Quotas—Updated Calculations and Quota Variables
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund in
Current site
Google Scholar Close
Publication Date:
27 Aug 2009
eISBN:
9781498335652
Language:
English
Keywords:
net capital; quota formula; formula variable; share of EMDCs; growth volatility; Emerging and frontier financial markets; Global
Download PDF (543.8 KB)

Quotas - Updated Calculations and Quota Variables

Abstract

Quotas - Updated Calculations and Quota Variables

I. Introduction1

1. In its April 2009 Communiqué, the IMFC called for a prompt start to the Fourteenth General Review of Quotas so that it is completed by January 2011—some two years ahead of schedule.2 The IMFC noted that the review is expected to result in increases in the quota shares of dynamic economies, particularly in the share of emerging market and developing countries as a whole. The IMFC also looked forward to further work by the Executive Board on elements of the new quota formula that can be improved before the formula is used again, and noted that this work should start before the 2009 Annual Meetings.3

2. The general quota review provides an opportunity to consider two broad issues:

  • Overall adequacy of Fund quotas.4 The last review was concluded in January 2008, shortly before the global crisis. At the time, Fund liquidity was at an all-time high against the backdrop of sustained strong global growth, ample access to market financing, and low demand for Fund credit. In its report to the Board of Governors, the Executive Board considered there was not a sufficiently strong case for a general quota increase, while stressing the need to stand ready to consider an increase if Fund liquidity deteriorated. It also noted that issues of quota distribution and governance were being taken up separately.5 Since then, the Fund has had to borrow on a substantial scale to meet the needs of members affected by the crisis. In urging a prompt start to the Fourteenth Review, the IMFC also reiterated that the Fund is, and shall remain, a quota-based institution.

  • Distribution of quotas. Dissatisfaction with the distribution of quotas and voting power has been a long-standing concern, affecting the Fund’s perceived effectiveness and legitimacy. The 2008 quota and voice reform was an important first step in addressing these concerns, resulting in agreement on a simpler and more transparent quota formula, increases in quotas for a range of under-represented countries, and measures to enhance the voice and participation of low-income countries.6 The Board of Governors’ Resolution on quota and voice reform also requested the Executive Board to recommend further realignments of members’ quota shares in the context of future general quota reviews, beginning with the Fourteenth Review, to ensure those shares continue to reflect members’ relative positions in the world economy. Despite this reform, dissatisfaction persists: at the recent discussion on governance issues, Directors considered that quota shares are a core governance issue that calls for early attention, with many stressing that the effectiveness of several—but not all— governance reforms hinged on a satisfactory realignment of quota shares.7

3. At least in principle, these two issues can be complementary and mutually reinforcing. To the extent that there is a consensus on the need for a substantial increase in the Fund’s permanent resources through a quota increase, there will also be greater scope to achieve a shift in shares while ensuring that the quotas of individual members keep pace with global economic developments. In this context, the recent doubling in access limits for lending both from the GRA and the PRGT acknowledged the substantial decline in quotas relative to relevant economic indicators that has occurred since the last general quota increase under the 11th review in 1998. Thus, under the 14th review, decisions will be needed both on the size of the overall increase and its distribution, which has traditionally involved some combination of equiproportional increases (distributed to all members in proportion to existing quota shares), selective increases (also distributed to all members but in proportion to calculated quota shares), and ad hoc increases for members that meet specified criteria.8

4. Resolving the above issues within the agreed timetable will require intensive engagement and a spirit of compromise from all parties. Previous general quota reviews have involved prolonged discussions in the Executive Board, reflecting the need for a broad consensus to implement any change.9 Moreover, the resulting shifts in overall quota shares have been relatively modest—as shown in Table 1, the aggregate quota share of emerging market and developing countries (EMDCs) has increased by only 5 percentage points in the last 30 years, once the 2008 reform is fully implemented. This gradualism underlies the dissatisfaction noted above, but also reflects difficulties in reaching a consensus for more significant changes. Indeed, the overall adjustment achieved in the 2008 reform—while viewed as inadequate by some—was larger than in all recent general reviews except the 9th.10 The same willingness to compromise and put the good of the Fund and the international financial system first that prevailed during the 2008 reform will also be critical to a successful outcome of the 14th review.

Table 1.

Evolution of Quota Shares by Major Country Groups 1/

(In Percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Includes countries that were members at the time of the Executive Board decision.

Includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Includes first round ad hoc quota increases to China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey and the second round ad hoc increases for the 54 eligible members that are not yet effective.

Includes ad hoc increases for China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.

Including Korea and Singapore.

In the Sixth Review, the quota shares of the major oil exporters were doubled with the stipulation that the collective share of the developing countries would not fall.

The adjustment coefficient measures the extent to which deviations between actual and calculated quotas are reduced by quota share adjustments.

5. As noted, the 14th review also forms a key part of the broader work program on governance reform. In their recent discussion, Directors considered five core issues: fair quota share; high-level engagement; effective decision-making and representation at the Executive Board; open selection of Fund management (and, more broadly, enhanced staff diversity); and an updating of the Fund’s mandate. It was agreed that work on broader governance issues beyond quotas should be set in motion quickly and phased in appropriately. This broader agenda adds a further dimension to the quota review that has not been present on previous occasions; it increases the complexity of the exercise but also provides added scope for reaching a compromise that can command the needed broad support.

6. The primary objective of this paper is to present the results of updating the data set used for quota calculations through 2007. This data set will provide an initial basis for the discussions on the 14th review, recognizing that a further data update (through 2008) will be possible in mid-2010, before the discussions are expected to conclude. The paper presents updated data for both the variables in the new quota formula and the alternative quota formula variables discussed in the 2008 reform. The paper also revisits those discussions in light of the new data set.

7. The paper does not seek to address the broader policy issues relating to the size and distribution of the general increase under the 14th Review. It is envisaged that these issues will be addressed as part of the work program for the period following the Annual Meetings. Given the short period available before the January 2011 deadline for concluding the review, however, early Board guidance on some of the key parameters of the review would be important to help guide future staff work and provide a reasonable prospect for meeting the deadline.

II. Updated Quota Calculations

A. The Data Set

8. Staff has updated the quota data set covering the period through 2007. The updated quota calculations replace the data set through 2005, which provided the basis for the 2008 quota reform.11 The new data set pre-dates and therefore does not capture the effects of the recent global financial crisis (but some of these effects will be captured next year when the data set is revised to include 2008). To summarize:

  • As in previous updates, the data for most variables are drawn from International Financial Statistics (IFS), supplemented where needed by the World Economic Outlook (WEO) database.12 Remaining missing data are then computed based on staff reports, and in very few instances, country desk data. As is customary, a cut off date (January 31, 2009) for incorporating new data in the quota database is employed for IFS; consistent with this cutoff, the Fall 2008 publication is used for WEO data.

