer staples, all at market prices. These imports relied initially on short-term suppliers’ credits and subsequently on offsets through correspondent accounts in central banks of former Soviet states. As a result, Tajikistan’s external debt increased from zero at independence to 15 percent of GDP by end-1992 and to 60 percent a year later. The explosive trend in debt accumulation continued through the 1990s and culminated in 2000, when external debt reached 128 percent of GDP.

uA09fig01

Evolution of Public Debt

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 131; 10.5089/9781451837056.002.A009

2. Attempts to regularize the debt situation began in the mid-1990s but initially were only partly successful. In 1995, to arrest the buildup of arrears under bilateral trade arrangements with CIS partners, the government announced that it would no longer guarantee payments by Tajik enterprises. In the late 1990s-early 2000s, Tajikistan conducted a series of debt rescheduling negotiations with its main bilateral creditors, which helped to improve its debt service profile, although the terms of rescheduling were not sufficiently concessional to stabilize the debt ratios. At the same time, the authorities started using external concessional loans to finance development projects and accumulated additional debt.

3. Since the early 2000, prudent policies have reversed the pattern of a rising debt burden. The authorities implemented tighter policies on contracting new debt, avoiding non-concessional borrowing, and limiting new concessional loans under the public investment program (PIP) to 3 percent of GDP annually. In the absence of an effective debt management system, the ceiling on borrowing under the PIP has helped to restrain and better prioritize externally financed public investment. With a rapid recovery in output and further aggressive debt restructuring and regularization, the ratio of external debt to GDP first stabilized and then started to decline.

B. Recent Developments

4. Tajikistan’s external debt burden is relatively low compared with most other low-income countries. At end-2004, Tajikistan’s external debt amounted to $822 million (40 percent of GDP) and total debt service due was equivalent to 10 percent of relevant exports.2 The debt service payments due on government and government-guaranteed debt stood at 15 percent of fiscal revenue. In net present value (NPV) terms, Tajikistan’s external public sector debt at end-2004 amounted to about 33 percent of GDP, compared with 72 percent in the Kyrgyz Republic, 53 percent in Moldova, 41 percent in Georgia, and 39 percent in Armenia.

5. At end-2004, multilateral creditors accounted for two-thirds of the debt stock. Two largest multi-lateral creditors are the World Bank and the IMF. Uzbekistan is now the largest bilateral creditor, (after the October 2004 debt reduction agreement with Russia) followed by Russia, the United States, and Turkey. Over half of Tajikistan’s external debt is denominated in SDRs, 34 percent is in US dollars, 7 percent is in Euros, and the rest is in other currencies.

Public External Debt at a Glance

article image
Source: Tajik authorities.

6. The external debt situation improved markedly in 2002–2004 owing to the reduction in face value and favorable endogenous debt dynamics. The authorities concluded a number of debt cancellation and restructuring (most recently with Russia and Pakistan) which help reduce the face value of external debt by 20 percent in 2004 alone. Also, the government did not contract any new bilateral loans, other than from two development funds (the Saudi Fund and the Kuwait Fund) classified as bilateral lenders. Most bilateral assistance is now provided in the form of grants. Endogenous debt dynamics, in particular from the rapid increase in the nominal GDP, both from the high real growth rate and the improvement in the coverage of previous informal economic activities, have also contributed markedly to the reduction of debt ratios.

uA09fig02

Key Debt Ratios

(In percent)

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 131; 10.5089/9781451837056.002.A009

7. The agreement on regularization of debt with Russia was an important factor behind the reduction of the debt burden. The agreement signed in October 2004 affecting $306 million of principal and interest is part of a broader investment package and includes: a debt-for-asset swap of $242 million; offset of the National Bank of Tajikistan’s claims on the Central Bank of Russia; and cancellation of the bulk of the unpaid interest accrued in 2004. Under the swap, $242 million will be converted into Russia’s state ownership of the Nurek space tracking station located in Tajikistan. The formal write-off of the debt will take place after Russia’s ownership of Nurek is legally finalized. The government of Tajikistan will repay the remaining $50 million by investing this amount during 2005–2008 on behalf of Russia in the construction of the Sangtuda I hydro-power station.

