Международный валютный фонд как пишется

§ 189. В
официальных составных названиях органов власти, учреждений, организаций,
научных, учебных и зрелищных заведений, обществ, политических партий и
объединений с прописной буквы пишется первое слово и входящие в состав названия
имена собственные, а также первое слово включаемых в них названий других
учреждений и организаций, напр.: Всемирный совет мира, Международный
валютный фонд, Евро-парламент, Организация по безопасности и сотрудничеству в
Европе, Федеральное собрание РФ, Государственная дума, Московская городская
дума, Законодательное собрание Ростовской области, Государственный совет,
Генеральный штаб, Конституционный суд РФ, Высший арбитражный суд РФ,
Генеральная прокуратура РФ, Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации,
Федеральное агентство по физической культуре, спорту и туризму; Государственный
комитет Российской Федерации по статистике, Правительство Москвы, Ассоциация
российских банков, Информационное телеграфное агентство России, Российская
академия наук, Евровидение; Государственная Третьяковская галерея,
Государственный академический Большой театр, Московский Художественный
академический театр, Государственный Русский музей (и неофициальные их
названия: Третьяковская галерея, Большой театр, Художественный
театр, Русский музей); Музей искусств народов Востока,
Государственная публичная историческая библиотека, Центральный дом художника, Театральное
училище им. М. С. Щепкина,
Фонд социально-политических исследований, Информационно-аналитический центр
Федерации фондовых бирж России, Центр японских и тихоокеанских исследований
ИМЭМО РАН, Институт русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова РАН, Финансово-экономический
институт им. Н. А. Вознесенского, Польский сейм, Верховный суд США, Московская
патриархия, Средневолжский завод, Центральный универсальный магазин (в
Москве), Международный олимпийский комитет, Демократическая
партия США, Коммунистическая партия РФ, Союз журналистов России, Дворец
бракосочетания, Метрополитен-музей, Президент-отель.

Примечание 1. В названиях учреждений,
организаций, начинающихся географическими определениями с первыми компонентами Северо-, Южно-, Восточно-, Западно-, Центрально-,
а также пишущимися через дефис прилагательными от географических
названий, с прописной буквы пишутся, как и в собственно географических
составных названиях (см. § 169), оба компонента первого сложного
слова, напр.: Северо-Кавказская
научная географическая станция, Западно-Сибирский металлургический комбинат,
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, Орехово-Зуевский
педагогический институт, Нью-Йоркский филармонический оркестр.

Примечание 2. По традиции с прописной буквы
пишутся все слова в названиях: Общество
Красного Креста и Красного Полумесяца, Организация Объединённых Наций, Лига
Наций, Совет Безопасности ООН.

Примечание 3. С прописной буквы пишутся все
слова, кроме родового, в названиях зарубежных информационных агентств, напр.: агентство Франс Пресс, агентство Пресс
Интернэшнл.

Примечание 4. В форме множественного числа
названия органов власти, учреждений и т. п. пишутся со строчной буквы, напр.: министерства России и Украины, комитеты
Государственной думы.

Общие сведения

Международный валютный фонд (МВФ) —
ведущая организация международного сотрудничества в валютно-финансовой сфере.

МВФ был создан по решению Бреттон-Вудской конференции в 1944 г. в целях повышения
стабильности мировой валютно-финансовой системы. СССР принял участие в работе
по созданию МВФ, однако по ряду причин политического характера отказался войти
в число его учредителей.

• Управляющим
  от Российской Федерации в МВФ является Министр финансов Российской Федерации
  А.Г. Силуанов.
• Заместитель
  Управляющего от России в МВФ — Председатель Банка России Э.С. Набиуллина.
• Исполнительный
  директор от России в МВФ — А.В. Можин.

Цели и задачи

Цель
деятельности — поддержание стабильности мировой финансовой системы.