  • Following the approach used in the 2008 reform, PPP GDP data are taken from the WEO database and are calculated by dividing a country’s nominal GDP in its own currency by the PPP exchange rate. The WEO PPP exchange rates start with the PPP exchange rates reported by the International Comparison Project (ICP) for years 2003–05, which were used in second round of the 2008 reform. These PPP exchange rates are then extended forward by the growth in relative GDP deflators (the deflator of a country divided by the deflator of the United States).13

  • Consistent with the understanding reached by the Board in March 2008, the previous practice of making selective adjustments for a subset of countries with significant activity in re-exports, international banking interest and non-monetary gold has been discontinued.14

9. The share of EMDCs in all five variables included in the new quota formula increases as a result of the data update. The impact is most pronounced for market-based GDP and reserves, where the EMDC shares increase by close to 5 and 10 percentage points, respectively (Table 2 and Tables A1 and A2). The increases are more moderate for PPP GDP, openness and variability. All EMDC subregions record gains across most variables (except the Western Hemisphere for variability and openness), and low income countries (LICs) as a group also record modest gains. This said, the aggregate EMDC shares in market-based GDP and openness remain significantly below their new quota share after the 2008 reform.

Table 2.

Distribution of Quotas and Updated Quota Variables

(In Percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Includes ad hoc increases for 54 eligible members that are not yet effective; also includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Based on data through 2007.

Based on data through 2005. Reflects the impact of adjustments to current receipts and payments for re-exports, international banking interest, and non-monetary gold.

Current PPP-GDP data were retrieved from the WEO database for 178 countries. For eight countries with no WEO data PPP-GDP was estimated. PPP-GDP data reflect new parity rates published by the International Comparison Program in December 2007.

Variability of current receipts plus net capital flows.

Including Korea and Singapore.

B. Updated Quota Calculations

10. Updated quota calculations have been prepared using the new quota formula. The results for country groups and for individual members are shown in Table 3 and Table A3, respectively.

Table 3.

Distribution of Quotas and Calculated Quotas

(In percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Includes ad hoc increases for 54 eligible members that are not yet effective.

Based on the following formula: CQS = (0.50*GDP + 0.30*Openness +0.15*Variability + 0.05*Reserves)^K. GDP blended using 60 percent market and 40 percent PPP exchange rates. K is a compression factor of 0.95.

Based on data through 2007.

Based on data through 2005. Reflects the impact of adjustments to current receipts and payments for re-exports, international banking interest, and non-monetary gold.

Including Korea and Singapore.

11. The gain in calculated quota share of EMDCs as a group is about 3.3 percentage points. The updated calculations reflect relative gains for dynamic economies, most of which are EMDCs. All EMDC sub-regions gain, with the largest increase in Asia, followed by the transition economies and the group comprising the Middle East, Malta, and Turkey.15 LICs as a group also gain about 0.5 percentage point. On the other side, the calculated quota share of the major advanced economies declines by about 2½ percentage points. In terms of individual countries, the largest gainers are China, Russia, and Brazil, with France and the United Kingdom being the only advanced economies among the top 10 gainers in percentage points (Table 4). The largest losers are all advanced economies except Mexico, with United States, Japan, and Germany recording the largest declines.

Table 4.

Top 10 Positive and Negative Changes in Calculated Quota Shares

(In percentage points)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Current calculations are based on data through 2007 using the existing formula.

Previous calculations are based on data through 2005 using the existing formula. Reflects the impact of adjustments to current receipts and payments for re-exports, international banking interest, and non-monetary gold.

Includes China, P.R., Hong Kong SAR, and Macao SAR in the current calculations and China, P.R., and Hong Kong SAR in the previous calculations.

12. Quota shares for the major country groups after the 2008 reform are broadly in line with the updated calculated quota shares. For advanced countries, this is the case both at the aggregate level, and in terms of the split between major and other advanced economies. For EMDCs, there are significant regional disparities: Asia remains underrepresented, transition economies as a group are broadly in line with their calculated quota share, while for other regions (and for LICs as a group) aggregate quota shares are above the updated calculated quota shares.

13. Significant disparities between calculated and new quota shares remain at the individual country level, though the largest disparities were reduced by the 2008 reform (Table A4). A total of sixty-four members are under-represented based on the updated calculated quotas, compared with 54 prior to the 2008 reform.16 Of these, 10 countries are out-of-line by more than 60 percent, and 18 countries are out-of-line by more than 40 percent (compared with 16 and 21 countries, respectively, prior to the 2008 reform17). The average ratio of calculated quota to new quota share for the first group has been reduced from 2.2 to 2.0, while that for the second group has declined from 2.1 to 1.8. A few of the countries that are most out-of-line using the updated calculated quotas recorded rapid growth prior to the crisis, but have since experienced sharp recessions and in some cases major crises.

III. Stocktaking of Issues with Formula Variables

14. A key element of the 2008 reform was agreement on a new simpler and more transparent quota formula, replacing the previous five formula system. The formula uses four variables expressed in shares—GDP, openness, variability, and reserves—where the GDP variable is a blend of GDP at market exchange rates and GDP at PPP rates. Market-based GDP is intended to capture the central role of quotas in the Fund’s financial operations, while PPP GDP captures the relative volume of goods and services produced by economies and is relevant to the Fund’s non-financial activities. A compression factor of 0.95 is applied to a linear combination of the four variables. Recognizing that reaching agreement on PPP GDP and compression had been difficult, the Executive Board decided to include these elements for a period of 20 years, after which they would be reviewed.

15. The formula represented a compromise, and the Board called for further work before it is applied again. While the Board considered that the formula provided a reasonable basis for guiding the second round of ad hoc increases, many members had reservations about aspects of the new formula and it was agreed that further work was needed in four areas before the formula was used again: (i) the scope for measuring openness on a value added rather than a gross basis; (ii) the appropriate treatment of intra-currency union flows; (iii) the appropriate way of capturing financial openness; and (iv) how to improve the measure of variability to adequately capture members’ potential need for Fund resources.18 The IMFC in its April 2009 Communiqué also requested further work on elements of the new quota formula that can be improved before the formula is used again.

