Prepared by the Statistics Department under the supervision of Patrizia Tumbarello and by Xiuzhen Zhao with contributions from Ethan Weisman.
The DQAFs for these datasets are publicly available.
SDMX is a global standard open format that offers push/pull capabilities to facilitate internal and external data sharing and coordination in a machine-readable format that is easily accessible for users.
As of end-2016, 111 Data ROSC reports have been published.
The data ROSC consists of three parts: (i) a Summary Assessment by the IMF, (ii) Response by the Authorities, and (iii) Detailed Assessments of specific datasets, using the DQAF. The data ROSC assesses how data compilation and dissemination practices compare to international best practices.
Prepared by the Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) under the supervision of Manal Fouad and Carolina Renteria by an FAD team led by Sailendra Pattanayak and comprising Brian Olden, Ramon Hurtado, and Alpa Shah. Research assistance was provided by Rohini Ray and production assistance was provided by Sasha Pitrof.
The emerging market crises of the late 1990s highlighted shortcomings in financial reporting in both the public and private sectors and regarding the linkages between the two (Lane and others, 1999). This lead to the introduction of the IMF Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency in 1998 as one of twelve new international standards and codes designed to improve the functioning of the international financial system.
After peaking in 2002, the annual number of fiscal ROSCs dropped significantly by 2012.
See 2011 Review of the Standards and Codes Initiative, February 2011, IMF and World Bank.
See “Fiscal Transparency, Accountability, and Risk.”
See Appendix II of the 2012 policy paper for a summary.
This pillar is still under development. An initial draft of the fourth pillar was released for public consultation in December 2014. Many outreach events allowed for constructive debates of the framework’s principles and practices with government, civil society and industry representatives. Extensive comments were received from a range of extractive industry stakeholders. Reflecting feedback from the consultations, the IMF released a revised draft of the entire Fiscal Transparency Code for further discussion and comment in April 2016. The final draft is expected to be submitted to the IMF Board in Q2/Q3 FY2018.
Whereas 30 of the 45 principles under the 2007 Code were primarily procedural in nature or related to managerial issues, 31 of the new Code’s 36 principles under its first three pillars relate to quality and content of available fiscal information.
The 2007 Code had only one principle devoted to fiscal risk disclosure with other dimensions of risk partially picked up in another five. Risks arising from the financial sector, public-private-partnerships PPPs), sub-national governments and public corporations—some of which contributed to, or exacerbated, the fiscal impact of the recent crisis—were not adequately covered in the 2007 Code.
Other relevant international standards in this area include the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM) in the area of fiscal statistics, International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in the area of government accounting, International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) in the area of external audit, and OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency in the budget area.
In contrast, Fiscal ROSCs tended to be qualitative in presenting the results of an evaluation, and they lacked an accessible summary of a country’s strengths and weaknesses both relative to the absolute standard of the Code and comparable countries.
A separate action plan may not be called for where FTE recommendations can easily be incorporated into existing PFM reform strategies or where countries need time to reflect on the FTE findings and recommendations. It can be useful, however, where such reform strategies have not yet been elaborated and/or where countries want to request follow-up TA.
See Fiscal Transparency.
In conducting FTEs for resource-rich countries, all four pillars are used. Relevant Pillar I-III principles are applied in the context of natural resources to allow for consideration of important natural resource transparency issues such as those associated with national resource companies, resource revenue forecasting, commodity price risk analysis, allocation of resource revenues to sub-national governments, and public participation in the resource revenue management process. The amount of detail included for each issue depends on the level of resource revenue dependence, and the extent to which they are important for fiscal transparency.
A survey questionnaire on the revised Code and FTE was sent to the authorities of 20 countries who have conducted FTEs of which 11 countries responded to the survey.
The Anti-Corruption Summit held in London in May 2016, was an initiative spearheaded by the former British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, with high level participation from 17 countries and with the objective of galvanizing a global response to tackle corruption.
While the Code sets out high level international standards on fiscal transparency, individual principles under the Code are linked/referenced to specific operational standards and norms in respective areas, e.g., International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) for financial reporting in the public sector, and the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM) and the United Nations’ Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG) for classification/presentation of information in budgets and fiscal reports.
Since the FTE exercise is voluntary, countries will need to request the diagnostic assessment.
These include parliaments/legislatures, supreme audit institutions (SAIs), parliamentary budget offices, national statistics agencies, and independent fiscal agencies.
For example, the IPSASB.
For example, the GIFT and IBP.
Prepared by the Monetary and Capital Markets Department under the leadership of Udaibir Das with contributions from Veronica Bacalu, Cristina Cuervo, Karl Driessen, Jennifer Elliott, Jana Gieck Bricco, Tommaso Mancini Griffoli, Dong He, Eija Holttinen, Nigel Jenkinson, Lidija Joseph, Moses Kitonga, Fabiana Melo, Marina Moretti; Erlend Nier, Felipe Nierhoff, Alvaro Piris, Katherine Seal, Lilly Siblesz de Doldan, Ghiath Shabsigh, Nobuyasu Sugimoto, and Froukelien Wendt, in consultation with the World Bank.
Standard Setting Bodies include BCBS, CPMI, IADI, IAIS, IOSCO, Islamic Finance Service Board (IFSB), and the FSB. Apart from its role as an assessor, the IMF is also a standard setter for transparency codes.
A difference between an FMI assessment and other standard assessments is FMI assessments not only cover the regulatory and supervisory structure, but also the risk management framework and governance of individual FMIs.
The name of the CPSS was changed into CPMI in September 2014.