Задачами
МВФ, в соответствии со Статьями соглашения (Уставом), являются:

• расширение международного сотрудничества в денежно-кредитной сфере;
• поддержание сбалансированного развития международных торговых отношений;
• обеспечение стабильности валютных курсов, упорядоченности валютных режимов в
  странах-членах;
• содействие созданию многосторонней системы расчётов и устранению валютных
  ограничений;
• помощь странам-членам в устранении диспропорций платёжного баланса за счет
  временного предоставления финансовых средств;
• сокращение внешних дисбалансов.

Основными
вопросами, обсуждаемыми в ходе регулярно проводимых Ежегодных заседаний Совета
директоров МВФ и заседаниях Международного валютно-финансового комитета (МВФК),
являются: реформа международной финансовой архитектуры и, в первую очередь системы
управления, квот и голосов, изменения денежно-кредитной политики развитых стран
и их влияние на мировую экономику в целом, повышение роли стран с формирующимся
рынком, реформа финансового регулирования и т.д.

Финансовые
ресурсы

Финансовые ресурсы МВФ формируются
главным образом за счет взносов квот стран-членов в капитал Фонда. Квоты
рассчитываются по формуле, исходя, в числе прочего, из относительных размеров
экономики стран-членов. Размер квоты определяет объем средств, который
страны-члены обязуются предоставить МВФ, а также ограничивает объем финансовых
ресурсов, который может быть предоставлен данной стране в качестве кредита.

Сотрудничество
Российской Федерации с МВФ

В настоящее время МВФ насчитывает 189
стран-членов (включая Российскую Федерацию). Россия является членом МВФ с 1992
года. За период членства Россия привлекла средства МВФ для поддержания
устойчивости своей финансовой системы на общую сумму около 15,6 млрд. СДР. В
январе 2005 г. Россия досрочно погасила свою задолженность перед Фондом, в
результате чего приобрела статус кредитора МВФ. В связи с этим решением Совета
директоров МВФ Россия была включена в План финансовых операций (ПФО) Фонда, тем
самым войдя в круг членов МВФ, средства которых используются в финансовых
операциях МВФ.

В связи с состоявшимся 17 февраля 2016
года Четырнадцатым пересмотром квот квота Российской Федерации в МВФ была
увеличена с 9945 до 12903,7 млн. СДР.

Учитывая постоянный
характер операций по предоставлению Банком России средств МВФ в рамках квоты
Российской Федерации, а также ввиду бессрочности обязательств стран-участников
МВФ по предоставлению средств МВФ курс на поддержание финансирования Российской
Федерацией МВФ сохраняется, а сроки действия кредитных механизмов (новые
соглашения о заимствовании (NAB), а также
двусторонние соглашения о заимствовании) пролонгируются на предлагаемых МВФ
условиях.

Сотрудничество Российской Федерации с
МВФ охарактеризовано активной консультационной деятельностью Фонда и
проведением с его участием работы по предоставлению технической поддержки (в
рамках тематических миссии экспертов Фонда, семинаров, конференций, учебных
мероприятий).

Сотрудничество
Банка России с МВФ

Управляющий в МВФ от России — Министр
финансов Российской Федерации, Председатель Банка России является заместителем
управляющего в МВФ от России. В 2010 году функции по финансовому взаимодействию
с МВФ были переданы Министерством финансов Российской Федерации Банку России.
Банк России является депозитарием средств МВФ в российских рублях и
осуществляет операции и сделки, предусмотренные Уставом Фонда.

Банк России выполняет функцию
депозитария средств МВФ. В частности, в Банке России открыты два рублевых счета
МВФ № 1 и № 2. Кроме того, в Банке России открыто несколько счетов депо, на
которых учитываются векселя Минфина и Банка России в пользу МВФ. Данные векселя
являются обеспечением обязательств Российской Федерации по внесению взносов в
капитал МВФ.

В настоящее время Банк России от имени Российской Федерации участвует в
предоставлении МВФ финансирования в рамках кредитных соглашений, информация о
которых приведена в справке, размещённой по следующей ссылке:
О кредитных соглашениях с МВФ.