A. Trade Openness

16. The inclusion of openness on a gross rather than a value added basis has been a long-standing concern. This leads to a double counting of cross-border flows that can exaggerate the resulting measure of economic size and importance relative to the outcome if data on value added in the tradeables sector were more readily available. These effects tend to be magnified over time as the share of trade in global value added increases, reflecting greater vertical specialization and trade in intermediate goods.19 Openness was retained in the new formula with a 30 percent weight, implying a significant reduction in the effective weight for highly open economies compared with the previous five-formula system. As noted, the previous practice of data adjustments was also discontinued, recognizing that these were resource intensive, judgmental and heavily dependent on data availability.

17. Data availability continues to preclude measuring trade flows on a value added basis. External trade data continue to be measured on a gross basis both in the balance of payments and the national accounts. Some research is underway to allow for measurement of the foreign content of exports and domestic content of imports, for example, via proxies based on input-output tables. However, these approaches involve relatively strong assumptions20 and estimates are not available at this stage for the broad membership of the Fund. Given these data limitations, staff sees little scope for moving to a value-added based measure of openness within the timeframe of the 14th review.

B. Intra-Currency Union Flows

18. A related issue involves the role of intra-currency union flows in the openness measure.21 The present openness variable covers intra-currency union transactions in the same way as all other current external transactions. In the discussions on the 2008 reform, many Directors believed that intra-currency union flows should be excluded, but a number of other Directors did not support this.

19. In previous work, staff considered two broad arguments for excluding intra-currency union flows.22 One was that currency union membership encourages greater vertical integration of production processes, creating an upward bias in gross trade figures. This argument appeared less compelling as trade integration has also advanced considerably in several areas and not only in currency unions, and the degree of integration can vary across unions. The other argument is that intra-currency union flows take place in a common currency, which could reduce a potential source of balance of payments risk for its members, given that exchange rate risks are faced by the union as a whole rather than its individual members. It was recognized that this issue is complex, as currency union membership does not preclude the possibility of a balance of payments crisis, and the Fund’s Articles treat a member’s balance of payments need and its potential access to Fund resources on an individual basis.

20. Experience with currency union members requesting balance of payments support from the Fund has varied. In the case of the ECCU, CEMAC, and WAEMU, the Fund has been called upon to provide balance of payments support to individual members on a fairly frequent basis. 23 The members of these currency unions are mainly low-income countries, and trade as well as financial markets are not well developed. By contrast, trade and financial markets in the euro area are relatively well integrated, and the institutional framework is highly developed, with a much greater underlying financial capacity to handle difficulties in individual members. Also, no euro area member has entered into a financial arrangement with the Fund, including during the recent global crisis. Against this background, the question remains whether there is a sufficient basis for treating currency union members differently for the purpose of quota calculations, and if so, whether this should apply to all currency unions or only those that have reached the stage where the likelihood of any members requesting access to Fund resources appears fairly remote.

21. For illustrative purposes, staff has updated previous calculations of the impact of excluding intra-currency union trade from the openness variable (Table 5). As noted previously, data on intra-currency unions flows in services are incomplete, such that it would only be possible to exclude trade flows. Excluding all intra-currency union trade flows would reduce the aggregate calculated quota share of euro area members by about 2 percentage points. For members of other currency unions, the impact is more modest as they also benefit from the exclusion of intra-euro area flows. In aggregate, the exclusion of intra-currency union trade raises the calculated quota share of EMDCs by less than 1 percentage point. The results are essentially the same if only intra-euro area trade (and not trade of other currency unions) is excluded from the quota calculations.

Table 5.

Intra-Currency Union Trade—Calculated Quota Shares

(In percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Includes ad hoc increases for 54 eligible members that are not yet effective; also includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Including Korea and Singapore.

Includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Spain.

Includes Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatoria Guinea, Gabon.

Includes Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo.

Includes Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

C. Financial Openness

22. In the 2008 reform discussions, a number of options were considered to explicitly include a measure of financial openness in the formula. It has been recognized that integration into capital markets is an important indicator of a member’s stake in the global economy and in global financial stability, and is also relevant to members’ ability to contribute to and of their potential need for Fund resources. Three broad options for developing such a variable were considered: the international investment position (IIP), investment income, and financial flows. While a number of Directors favored such a step, many others were opposed given data limitations and the concern that such a measure would be heavily weighted in favor of advanced economies.24 In principle, consideration could also be given to qualitative measures of financial openness;25 however there is only limited coverage across the membership and such measures cannot be easily used in the quota formula.

International Investment Position (IIP)

23. In the past, several Directors have considered a member’s IIP as a promising measure to capture its financial openness. The IIP is a stock variable and for quota purposes, is measured as the absolute sum of a member’s external financial assets and liabilities. Conceptually, such a variable would appear well-related to the issue of capital market integration, as it provides a quantitative measure of the extent of investment in a country by non-residents, and of investment by residents in other countries.

24. Progress continues to be made in expanding the country coverage of IIP data. As of the cutoff date for the current data set, 97 countries reported IIP data under IFS for 2007. This is a significant improvement over the 81 members that had previously reported IIP data for 2005. However, this still falls well short of the practically universal coverage of the variables used in the current quota formula.26

Investment Income

25. Data on investment income are more readily available and could be considered as a proxy for IIP. For countries that report IIPs, these are highly correlated with investment income, though there are differences for individual countries, which may reflect differences in earning rates across asset and liability classes, differences in composition, and likely under-reporting of investment income flows (and positions) in some cases. Also, as with IIP, some members with important international financial centers have relatively large shares of both IIP and investment income flows (e.g., Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom).

26. The current measure of openness already includes investment income credits and debits, as they form part of the current receipts and payments. In the work prepared for the 2008 reform, staff noted that these flows could be separated from other current account flows and given a higher weight. Illustrative calculations of an openness variable were presented in which trade and financial openness were blended in equal proportion.27 These calculations result in an increase in the calculated quota share of advanced economies as a group of about 2.1 percentage points based on the updated data.

External Financial Flows

27. Staff also examined the possibility of developing an alternative measure of financial openness based on aggregate financial asset and liability flows. In practice, only limited gross flow data are reported under IFS.28 As a result, the data understate the overall scale of financial flows and, therefore, may not fully capture differences in financial integration across countries. In addition, significant data issues arise due to incomplete coverage—the results shown in Table 6 are only rough estimates presented for illustrative purposes, and it is not clear whether a sufficiently robust data could be developed to allow the use of this measure.

Table 6.

Measures of Financial Openness (In percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department. Based on data through 2007.

Includes ad hoc increases for 54 eligible members that are not yet effective; also includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Trade Openness is the average sum of current receipts and payments, excluding investment income.

Assets plus liabilities; 97 members reporting in 2007.

The sum of the absolute value of transactions in assets and liabilities in the financial account of the Balance of Payments for direct investment, portfolio investment and financial derivatives, and other investment.