Debt Reduction Agreement with Russia

(In millions of US dollars)

article image
Source: Tajik authorities.

8. Tajikistan’s debt to Uzbekistan has been the subject of protracted negotiations. Uzbekistan’s total debt outstanding is $94 million. The debt originated from trade credits and negative balances on correspondent accounts opened in the early 1990s in the central banks of both countries for offsets in trade-related payments. This debt has been serviced by offsets with services provided by Tajik Rail for the transportation of Uzbek goods through the Tajik territory. After protracted negotiations, in February 2005 the governments of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan signed an agreement for debt payments in 2004 and 2005. The debt service of $14 million falling due in 2005 will be paid with services by Tajik Rail. As the offset agreements have to be renegotiated annually, this creates significant uncertainty regarding future debt payments.

C. Debt Sustainability

9. The assumptions underlying this debt sustainability analysis (DSA) include: continued strong real growth of 6.5 percent a year on average in 2005–2010, moderate inflation of 5 percent annually, fiscal deficit, (excluding the PIP) of 0.5 percent of GDP, externally financed PIP at 4.5 percent of GDP, and current account deficit of 4–5 percent of GDP. Commodity prices (aluminum, cotton) and exchange rate projections are based on the January 2005 WEO baseline, updated with recent near-term price movements. The discount rate for NPV calculations is set at 5 percent, and exports are computed as the current year exports of goods and services, excluding barter exports of aluminum and electricity. The DSA is based on the operational framework for low-income countries3 adjusted to Tajikistan’s circumstances, mainly by calibrating stress tests.

10. Under the baseline scenario, Tajikistan’s public debt will remain sustainable in the foreseeable future.4 Assuming highly concessional new borrowing and overall prudent debt management, the face value of Tajikistan’s public external debt is not expected to exceed 40 percent of GDP in the long-run (Table 1). The non-interest current account is projected to remain close to balance as the trade deficit will be largely offset by net transfers, while FDI, other non-debt creating inflows, and high GDP growth will have a positive impact on the endogenous debt dynamics. In the medium term, reflecting its highly concessional nature, the NPV of Tajikistan’s debt will average 31 percent of GDP. The NPV of public debt-to-exports ratio is projected to decline gradually from 100 to 91 percent during the projection period, reflecting mainly faster exports growth, with the NPV of debt remaining broadly stable. The public debt service-to-export ratio will also decline from 10 to 5 percent. The profile of the government and government-guaranteed (GGG) debt is largely similar to that of the public debt (Table 2).

11. The most optimistic scenario of conservative borrowing policies and the continuation of favorable recent macroeconomic trends would ease the debt burden further. A historical scenario assumes the continuation of the favorable 2002–2004 trends in debt dynamics—key macroeconomic variables (real GDP growth, GDP deflator, non-interest current account and non-debt creating flows) at their 1998–2004 averages. Under this scenario, the NPV of public debt would decline from the baseline of 33 percent of GDP in 2004 to 24 percent in 2013, the NPV of debt-to export ratio will decline from 100 to 72 percent, and the debt service ratio will drop from 10 to 6 percent. (Table 3, Figure 1). In addition, if the primary fiscal deficit remains at the low level of 2002—2004 during the projection period, the NPV of debt-to-revenue ratio will decline from 175 percent in 2004 to 65 percent in 2013 and debt service-to-revenue ratio will drop to from 11 to 3 percent (Table 4, Figure 2) However, the economic factors that led to the recent rapid improvement in the debt outlook are not likely to be repeated.