Центральный банк Российской Федерации сотрудничает
с МВФ по различным трекам международной работы. Представители Банка принимают
участие в сессиях и ежегодных собраниях МВФ, взаимодействуя на экспертном
уровне в составе ряда рабочих групп, а также в ходе проведения рабочих встреч,
консультаций и видеоконференций с экспертами МВФ.

Начиная с 2010 года в отношении России
(как страны, имеющей глобально системно значимый финансовый сектор), проводится
оценка состояния финансового сектора в рамках Программы оценки финансового
сектора (FSAP), реализуемой МВФ совместно с Всемирным банком. При проведении
оценочных мероприятий программы роль Банка России является ключевой. В этой
связи необходимо отметить, что программа FSAP
2015/2016 годов стала самой объемной с начала ее реализации в Российской
Федерации. При участии Банка России проводится работа по подготовке оценок
соблюдения международных стандартов и кодексов (ROSCs),
в частности, в сфере денежно-кредитной политики, банковского надзора и
корпоративного управления. В этой связи наиболее актуальными ROSC по Российской Федерации в настоящее
время является оценка соответствия
российского банковского регулирования принципам БКБН (ROSC
ВСP) и оценка соответствия регулирования
финансового рынка принципам МОКЦБ (ROSC IOSCO) в 2016 году.

Представители Банка России принимают
участие в ежегодных консультациях с миссиями МВФ в рамках Статьи IV Устава
Фонда, а также в работе по подготовке соответствующих итоговых докладов Фонда.

Важным направлением работы является
участие Банка России в подготовке Ежегодного доклада МВФ о валютных режимах и валютных
ограничениях (AREAER).

Дополнительно необходимо отметить
участие Банка России в реализации
Инициативы «Группы 20» по устранению информационных пробелов в финансовой
статистике и взаимодействие с МВФ по реализации рекомендаций указанной
инициативы в России.

В соответствии со Специальным стандартом
на распространение данных (ССРД) в МВФ предоставляются данные по платежному
балансу, внешнему долгу, динамике валютных резервов.

Во взаимодействии с ведомствами и
организациями Банком России обеспечивается участие в аналитической и
исследовательской деятельности МВФ, при подготовке публикаций МВФ и при проведении
профильных семинаров, конференций.

В настоящее время Банк России стремится
привлечь экспертизу Фонда в целях имплементации ряда рекомендаций по итогам
программы FSAP 2015/2016 годов в области развития методов стресс-тестирования в Банке России, а также в целях
повышения качества и эффективности денежно-кредитной политики Банка России и
уровня подготовки соответствующих специалистов.

International Monetary Fund

The International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Abbreviation	IMF
Formation	27 December 1945; 77 years ago
Type	International financial institution
Purpose	Promote international monetary co-operation, facilitate international trade, foster sustainable economic growth, make resources available to members experiencing balance of payments difficulties, prevent and assist with recovery from international financial crises[1]
Headquarters	700 19th Street NW, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Coordinates	38°53′56″N 77°2′39″W / 38.89889°N 77.04417°W
Region	Worldwide
Membership	190 countries (189 UN countries and Kosovo)[2]
Official language	English[3]
Managing Director	Kristalina Georgieva
First Deputy Managing Director	Gita Gopinath[4]
Chief Economist	Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas[5]
Main organ	Board of Governors
Parent organization	United Nations[6][7]
Budget (2022)	$1.2 billion USD[8]
Staff	2,400[1]
Website	IMF.org

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a major financial agency of the United Nations, and an international financial institution, headquartered in Washington, D.C., consisting of 190 countries. Its stated mission is «working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.»^[1] Formed in 1944, started on 27 December 1945,^[9] at the Bretton Woods Conference primarily by the ideas of Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes,^[10] it came into formal existence in 1945 with 29 member countries and the goal of reconstructing the international monetary system. It now plays a central role in the management of balance of payments difficulties and international financial crises.^[11] Countries contribute funds to a pool through a quota system from which countries experiencing balance of payments problems can borrow money. As of 2016, the fund had XDR 477 billion (about US$667 billion).^[9] The IMF is regarded as the global lender of last resort.