Including Korea and Singapore.

Updated Calculations of Alternative Financial Openness Measures

28. Staff has updated the previous calculations of the above measures of financial openness (Table 6). These calculations are purely illustrative, given the data limitations, but they confirm that any measure of financial openness is likely to be heavily weighted towards advanced economies. This primarily reflects the more limited integration of many EMDCs into global financial markets, together with shortcomings in data reporting in some cases.

D. Variability

29. Variability has traditionally been included in the quota formula as a means of capturing members’ potential need for Fund resources. The measure dates back to the original Bretton Woods formula, and was modernized as part of the 2008 reform to capture both current receipts and net capital flows. Directors generally agreed that any measure of variability should relate to size of potential need and be consistent with the right of all members to draw on the Fund in case of balance of payments need, while noting that this would tend to limit the scope for modifications that would result in major changes in global shares of this measure.29 Nonetheless, questions continued to be raised as to whether the measure adequately captured members’ potential need for Fund resources, particularly given that advanced economies as a group hold the majority share of the variable.

30. Staff examined in detail a range of options for amending or refining the variability measure as part of the work for the 2008 reform.30 However, it was difficult to identify a measure that was clearly superior to the current approach and would not represent a major departure from the tradition of considering balance of payments-driven vulnerabilities. Staff has prepared updates of various options identified previously using the new database (Tables 7–8 and A8–9). The broad conclusions may be summarized as follows:

  • A number of approaches were considered that estimate variability of either balance of payments flows or GDP independently of size (these measures are typically estimated by dividing—or scaling—a traditional variability measure by GDP or the mean of the series). In general, they lead to the most radical shifts in global shares relative to the current measure, but there is little evidence that the results have a bearing on potential need for Fund resources, and small countries tend to have the largest shares under this approach. To address the latter problem, a suggestion was made by the G-24 Secretariat to cap the size of the variable for individual countries as a multiple (say 500 percent) of quota shares. The choice of the cap is, however, arbitrary and staff estimates suggest it is likely to be binding for a significant part of the membership. Under this approach (shown in column 14 of Table 8), the global share of EMDCs in variability would increase from 39 percent under the existing measure to 82 percent.

  • Several variants of the current measure have been considered. These include use of a five rather than a three-year average, focusing only on downside or extreme variability, and estimating variability of current account and net capital flows separately. In general, the impact of these changes on global shares tends to be modest, with the largest effect coming from the use of extreme variability, which increases the share of EMDCs from 39 percent to 44 percent.

  • Other alternatives involve a fundamental departure from the traditional approach of considering only balance of payments-driven vulnerabilities to instead estimate volatility of GDP or consumption. These measures attempt to define volatility based on GDP or consumption and then scale by GDP or consumption to obtain a measure of the potential size of demand for Fund resources. The measures would tend to give greater weight to shocks of domestic origin, including policy slippages and political upheavals. Under the measure of GDP variability, the global share of EMDCs would increase from 39 percent to 52 percent. A focus on consumption rather than GDP variability would also potentially capture the differing abilities of economies to cope with income shocks, but is subject to greater data challenges.

Table 7.

Alternative Measures of Variability—Shares of Variable 1/

(In percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Based on data through 2007.

Measures the square root of the sum of squared differences from a centered 3-year moving average of below trend (3-year moving average) levels of current receipts plus net capital flows.

Measures differences from a centered 3-year moving average for observations that are more than one standard deviation below the trend (3-year moving average). Like downside variability, it takes the square root of the sum of squared differences.

Measures differences from a centered 5-year moving average for observations that are more than one standard deviation below the trend (5-year moving average). Like downside variability, it takes the square root of the sum of squared differences.

Including Korea and Singapore.

Table 8.

Alternative Measures of Variability—Shares of Variable 1/

(In percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Based on data through 2007.

Share of the sum of variability of current receipts and variability of net capital flows.

Variability of current account (current receipts less current payments) plus net capital flows based on a 5-year moving average.

Measured as the standard deviation of real GDP growth in constant local currency units mutilplied by average GDP from 2005–2007, for 176 countries with available data.

Measured as the standard deviation of real consumption growth in constant local currency units multiplied by average consumption from 2005–2007, for 150 countries with available data.

Calculated for 150 countries with available data on real GDP and real consumption.

Measured as the standard deviation of real GDP growth in constant local currency units for 176 countries with available data.

Including Korea and Singapore.

IV. Illustrative Simulations

31. As noted at the outset, the main purpose of this paper is to present the updated quota data set and revisit the outstanding issues on the variables. Pending initial guidance from the Board, it would be premature to present detailed simulations or proposals on the possible modalities of a quota increase under the 14th review. Rather, this section presents three sets of hypothetical simulations aimed at illustrating some initial broad conclusions that can be drawn from the new data set. These are intended purely as an aid to the discussions, and do not in any way represent staff proposals. Pending future discussions on the size of the Fund, all 3 sets of simulations are based on two hypothetical overall quota increases of 50 and 100 percent.31

32. The first set of simulations shows the impact of distributing a general quota increase to all members according to the new quota formula. This would be equivalent to a 100 percent selective increase. As discussed above, in previous general quota reviews, a combination of equiproportional and selective increases has been used, with the former usually representing the larger share (on average, the equiproportional increase has been about 70 percent and the selective element about 30 percent). Use of a 100 percent selective element would thus place a much higher weight on realigning quota shares than in previous general reviews.

33. This simulation shows that no change in the aggregate EMDC quota share could be expected from a distribution using selective increases based on the new quota formula. Significant changes can be achieved at the individual country level and among regional sub-groups, with more adjustment being possible with a larger overall increase. For example, the overall gap between actual and calculated quota shares (measured by the adjustment coefficient) would be reduced by one third for a 50 percent increase and by one half for a 100 percent increase, implying significant increases in quota shares for dynamic economies. However, the overall EMDC share would be unchanged, with gains in some cases (e.g., Asia) being offset by losses elsewhere; all other EMDC subgroups except the transition economies would lose share under this approach (see Simulation 1 in Tables 9 and A10). This result follows from the fact that calculated and new quota shares for the major country groups are very similar, as discussed previously.

Table 9.

Illustrative Quota Simulations 1/ (In Percent)

article image
Source: Finance Department.

Includes Kosovo which became a member on June 29, 2009. For the two countries that have not yet consented to, and paid for, their quota increases, 11th Review proposed quotas are used.

Includes ad hoc increases for 54 eligible members that are not yet effective.

Scenarios assume a 50 and 100 percent increase of post second round quotas. The increase is distributed to all members using their updated calculated quota shares.