12. Alternative less favorable scenarios suggest that the prospects of debt sustainability will depend critically on the continuation of sound policies and concessional borrowing. An extreme alternative scenario of a deterioration in all key variables by one-half standard deviation yields a significant deterioration of debt ratios. During the five years after such a shock, the NPV of public debt-to-GDP ratio may worsen by almost 50 percentage points on average, and a permanently lower GDP growth (by one standard deviation compared to the baseline) results in a deterioration in the NPV of debt-to-revenue ratio by 44 percentage points on average in 2005–2010. In the long run (Table 3), the scenario of less favorable terms for new public sector borrowing (interest rate 2 percentage points higher than in the baseline) may result in a significant deterioration the NPV of debt-to-GDP ratio from 33 percent of GDP in 2004 to 48 percent in 2023 and in the NPV of debt-to-exports ratio from 100 to 137 percent. A permanently lower GDP growth is also a significant risk factor for fiscal debt sustainability in the long-term prospective (Table 4), as the associated lower revenue collection can result in an increase of NPV of debt-to-revenue ratio from 175 to 304 percent in 2004–2023, and the debt service-to-revenue ratio on GGG debt from 11 to 18 percent.

Stress tests results, 2005-2010 averages

article image

13. Additional bound tests show that Tajikistan’s external public debt position will remain highly sensitive to adverse shocks. As just three commodities—aluminum, cotton, and fruits and vegetables—constitute some 40 percent of GDP, 70 percent of exports, and 10 percent of fiscal revenue, Tajikistan’s debt sustainability in the long run will depend substantially on price and volume dynamics in these highly volatile sectors. Not surprisingly, an export revenue shock is one of the more extreme shock modeled by this DSA. In the medium term (see box above), assuming that export revenue declines by one standard deviation from its historical average, the NPV-to-exports ratio worsened from an average of 93 percent under the baseline in the next five years, to 169 percent in 2004-2010 on average, and the debt service ratio on public debt will deteriorate from 7 to 11 percent. In the longer-term prospective (Table 3), the debt dynamics are particularly sensitive to the export revenue shock. A one standard deviation shock compared to historical averages can lead to a protracted deterioration of the NPV of debt-to exports ratio, which will not disappear even by 2023. A surge in inflation and nominal depreciation are also important risk factors, which can have lasting effect on the NPV of debt-to-GDP and the fiscal ratios, in particular the NPV of debt-to-revenue and debt service-to-revenue ratios (Table 4). Therefore, if the forecast of the underlying GDP growth does not materialize, a permanently lower GDP growth is the most negative alternative scenario, which can have an adverse impact on the overall debt dynamics. Shocks to GDP and export growth, exchange rate depreciation and inflation are the most important risk factors for fiscal sustainability of the existing debt burden.

D. Conclusions

14. Tajikistan’s debt situation seems sustainable, but vulnerable to shocks and hinges on continued strong policy implementation.

  • External concessional borrowing not exceeding 4.5 percent of GDP annually is broadly consistent with long-term debt sustainability. Stability of debt ratios in the long run depends on cautious borrowing policies and strong macroeconomic performance. With strong growth underpinned by sustained reforms and no new non-concessional borrowing, Tajikistan debt indicators are projected to remain stable in the longer term. However, slippages in reforms, lower growth, and adverse exogenous shocks, in particular to exports, are the largest sources of debt vulnerability.

  • Fiscal sustainability of debt, although improved after the recent debt regularization agreements, needs to be monitored closely and continuously. Government’s debt service obligations will remain an important expenditure item, in particular in the medium term. The revenue effort (taxes and grants) of at least 18.0–18.5 percent GDP during the forecast period and a fiscal deficit excluding the PIP not exceeding 0.5 percent of GDP are needed to target the debt service-to-revenue ratio at below 15 percent. This targeted level of debt service is appropriate based on historical experience and would permit additional budget expenditure on development and social needs, without diverting an excessive share to debt repayments. Lower GDP growth and revenue are the main risks to debt sustainability, as debt service payments could increase up to 20 percent of fiscal revenue in the worst case scenario.

  • Restructuring of bilateral debt with large creditors remains a priority. Debt rescheduling or cancellation of obligations to the largest creditors (Uzbekistan, the United States, and Turkey) would help smoothen the debt profile in the medium term and reduce strain on fiscal resources.