Through the fund and other activities such as the gathering of statistics and analysis, surveillance of its members’ economies, and the demand for particular policies,^[12] the IMF works to influence the economies of its member countries.^[13] The organization’s objectives stated in the Articles of Agreement are:^[14] to promote international monetary co-operation, international trade, high employment, exchange-rate stability, sustainable economic growth, and making resources available to member countries in financial difficulty.^[15] IMF funds come from two major sources: quotas and loans. Quotas, which are pooled funds of member nations, generate most IMF funds. The size of a member’s quota depends on its economic and financial importance in the world. Nations with greater economic significance have larger quotas. The quotas are increased periodically as a means of boosting the IMF’s resources in the form of special drawing rights.^[16]

The current managing director (MD) and Chairwoman of the IMF is Bulgarian economist Kristalina Georgieva, who has held the post since October 1, 2019.^[17] Indian-American economist Gita Gopinath, who previously served as Chief Economist, was appointed as First Deputy Managing Director, effective January 21, 2022.^[18] Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas replaced Gopinath as Chief Economist on January 24, 2022.^[19]

Functions[edit]

According to the IMF itself, it works to foster global growth and economic stability by providing policy advice and financing the members by working with developing countries to help them achieve macroeconomic stability and reduce poverty.^[20] The rationale for this is that private international capital markets function imperfectly and many countries have limited access to financial markets. Such market imperfections, together with balance-of-payments financing, provide the justification for official financing, without which many countries could only correct large external payment imbalances through measures with adverse economic consequences.^[21] The IMF provides alternate sources of financing such as the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility.^[22]

Upon the founding of the IMF, its three primary functions were:

• to oversee the fixed exchange rate arrangements between countries,^[23] thus helping national governments manage their exchange rates and allowing these governments to prioritize economic growth,^[24] and
• to provide short-term capital to aid the balance of payments^[23] and prevent the spread of international economic crises.
• to help mend the pieces of the international economy after the Great Depression and World War II^[25] as well as to provide capital investments for economic growth and projects such as infrastructure.^{[citation needed]}

The IMF’s role was fundamentally altered by the floating exchange rates after 1971. It shifted to examining the economic policies of countries with IMF loan agreements to determine whether a shortage of capital was due to economic fluctuations or economic policy. The IMF also researched what types of government policy would ensure economic recovery.^[23] A particular concern of the IMF was to prevent financial crises, such as those in Mexico in 1982, Brazil in 1987, East Asia in 1997–98, and Russia in 1998, from spreading and threatening the entire global financial and currency system. The challenge was to promote and implement a policy that reduced the frequency of crises among emerging market countries, especially the middle-income countries which are vulnerable to massive capital outflows.^[26] Rather than maintaining a position of oversight of only exchange rates, their function became one of surveillance of the overall macroeconomic performance of member countries. Their role became a lot more active because the IMF now manages economic policy rather than just exchange rates.^{[citation needed]}

In addition, the IMF negotiates conditions on lending and loans under their policy of conditionality,^[23] which was established in the 1950s.^[24] Low-income countries can borrow on concessional terms, which means there is a period of time with no interest rates, through the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), the Standby Credit Facility (SCF) and the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Non-concessional loans, which include interest rates, are provided mainly through the Stand-By Arrangements (SBA), the Flexible Credit Line (FCL), the Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL), and the Extended Fund Facility. The IMF provides emergency assistance via the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) to members facing urgent balance-of-payments needs.^[27]

Surveillance of the global economy[edit]

The IMF is mandated to oversee the international monetary and financial system and monitor the economic and financial policies of its member countries.^[28] This activity is known as surveillance and facilitates international co-operation.^[29] Since the demise of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, surveillance has evolved largely by way of changes in procedures rather than through the adoption of new obligations.^[28] The responsibilities changed from those of guardians to those of overseers of members’ policies.^{[citation needed]}