Scenarios assume a 50 and 100 percent increase of post second round quotas. These increases are distributed to members on a selective and ad hoc basis in the proportion of 80/20 respectively. The selective increase is made to all members on the basis of their updated calculated quota shares. The ad hoc portion is distributed to members with a calculated quota share greater than their actual post second round quota share.

Scenarios assume a 50 and 100 percent increase of post second round quotas. These increases are distributed to members on a selective and ad hoc basis in the proportion of 80/20 respectively. The selective increase is made to all members on the basis of their updated calculated quota shares. The ad hoc portion is distributed to members with a PPP-GDP share greater than their actual post second round quota share.

Including Korea and Singapore.

The adjustment coefficient measures the extent to which deviations between actual and calculated quotas are reduced by quota share adjustments.

34. Two further sets of simulations are presented to illustrate the impact of allocating a portion of the overall increase to a sub-set of members as ad hoc increases. As noted previously, selective increases apply to all members, whereas ad hoc increases be allocated to a specific group of members that meet certain criteria. A wide variety of options could be considered under such an approach. For purely illustrative purposes, two approaches are considered: in one case, 20 percent of the overall increase is allocated to those members that are out-of-line based on the new quota formula. In the other case, the same amount is allocated to those members that are out-of-line based on their shares in PPP GDP.32 In both cases, the remaining amount is allocated as a selective increase to all members:

  • Ad hoc increase for underrepresented members based on calculated quota shares. Compared with the 100 percent selective increase, this would result in considerably larger quota increases for countries that are underrepresented under the current formula—a shift that is further accentuated as the overall increase becomes larger. For a doubling of quotas, the adjustment coefficient would be over 70 percent and the aggregate share of EMDCs would rise by about 1.7 percentage points (Simulation 2 in Tables 9 and A10). However, not all country groups gain, and those that are less represented in the under-represented category (including Africa and the transition economies) would do worse under this approach.

  • Ad hoc increase for underrepresented members based on PPP-GDP shares. Allocating the ad hoc increase to countries that are under-represented based on shares in PPP GDP would further increase the overall gain for EMDCs as a group. The latter would increase to about 2.1 percentage points for a doubling of quotas (Simulation 3 in Tables 9 and A10). Again, however, not all sub-groups would benefit. While the decline in share of LICs as a group would be reduced under this approach, Africa would do worse than in the other simulations.

35. It should again be stressed that the purpose of these simulations is not to illustrate specific outcomes for individual countries or country groups. Rather, it is to illustrate the scope to generate shifts in aggregate shares through a combination of selective and ad hoc increases (also potentially combined with equiproportional increases), even though the new quota share of EMDCs as a group is broadly in line with its share in calculated quotas.

V. Conclusions and Issues for Discussion

36 A few broad conclusions can be drawn from the material presented in this paper:

  • Applying the updated data set to the new quota formula results in a further significant increase in calculated quota shares for a number of individual EMDCs, as well as for EMDCs as a group.

  • Despite these increases, however, the aggregate quota share of EMDCs following the 2008 reform is broadly in line with its new calculated quota share.

  • Thus, selective increases alone (distributed according to calculated quota shares based on the new formula) would not achieve one of the objectives set out in the April 2009 IMFC Communiqué of increasing the quota share of EMDCs as a whole.

  • Achieving such a result would therefore likely require that part of the increase be distributed on a basis other than actual or calculated quota shares.

  • The scope for realigning shares is likely to be larger with a larger overall increase.

  • Consideration could also be given to further revisions in the quota formula variables, though data limitations continue to preclude changes in some areas while in others views have been strongly divided in the past.

37. In terms of next steps, given the very tight timetable for completing the 14th review, Directors may wish to consider whether early guidance in some areas could be helpful in laying the ground for progress in the coming months. In particular:

  • Would Directors consider it useful at this stage to provide a broad signal, at least qualitatively, on the overall size of the quota increase under the 14th review, recognizing that further work is needed on this issue?

  • Would Directors consider it useful to provide further guidance on other desirable outcomes of the review, such as on the aggregate shifts in quota shares?

  • What are Directors views on the usefulness of further work on the formula variables, in light of the data and other constraints discussed in this paper, and which options do they see as being most promising?

Appendix I. Selection of the Database, Derivation of Quota Variables, and Other Issues33

38. This appendix discusses the required data, the selection of the database, and the derivation of the data series used for the quota calculations.

Required Data

39. The quantification of existing and new quota variables used in this paper requires the following data for 186 member countries (converted into SDRs as the common denominator):

  • GDP at market prices for three years (2005–07).

  • PPP GDP (GDP at purchasing power parity) for three years (2005–07). PPP GDP is a measure of the volume of goods and services produced by an economy allowing comparisons across countries for a given period.

  • Current receipts (goods, services, income, and transfers34) for 13 years (1995–2007). Current receipts are defined as the credit component of all economic transactions between resident and nonresident entities other than those relating to financial transactions and reserves.

  • Current payments (goods, services, income, and transfers35) for five years (2003–07). Current payments are defined as the debit component of all economic transactions between resident and nonresident entities other than those relating to financial account transactions and reserves.

  • Net capital flows for 13 years (1995–2007). Net capital flows relate to cross-border transactions of the financial account in all external financial assets and liabilities except reserve assets, Fund credit and loans, and exceptional financing. This measures net financial flows.36

  • Official reserves (average over the 12 months of 2007), defined as the sum of foreign exchange, SDR holdings, reserve position in the Fund, and monetary gold valued at SDR 35 per fine troy ounce.

  • International investment position (IIP) for 2007. This stock variable is the absolute sum of a member’s external financial asset and liability positions.

  • Investment income for five years (2003–07). This variable is defined as the absolute sum of investment income credits and debits in the current account.

  • Financial flows for five years (2003–07). This variable is the sum of the absolute value of cross-border transactions in the financial account in all external assets and liabilities (direct investment, portfolio investment, financial derivatives, and other investment), except reserve assets. This measure is a proxy for “gross” financial flows.

40. Errors and omissions have not been included in the measure of variability of current receipts and net capital flows. Errors and omissions are, by definition, a residual item, which reflects recording errors that cannot be ascribed to any particular balance of payments category and staff does not believe that recording errors should be a factor in determining quotas.

41. At the same time, Fund credit and loans, and exceptional financing have been excluded from the variability measure for the same reason that reserve changes have been excluded. Such transactions, including Fund borrowing, payment arrears, and debt forgiveness or rescheduling, represent exceptional measures undertaken to finance balance of payments needs. Exceptional financing flows are normally shown “below the line” because they are not autonomous balance of payments transactions. For these reasons, the staff believes that these transactions should not be included in the variability measure.