  • Strengthening debt management capacity must continue. The authorities need to establish a reliable computerized debt tracking system for all external debts—public and private—and start using it for budget and balance of payment forecasting and analysis. The terms and conditions of significant loans under the PIP or any other public credit line should be analyzed carefully to determine their impact on Tajikistan’s debt profile and its sustainability. A fully-fledged DSA should be prepared annually, as a contribution to the annual budget exercise.

Table 1.

Tajikistan: Sensitivity Analyses for Key Indicators of Public External Debt, 2002-23

(In percent of GDP, unless otherwise indicated)

article image
Source: Tajikistan authorities; and Fund staff estimates and simulations.

Includes external government and government-guaranteed (GGG) debt, not guaranteed debt of public enterprises, and debt serviced by NBT.

Derived as [r - g - ρ(1+g)/(1+g+ρ+gρ) times previous period debt ratio, with r = nominal interest rate; g = real GDP growth rate, and ρ = growth rate of GDP deflator in U.S. dollar terms.

Includes exceptional financing (i.e., changes in arrears and debt relief); changes in gross foreign assets; and valuation adjustments. For projections also includes contribution from price and exchange rate changes.

Assumes that NPV of public not guaranteed debt is equivalent to its face value.

Current-year interest payments divided by previous period debt stock.

Derived over the post-civil war period of 1998-2003.

Non-barter exports of goods and services.

Debt cancellation by Pakistan.

Current account and amortization payments minus FDIs.

Public debt minus not guaranteed debt of public enterprises.

Current account required to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio constant.

Table 2.

Tajikistan: Government and Government-Guaranteed Sector Debt Sustainability Framework, Baseline Scenario, 2002-23

(In percent of GDP, unless otherwise indicated)

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and Fund staff estimates and projections.

Central government, NBT, and guaranteed debt of public enterprises.

Defined as the primary deficit plus debt service plus the stock of short-term debt at the end of the last period.

Revenues including grants.

Debt service is defined as the sum of interest and amortization of medium and long-term debt.

Historical averages and standard deviations are derived over the past 6 years.

Table 3.

Tajikistan: Sensitivity Analyses for Key Indicators of Public External Debt, 2003-23

(In percent)

article image
Source: Staff projections and simulations.

Variables include real GDP growth, growth of GDP deflator (in U.S. dollar terms), non-interest current account in percent of GDP, and non-debt creating flows.

Assumes that the interest rate on new borrowing is by 2 percentage points higher than in the baseline., while grace and maturity periods are the same as in the baseline.

Exports values are assumed to remain permanently at the lower level, but the current account as a share of GDP is assumed to return to its baseline level after the shock (implicitly assuming an offsetting adjustment in import levels).

Includes official and private transfers and FDI.

Depreciation is defined as percentage decline in dollar/local currency rate, such that it never exceeds 100 percent.

Applies to all stress scenarios except for A2 (less favorable financing) in which the terms on all new financing are as specified in footnote 2.

Table 4.

Tajikistan: Sensitivity Analyses for Key Indicators of Government and Government Guaranteed Debt, 2003-23

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and Fund staff estimates and projections.

Assumes that real GDP growth is at baseline minus one standard deviation divided by the square root of 20 (i.e., the length of the projection period).

Revenues are defined inclusive of grants.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Tajikistan: Indicators of Public External Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–2023

(In percent)

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 131; 10.5089/9781451837056.002.A009

Source: Staff projections and simulations.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Tajikistan: Indicators of Government and Government-Guaranteed Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–23 1/

(In percent)

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 131; 10.5089/9781451837056.002.A009

Source: Staff projections and simulations.1/ Most extreme stress test is test that yields highest ratio in 2013.2/ Revenue including grants.

Statistical Appendix

Table A-1.

Tajikistan: Basic Economic Data, 2000–04

article image
Source: Tajik authorities.

Excludes externally-financed public investment program.

Lending rate for domestic currency denominated 3–6 months loans; end of year.

Table A-2.