Factors that are typically taken into consideration in the decision-making process are the importance of the specific sub-sector vis-à-vis the jurisdiction’s financial sector, the extent of changes in the sub-sector since the last DAR, the degree of vulnerabilities, and the overall priorities of the FSAP.
For example, with the increase in the number of BCPs from 25 to 29, the document setting out the Principles has gone up from 48 pages to 85 pages. The number of essential criteria that assessors need to review to determine whether a jurisdiction is compliant with the principles has expanded from 196 to 231.
The revised methodology and more emphasis on actual implementation have increased workload in preparing self-assessments of the BCP and other technical material which are usually prepared by authorities as an important input into the assessment and other FSAP work streams. These were once around 50 pages in length, but are now are on average 200 pages long, and for large financial systems, run into several hundreds of pages of detailed technical material that must be prepared by the authorities and reviewed and discussed by the assessment team.
TA on regulation and supervision forms around 40 percent of the TA on financial sector issues. The Fund employs 18 full-time long term experts in these areas on the ground, across the globe in regional technical assistance centers as well as some member jurisdictions.
Prepared by the Legal Department under the leadership of Nadim Kyriakos-Saad with contributions from Richard Lalonde and Nadine Schwarz (LEG). Further information on the Fund’s AML/CFT program can be found here.
Money laundering is a process by which the illicit source of assets obtained or generated by criminal activity is concealed to obscure the link between the funds and the original criminal activity. Terrorist financing involves the raising and processing of assets to supply terrorists with resources to pursue their activities. While these two phenomena differ in many ways, they often exploit the same vulnerabilities in financial systems that allow for an inappropriate level of anonymity and non-transparency in the execution of financial transactions.
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the U.K., and the U.S.
The FSRBs are: the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG); the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF); the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL); the Eurasian Group (EAG); the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG); the Financial Action Task Force of Latin America (GAFILAT); the Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA); the Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force (MENAFATF); and the Task Force on Money Laundering in Central Africa (GABAC).
See press release and board paper.
This was notably the case in the context of a recent conference on the risks that the withdrawal of correspondent banks pose to the Caribbean, See also Staff’s Discussion Note on The Withdrawal of Correspondent Banking Relationships: A Case for Policy Action.
See for example Islamic financing.
See for example Staff’s Discussion Note reflecting initial considerations on virtual currencies.
Prepared by the World Bank’s Financial Markets Global Practice (F&M GP) unit under the supervision of Aurora Ferrari by an F&M GP team led by Mariano Cortes and comprising Henry Fortin, and Jael Billy (both Governance GP), and with contribution from Zsuzsa Munkacsi (IMF).
Section D below presents Modules A and B referenced in this table as part of the revised A&A ROSC program assessment methodology.
Public interest entities are defined by the nature of their business, their size, their number of employees, or their corporate status with a wide range of stakeholders. Examples of include credit institutions, insurance companies, investment firms, pension firms, listed companies, and other economically significant business entities.
See for example “the 2008 FSB Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience”, at the policy level, and Kothari and Lester (2012) (“The Role of Accounting in the Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Future”, Accounting Horizons: June 2012, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 335-351).
The quality of a country’s A&A practices is relevant to the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, Goal 8 promotes inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all, and Goal 9 promotes building resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
The institutional framework includes (i) the legislative framework, (ii) accounting profession, (iii) accounting education and training, (iv) the A&A standard setting process, and (v) the arrangements for ensuring compliance.
By providing a snapshot of the A&A practices and its publication, the A&A ROSCs may exert pressure on stakeholders to implement reform.
This was not always the case. In 2009, the OPCS Department carried out a survey covering the 62 countries for which an A&A ROSC had been completed, which found that 65 percent of the countries had received follow-on support from the Bank. Funding was provided by the Bank’s Institutional Development Fund, the FIRST Initiative, and other trust fund- or Bank-funded programs.
While the share of respondents that were at least satisfied with the aspects of the review covered in the first two sentences ranged between 75 and 90 percent, that share drops to between 60 and 70 percent for the rest of the issues. Furthermore, those respondents that were not in agreement with the survey statements were driven by issues of inadequate follow-up resource support, inaction by professional bodies, and reforms that were already ongoing at the time of the assessment.
Some survey participants raised concerns about the adequacy of tracking progress and impact which could be addressed by those indicators.
Prepared by the World Bank’s Financial Markets Global Practice (F&M GP) unit under the supervision of Aurora Ferrari by an F&M GP team led by Mariano Cortes and comprising Alexander S. Berg.
For a review of recent literature and a summary on the impact of corporate governance on development, see Corporate Governance and Development— An Update, Global Corporate Governance Forum, 2012.
Chapter on corporate governance in the IMF’s October 2016 GFSR.
The OECD also produces separate standards for state-owned enterprises (OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises). State-owned enterprise corporate governance is sometimes discussed in specific ROSCs, but all benchmarking is carried out using private sector standards.
See OECD Guidelines on Insurer Governance, OECD, 2011, and OECD Guidelines for Pension Fund Governance, OECD, 2009.
El Salvador, Ghana, Mauritius, Brazil, Malaysia, Thailand, Russian Federation, Vietnam, Cote d’Ivoire, and Pakistan (underway).
Prepared by the World Bank’s Financial Markets Global Practice (F&M GP) unit under the supervision of Aurora Ferrari by an F&M GP team led by Mariano Cortes and comprising Mahesh Uttamchandani.
Khrystyna Kushnir, Melina Laura Mirmulstein, and Rita Ramalho. 2016. Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Around the World: How Many Are There, and What Affects the Count?,” The World Bank/IFC.
The World Bank presented a preliminary background paper at the 51st session of UNCITRAL Working Group V on May 10, 2017.