42. Along these same lines, transactions in both reserve assets and reserve liabilities should, in principle, be excluded from net financial flows (referred to as “net capital flows”) so that only autonomous, and not financing, flows are captured. Data on transactions in reserve assets are available for most members in IFS and have been excluded from net capital flows. However, because of the continuing lack of data on reserve liabilities for many members (reserve liabilities are not a standard component in BPM5), changes in reserve liabilities have not been excluded from the measure of net capital flows in this paper.

Selection of the Database

43. The database containing the variables used in the quota calculations would ideally have the following attributes: it should be comprehensive; i.e., contains all required data-compiled in line with internationally accepted concepts and definitions—for all members; the data would be from official sources (central banks and national statistical agencies); and the data would be comparable (consistent and coherent) across time and countries. This would ensure similar treatment for all countries’ data and facilitate the comparability of results in a transparent manner. It would also be helpful if the database could be updated without major additional use of staff resources.

44. As in past quota updates, the main source of data used in the quota calculations was the Fund’s central macroeconomic database of country, regional, and global statistics. STA manages this database for international statistical cooperation and publication purposes, and to support the Fund’s surveillance and use of Fund resources functions. This database, which encompasses a number of component databases and is collectively known as the Economic Data Facility (EDF), embodies, to the extent possible, the application of international statistical methodologies for the compilation of economic and financial data. These international guidelines promote international comparability and methodological continuity in the database over time. The database is used to compile the Fund publication—IFS.37

45. The IFS data are reported to STA by central banks and national statistical agencies, and are mostly based on internationally consistent definitions, such as the BPM5 and the 1993 System of National Accounts (1993 SNA). STA makes an effort to compile these data into long time series that are consistent across time and countries. However, data gaps exist. For instance, there are some missing data for GDP and current account transactions for recent years and, as in the past, current receipts and current payments data for early years in the case of some former transition countries are not available.

46. Missing observations were largely supplemented using the WEO database.38 Although WEO data should reflect a presentation of the balance of payments that is consistent with the BPM5, the definition of balance of payments variables does not necessarily conform to BPM5 unless (a) national compilers have updated the respective country’s balance of payments accounts according to BPM5 or (b) the staff report for the country reflects the new definitions.

47. At the outset of the development of the database for the quota calculations, STA was aware that for some member countries there were large differences between the IFS and the WEO data sets. As noted above, some of these differences are related to the use of different classification systems, i.e., use of a national presentation in WEO while the standardized BPM5 presentation was reported to STA. These data discrepancies between the two data sources may also have been influenced by the varying institutional, legal, and accounting contexts of data compilation across member countries (Box A1).

Methodological Issues

With regard to GDP data, the 1993 SNA extended the scope of GDP slightly, adding production of goods for own final use to output and mineral exploration, computer software, and artistic originals to capital formation. This has resulted in an increase in reported GDP levels of up to 5 percent. By the beginning of 2001, about 50 members had adopted the 1993 SNA for reporting GDP data to the IFS with some of them having revised historical data. By now, the size of data inconsistencies across countries due to the revisions related to the 1993 SNA is likely to be smaller than other differences related to known measurement problems with GDP (e.g., under-coverage of surveys).

The BPM5 introduced changes in the conceptual presentation of balance of payments accounts. It introduced a distinction between current and capital transfers, with current transfers remaining in the “current account” and capital transfers reclassified in the “capital account”. The capital account also includes non-produced non-financial assets but excludes financial account transactions, which were reclassified in a newly named “financial account”. Data are taken as reported by member countries and the changes in methodology may have contributed to slight breaks in some series.

With regard to quota calculations, the current receipts and payments cover goods, services, income, current transfers, and BPM5’s capital account. While BPM5 has been widely adopted by members, helping to ensure comparability with previous quota calculations, both current and capital transfers–excluding exceptional financing–are included here in current transactions.

With regard to financial account transactions, the accuracy of financial account data in many countries, including those in the IFS database, is uneven and the data are generally less comprehensive than the other data used for the quota formulas. This reflects classification and practical difficulties encountered by countries in compiling the data. Financial account data, particularly on the private nonbank sector, are generally difficult and resource intensive to compile. The switch from data collection systems based predominantly on government and balance sheet records to systems (particularly surveys) incorporating large nonbank private sector transactions has been slow. Many countries are still in the midst of adapting their collection and recording systems to take account of changes in the composition and magnitude of financial transactions, including new instruments such as financial derivatives. Institutional and accounting requirements for data compilation may differ across countries and data availability on the private nonbank sector varies. In the IFS, in some instances, only aggregates and not component series are reported.

With regard to official reserves, the Data Template on International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity has been approved as the benchmark for the reporting of data to the Fund on official reserves. The Operational Guidelines for the Data Template, issued in 2001, clarify existing concepts on international reserves and provide guidelines for reporting the data on a consistent basis across countries.

Data Availability and Adjustments

48. The bulk of Fund members that report balance of payments statistics to STA do so on the basis of the BPM5. Data were prepared for current receipts and payments and net capital flows (as defined above). Where members reported balance of payments statistics to STA, the data stored in the IFS database were used as reported. Of the 186 members, the number reporting data to IFS for at least some of the years are as follows: 167 for the period 1995–2007; 159 for the period 2003–07.39 When data were not available for some members for the timeframe required for the quota calculations, estimates were made, largely on the basis of the WEO.40 For members where neither IFS nor WEO data were available, FIN obtained data from staff reports, country desks and Eleventh Review data.

49. The data source breakdown for the period 1995–2007 is as follows: of the 167 members reporting data for IFS—121 are derived entirely from IFS reported data, 42 are derived from a combination of IFS and WEO estimates, 3 are derived from IFS and WEO but have missing data for some years, and 1 is derived from IFS but no WEO estimates are available for missing years data; for the 19 members not reporting any data to IFS—10 are derived entirely from WEO estimates, 3 are derived from WEO estimates but have missing data for some years, and 6 have neither IFS nor WEO data available.

50. The data source breakdown for the period 2003–07 is as follows: of the 159 members reporting data for IFS—134 are derived entirely from IFS reported data, 24 are obtained from a combination of IFS and WEO estimates, and 1 is derived from IFS and WEO but has missing data for some years; for the 27 members not reporting any data for IFS—21 are derived entirely from WEO estimates, and 6 have neither IFS nor WEO data available.

51. The following sections describe for each of the data categories the general procedures employed by STA to construct the required database for the quota calculations.