Tajikistan: Nominal and Real GDP, 2000–04 1/

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.

The data for 2004 are preliminary.

Table A-3.

Tajikistan: Nominal GDP by Sector of Origin, 2000–04

(In thousands of somoni; unless otherwise specified)

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.

Since 1998, includes the State Statistical Committee’s estimate of the informal sector.

Table A-4.

Tajikistan: Production and Yields of Major Agricultural Crops, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-5.

Tajikistan: Animal Husbandry, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-6.

Tajikistan: Agricultural Production by Type of Farm, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-7.

Tajikistan: Allocation of Agricultural Land, 2004

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.

Includes collective farms (kolkhozes), state farms (sovkhozes), state farms in transformation to collective farms (mezhozes), and other farms.

Personal plots, including 75,000 hectares of land distributed by presidential decree in 1997.

Table A-8.

Tajikistan: Industrial Output by Sector at Constant Prices, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-9.

Tajikistan: Selected Indicators of Industrial Production, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-10.

Tajikistan: Electricity Output, Trade and Consumption, 2000–04

(In billions of kilowatt hours)

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-11.

Tajikistan: Labor Resources and Employment, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee

End of year.

Working age is defined as follows: In 1997-2000, for men 15-59, women 15-54; in 2001, for men 15-60, women 15-55; from 2002 onwards, men is 15-62, women is 15-57.

Defined as the ratio of economically active over working age population.

Annual averages.

Comprises employed and registered unemployed.

Includes central and local governments, state enterprises and state farms.

Table A-12.

Tajikistan: Registered Unemployment, 2000–04

(In thousands of people; end of period)

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-13.

Tajikistan: Employment by Sector of Economy, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-14.

Tajikistan: Sectoral Output, Employment and Productivity, 2000–03

(Index 1991 = 100)

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.

Includes transport and communications.

Table A-15.

Tajikistan: Consumer Price Index, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-16.

Tajikistan: Wholesale Price Index, 2000–04

article image
Sources: State Statistical Committee; and Fund staff estimates.
Table A-17.

Tajikistan: Monthly Wages, 2002–04

(In somoni; unless otherwise specified)

article image
Sources: State Statistical Committee; and Fund staff estimates.

The data in this table are based on preliminary monthly figures on wages and employment, while average annual wages reported in Table 18 are final and reconciled annual data. As a result, annual averages in Table 17 are not entirely consistent with the data reported in Table 18.

Index deflated by the CPI (July 1995=100).

Table A-18.

Tajikistan: Average Monthly Wages by Sector, 2000–04 1/

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.

Data are based on final and reconciled annual data on wages and employment, while average annual wages reported in Table 17 are preliminary monthly figures. As a result, annual averages in Table 18 are not entirely consistent with the data reported in Table 17.

Table A-19.

Tajikistan: General Government Operations, 2000–04

article image
Source: Ministry of Finance.
Table A-20.

Tajikistan: State Budget by Functional Classification of Expenditures, 2000–04

(In millions of somoni; unless otherwise specified)

article image
Source: Ministry of Finance.
Table A-21.

Tajikistan: Operations of the Consolidated General Government, 2000–04

article image
Source: Ministry of Finance.
Table A-22.

Tajikistan: Accounts of the National Bank of Tajikistan, 2000-2004

(End-of-period stock; unless otherwise specified)1/

article image
Sources: National Bank of Tajikistan; and Fund staff estimates.

Data are based on official SDR/U.S. dollar and somoni/U.S. dollar exchange rates.

Table A-23.

Tajikistan: Monetary Survey, 2000–04 1/

(In millions of somoni; end-of-period stock unless otherwise specified)

article image
Sources: National Bank of Tajikistan; and Fund staff estimates.

Data are based on official SDR/U.S. dollar and somoni/U.S. dollar exchange rates.

Table A-24.

Tajikistan: Credit to the Economy from Commercial Banks, 2002–04

(In thousands of somoni; end of period)

article image
Source: National Bank of Tajikistan.

NBT revoked license by resolution No 287 of December 29, 2003.