Goods and services transactions

52. Data reported by members and maintained in IFS were used for each country. Where there were data gaps after the latest year of reporting to STA, estimates were made by applying the growth rates derived from the WEO for the missing year(s) to the latest reported annual data (credits and debits). When the data gaps were in respect of years prior to the latest reported data to STA, the WEO data were inserted for those years to complete the series. For countries where no data were reported to STA, available WEO data were used.

Income, transfers, and the capital account

53. Data reported on income and current transfers by members and maintained in IFS were used for each country. Where there were data gaps, estimates were derived using WEO data series. The adjustment procedure involved adding the change in the balance on transactions from the WEO data to the STA data of the previous year—generally, credits if WEO showed a net credit balance or debits if a net debit balance was shown in WEO.

54. The primary source for data on the capital account as per BPM5 is the IFS data provided by member countries. In a few cases, countries reported only “net” capital account data and STA derived credit and debit values. When IFS values were unavailable, the WEO net capital account value, depending on its sign, was used to derive an estimate. The paucity of IFS “capital account” data may reflect the inclusion of capital transfers in current transfers by some members.

Net capital flows41

55. The primary source for data on net capital flows is the IFS financial account data provided by member countries to STA. When IFS values were unavailable, a WEO value was used to fill the gaps, to the extent possible.

Official reserves

56. The data on official reserves—comprising monetary gold, SDR holdings, reserve position in the Fund, and foreign exchange holdings—were obtained from IFS.42 Monetary gold was valued at SDR 35 per fine troy ounce. In deriving annual average holdings of official reserves for 2007, the data for the 12 months of 2007 were summed and then divided by 12 (or by the number of months for which data were available). If a country did not report their foreign exchange and/or monetary gold holdings data to STA for publication in IFS, the calculation of official reserves included the SDR holdings and reserve position in the Fund series only.

GDP

57. The IFS and WEO databases provided GDP data for 183 members. The IFS database is the source of data for 121 members, WEO data were used for 11 members, and WEO growth rates were applied to the latest IFS data to estimate missing data for 51 members. GDP data for 11 members that are compiled and reported on a fiscal year basis were first adjusted to calendar year basis by recalculating the annual GDP based on quarterly GDP figures.

PPP GDP

58. The PPP-based GDP data were downloaded from the WEO database for 178 countries. The WEO PPP-based GDP are calculated by dividing a country’s nominal GDP in its own currency by the PPP exchange rate and then transformed into SDRs. The WEO PPP exchange rates are based on the data from the International Comparison Program (ICP) for 2003–05 that was published in December 2007. These data were then extended in the WEO data base by using the growth in relative GDP deflators (the deflator of a country divided by the deflator of the United States). The remaining 8 countries were gap filled based on their shares in global GDP at market prices.

IIP

59. Data availability for the IIP has improved over the last five years with over 110 economies reporting IIP data to STA for publication in IFS (108 countries reported three or more years of IIP data in the period 2003–07). There are no comparable data in the WEO that could be used for gap filling. IIP data for 2007 were reported under IFS for 97 members.

Investment income

60. In BPM5, income has two subcomponents—investment income and compensation of employees. Most countries reporting data for IFS report investment income data separately, which accounts for most of the income account. However, in some cases countries do not report any subcomponents for income. In these cases, the whole value for income was attributed to investment income. The WEO database does not have the variable investment income, therefore estimates were derived using WEO net income data.43

Financial flows

61. Financial flows are estimated as the sum of the absolute values of assets and liabilities for direct investment, portfolio investment, financial derivatives, and other investment. This estimation is a proxy for a gross measure of flows in the financial account even though the financial account transactions in the balance of payments are recorded on a net basis; in other words, this measure comprises the aggregation of net asset and liability flows for each functional category of the financial account, except reserves. The standard balance of payments presentation was used and, as such, exceptional financing was not netted out of these estimates, which provides a consistent basis for comparison with the presentation of IIP data.

Valuation

62. The balance of payments and the GDP data series in U.S. dollars were converted to SDRs using period-average exchange rates. The IIP data series was converted using end of period exchange rates.

Missing data series

63. Data that were missing from IFS or WEO were obtained almost entirely from recent staff reports. The only country for which no data for recent years are available is Somalia. In this case, data for the various series were assumed unchanged from the Eleventh Review. Countries for which data for all variables were derived from the recent staff reports are Marshall Islands and Palau. Countries for which only official reserves data were derived from staff reports include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Eritrea, Guinea, Iran, Kiribati, Nepal, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe. For Micronesia, all variables except official reserves were derived from staff reports. For Fiji, reserves and capital flows were obtained from staff reports. In the case of Iran, we gathered capital flows, reserves and financial flows from staff reports. In the case of Iraq, we obtained GDP, capital flows and reserves from staff reports. For San Marino, GDP, current receipts, current payments and capital flows were obtained from staff reports. For Serbia, GDP were obtained from staff reports. For Kosovo, data for all variables were obtained from staff reports. Finally, note that 75 countries out of the 186 membership do not report IIP data.

64. For China, P.R., and Hong Kong, SAR, and Macao SAR goods data were adjusted for trade among the mainland, Hong Kong, SAR and Macau, SAR based on the Direction of Trade database.
1

This paper was prepared by a staff team led by Sheila Bassett and including Sherwyn Williams, Carlos Janada, Hannah Lin, Sergio Rodriguez, Rossen Rozenov, Thomas Shuster, August Dabney, and Barbara Wennerholm.

2

The Fourteenth General Review of Quotas must be completed no later than January 28, 2013, i.e., five years from the date on which the Thirteenth General Review was completed. Under Rule D-3 of the Fund’s Rules and Regulations, if it is decided to conduct a general review of quotas before the time at which such a review must be undertaken by the Board of Governors, the Executive Board shall appoint a Committee of the Whole for this purpose promptly. It is envisaged that the Committee of the Whole could be formed by the time of the 2009 Annual Meetings.

3

Communiqué of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (Press Release No. 09/139, 4/25/09).

4

The Board of Governors is required to conduct a general review of members’ quotas and, if it deems it appropriate, propose an adjustment at intervals of not more than five years (Article III, Section 2(a)).

5

See Thirteenth General Review of Quotas––Draft Report of the Executive Directors to the Board of Governors (12/19/07).

6

The second round increases under the 2008 reform only come into effect after the proposed Amendment of the Articles on Voice and Participation has entered into effect and the relevant members have consented to and paid for their quota increases. As of August 27, 32 members accounting for 61.3 percent of the total voting power had accepted the proposed Amendment, well short of the requisite majorities.

7

See IMF Executive Board Discusses Governance Reform, Public Information Notice No. 09/98, 8/4/09 (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2009/pn0998.htm). Outside observers also continue to highlight this issue. For example, the Eminent Persons Group noted that the changes in voting power to date have been marginal compared with the changes occurring globally and called for an accelerated process of quota reform (see Report of the Committee on IMF Governance Reform, March 24, 2009).

8

For example, in the 11th review, 10 percent of the overall increase was distributed to members whose ratios of calculated to actual quota shares exceeded one or whose quotas were significantly out of line with their relative economic positions.

9

An 85 percent majority of the total voting power is required for any change in quotas (Article III, Section 2c).

10

The adjustment coefficient provides a summary measure of the extent to which deviations between actual and calculated quotas are reduced by quota share adjustments (see Table 1).

11

See Quotas—Updated Calculations and Data Adjustments (7/11/07).

12

Detailed information on the process and methodology used in the data update is provided in Appendix I.

13

See World Economic Outlook (WEO), Frequently Asked Questions, “What is “Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP”? “http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/faq.htm#q4e

14

See Reform of Quota and Voice in the International Monetary Fund—Report of the Executive Board to the Board of Governors, March 28, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2008/032108.pdf. For a discussion of data adjustments see Quotas—Updated Calculations and Data Adjustments (7/11/07), http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/2007/eng/071107.pdf

15

For continuity, staff has maintained the country classification used in the 2008 Reform. This differs from the current WEO classification in that Korea and Singapore are classified as advanced economies in the WEO but are included in “developing Asia” for purposes of quota work. In addition, Slovenia and Malta are classified as advanced economies by WEO, but as EMDCs in the quota papers.

16

Since the reform concluded, Kosovo became a member on June 29, 2009. Incorporating Kosovo into the data set for quotas results in 55 members being out of line prior to the 2008 reform.

17

To provide a common benchmark, the pre-2008 reform ratios use the new quota formula and data ended 2005.

18

Reform of Quota and Voice in the International Monetary Fund—Report of the Executive Board to the Board of Governors, March 28, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2008/032108.pdf.

19

For these reasons, the external Quota Formula Review Group in 2000 had proposed to exclude openness altogether from the formula (seeExternal Review of the Quota Formulas, 5/1/00), and there was also a longstanding practice of making adjustments to the quota database for certain activities relating to re-exports and international financial centers.

20

For data covering 69 countries, see Johnson, R., Noguera, G. (2009): Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added, Working paper.; and for the U.S. see National Research Council. (2006). Analyzing the U.S. content of imports and the foreign content of exports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

21

Discussions have focused on the four currency unions where regional surveillance by the Fund has been formalized: Euro Area, Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU), Central African Economic and Monetary Union (CEMAC), and West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU).

22

See A New Quota Formula—Additional Considerations (3/14/07).

23

As of end-July 2009, 10 members of WAEMU, 3 members of CEMAC and 1 member of ECCU had arrangements with the Fund.

24

See A New Quota Formula—Additional Considerations (3/14/07) and Quota and Voice Reform—Stocktaking and Further Considerations (7/11/07).

25

See for instance, M. Schindler, “Measuring Financial Integration: A New Data Set,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 56, No. 1, which provides measures of de jure restrictions on cross-border financial transactions for 91 countries for the period 1995–2005.

26

In the current update, 110 economies reported IIP data to STA for publication in IFS with 108 members reporting three or more years of IIP data in the period 2003–07. IIP data for 2007 were reported under IFS for 97 members. In the previous data update, 100 economies reported full or partial data to STA for publication and 91 members reported data for three or more years in the period 2001–05. IIP data for 2005 were reported under IFS for 81 members.

27

See A New Quota Formula--Additional Considerations (3/14/07).

28

Specifically, the balance of payments data for financial transactions in IFS record the net incurrence of external liabilities and the net acquisition of external financial assets by residents.

29

Chairman’s Summing Up, Quota and Voice Reform—Stocktaking and Further Considerations (8/16/07).

30

See Appendix I of Quota and Voice Reform—Stocktaking and Further Considerations (7/11/07) http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/2007/eng/071107a.pdf and Appendix 2 of Quota and Voice Reform—Key Elements of a Potential Package of Reforms (2/26/08) http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2008/022608.pdf.

31

Previous staff estimates suggested that restoring the ratio of quotas to global economic indicators applying at the time of the last general quota increase would require a quota increase on the order of 55–130 percent. See Review of the Adequacy of and Options for Supplementing Fund Resources ( 1/12/09).

32

The allocation method used for the two ad hoc increases follows that used for the second round of ad hoc quota increases, where increases are allocated to members based on a uniform proportional reduction in members’ out-of-lineness.

33

GDP and balance of payments data for the updated quota calculations were compiled by STA in coordination with FIN. The STA team comprised René Piché, Colleen Cardillo, René Fievet, Jean Galand, Lisbeth Rivas, Maria Arce, Mbaye Gueye, and Dwayne Raiford.

34

The current Balance of Payments Manual, fifth edition (BPM5), includes current transfers in the current account and capital transfers in the capital account, unlike the earlier fourth edition (BPM4), which included all transfers in the current account. Accordingly, to help ensure comparability with previous quota calculations, both current and capital transfers-excluding exceptional financing, to the extent possible-are included here in current receipts.

35

Ibid; there are only exceptional financing transactions on the credit side of the current and capital accounts.

36

The variable is referred to as “net capital flows” to maintain continuity with the term used in previous quota calculations.

37

In this paper, the data drawn from the EDF are referred to as the IFS database, following the practice in past quota review papers.

38

The cut off date for both IFS and WEO data was January 31, 2009.

39

Eight countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, reported some data for IFS in the 1995–2007 period but did not report data during the 2003–2007 period.

40

The methods used to fill gaps were, in principle, largely similar to those used for the purpose of publishing world and regional summary tables in the Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook (BOPSY), Part 2, and were used in External Review of Quota Formulas—Quantification (4/12/2001).

41

The term “Net capital flows” refers to transactions in the financial account.

42

Consistent with the treatment of reserves for the 2001 ad hoc quota increase for China, P.R., Hong Kong, SAR and Macau, SAR’s reserves are not included for quota calculations.

43

The estimation procedures took into account countries’ reporting of the relative shares of compensation of employees in total income in prior periods.

Same Series

Other IMF Content

Other Publishers

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Policy Papers
Quotas - Updated Calculations and Quota Variables
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Volume/Issue:
Volume 2009: Issue 058
Publisher:
International Monetary Fund
ISBN:
9781498335652
ISSN:
2663-3493
Pages:
96
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498335652.007