NBT revoked license and transformed the bank into a credit union by resolution No 201 of September 11, 2002.

NBT revoked license by resolution No 3 of January 18, 1998. Transformed into credit union by NBT’s resolution No 112 of July 18, 2000.

NBT revoked license by order No 224 of December 21, 2000. Transformed into credit union by NBT’s order No 85 of March 28, 2001.

NBT revoked license by order No 80 of March 19, 2001.

NBT revoked license by order No 78 of March 19, 2001.

NBT revoked license by resolution No 11 of July 15, 1999.

Credit union registered by NBT’s resolution No 188 of August 21, 2002.

Renamed as Olimp Bank by NBT’s resolution No 74 of March 15, 2003.

Table A-25.

Tajikistan: Average Annual Interest Rates, 2000–04

(In percent; end of period)

article image
Source: National Bank of Tajikistan.
Table A-26.

Tajikistan: Balance of Payments, 2000–04

(In millions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.

Includes small export receipts and import payments, which are misclassified.

In 2004 includes debt-for-equity swap with Russia.

Debt cancellation by Pakistan.

Excluding trade in alumina and electricity, which are on barter basis.

Table A-27.

Tajikistan: Exports by Product, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-28.

Tajikistan: Imports by Product, 2000–04

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.
Table A-29.

Tajikistan: Trade Indices, 2000–04 1/

article image
Source: State Statistical Committee.

Data based on Statistical Appendix Table 18. In 2004, SM 3 exchanged for US1.

Table A-30.

Tajikistan: Destination of Exports, 2000–04

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.
Table A-31.

Tajikistan: Origin of Imports, 2000–04

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.
Table A-32.

Tajikistan: Public External Debt by Creditor, 2000–04

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.

Credits to public enterprises in Tajikistan.

Exports of goods and services, excluding barter trade in alumina and electricity.

Table A-33.

Tajikistan: Public Sector External Debt Service, 2000–04

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.
Table A-34.

Tajikistan: Exchange Rates and U.S. Dollar Wages, 2000–04

article image
Sources: Tajik authorities; and Fund staff estimates.

May 1995=100. Using period average exchange rates. The real exchange rate indices and average nominal exchange rate index are based on INS data. An increase denotes appreciation.
1

Prepared by Alexei Kireyev.

2

In addition to public sector external debt, which is the subject of analysis in this chapter, there is private external debt incurred mainly by the cotton sector. Data on this debt are not currentl yavailable, but can be approximated by foreign liabilities of Kredit-Invest, the bank involved in cotton financing, which reached $150 million (7 percent of GDP) in 2004.

3

Debt sustainability in Low-Income Countries—Proposal for an Operational Framework and Policy Implications (www.imf.org).

4

The coverage of public sector external debt in the external framework is slightly broader than in the fiscal framework. Compared to the former, the latter uses a concept of government and governmentguaranteed (GGG) external debt. Thus, it excludes debts of public enterprises not guaranteed by the government, which in Tajikistan is very small (about 2 percent of GDP).

Same Series

Other IMF Content

Other Publishers

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover IMF Staff Country Reports
Republic of Tajikistan: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Volume/Issue:
Volume 2005: Issue 131
Publisher:
International Monetary Fund
ISBN:
9781451837056
ISSN:
1934-7685
Pages:
103
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451837056.002
  • View in gallery

    Evolution of Public Debt

  • View in gallery

    Key Debt Ratios

    (In percent)

  • Figure 1.
    View in gallery
    Figure 1.

    Tajikistan: Indicators of Public External Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–2023

    (In percent)

  • Figure 2.
    View in gallery
    Figure 2.

    Tajikistan: Indicators of Government and Government-Guaranteed Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–23 1/

    (In percent)

Evolution of Public Debt

Key Debt Ratios

(In percent)
Figure 1.

Tajikistan: Indicators of Public External Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–2023

(In percent)
Figure 2.

Tajikistan: Indicators of Government and Government-Guaranteed Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2003–23 1/

(In percent)