The Fund typically analyses the appropriateness of each member country’s economic and financial policies for achieving orderly economic growth, and assesses the consequences of these policies for other countries and for the global economy.^[28] For instance, The IMF played a significant role in individual countries, such as Armenia and Belarus, in providing financial support to achieve stabilization financing from 2009 to 2019.^[30] The maximum sustainable debt level of a polity, which is watched closely by the IMF, was defined in 2011 by IMF economists to be 120%.^[31] Indeed, it was at this number that the Greek economy melted down in 2010.^[32]

In 1995, the International Monetary Fund began to work on data dissemination standards with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers: The General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS).^{[citation needed]}

The executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and subsequent amendments were published in a revised Guide to the General Data Dissemination System. The system is aimed primarily at statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers (PRSPs).^{[citation needed]}

The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage member countries to build a framework to improve data quality and statistical capacity building to evaluate statistical needs, set priorities in improving timeliness, transparency, reliability, and accessibility of financial and economic data. Some countries initially used the GDDS, but later upgraded to SDDS.^{[citation needed]}

Some entities that are not IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems:

• Palestinian Authority – GDDS
• Hong Kong – SDDS
• Macau – GDDS^[33]
• Institutions of the European Union:
  • The European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS
  • Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS on its own)^{[citation needed]}

A 2021 study found that the IMF’s surveillance activities have «a substantial impact on sovereign debt with much greater impacts in emerging than high-income economies.»^[34]

World Economic Outlook[edit]

World Economic Outlook is a survey, published twice a year, by International Monetary Fund staff, which analyzes the global economy in the near and medium term.^[35]

Conditionality of loans[edit]

IMF conditionality is a set of policies or conditions that the IMF requires in exchange for financial resources.^[23] The IMF does require collateral from countries for loans but also requires the government seeking assistance to correct its macroeconomic imbalances in the form of policy reform.^[36] If the conditions are not met, the funds are withheld.^[23][37] The concept of conditionality was introduced in a 1952 executive board decision and later incorporated into the Articles of Agreement.

Conditionality is associated with economic theory as well as an enforcement mechanism for repayment. Stemming primarily from the work of Jacques Polak, the theoretical underpinning of conditionality was the «monetary approach to the balance of payments».^[24]

Structural adjustment[edit]

Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

• Cutting expenditures or raising revenues, also known as austerity.
• Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
• Devaluation of currencies,
• Trade liberalisation, or lifting import and export restrictions,
• Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of facilities for the domestic market),
• Balancing budgets and not overspending,
• Removing price controls and state subsidies,
• Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
• Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
• Improving governance and fighting corruption,

These conditions are known as the Washington Consensus.

Benefits[edit]

These loan conditions ensure that the borrowing country will be able to repay the IMF and that the country will not attempt to solve their balance-of-payment problems in a way that would negatively impact the international economy.^[38][39] The incentive problem of moral hazard—when economic agents maximise their own utility to the detriment of others because they do not bear the full consequences of their actions—is mitigated through conditions rather than providing collateral; countries in need of IMF loans do not generally possess internationally valuable collateral anyway.^[39]

Conditionality also reassures the IMF that the funds lent to them will be used for the purposes defined by the Articles of Agreement and provides safeguards that the country will be able to rectify its macroeconomic and structural imbalances.^[39] In the judgment of the IMF, the adoption by the member of certain corrective measures or policies will allow it to repay the IMF, thereby ensuring that the resources will be available to support other members.^[37]

As of 2004, borrowing countries have had a good track record for repaying credit extended under the IMF’s regular lending facilities with full interest over the duration of the loan. This indicates that IMF lending does not impose a burden on creditor countries, as lending countries receive market-rate interest on most of their quota subscription, plus any of their own-currency subscriptions that are loaned out by the IMF, plus all of the reserve assets that they provide the IMF.^[21]

History[edit]

20th century[edit]

The IMF was originally laid out as a part of the Bretton Woods system exchange agreement in 1944.^[40] During the Great Depression, countries sharply raised barriers to trade in an attempt to improve their failing economies. This led to the devaluation of national currencies and a decline in world trade.^[41]

This breakdown in international monetary cooperation created a need for oversight. The representatives of 45 governments met at the Bretton Woods Conference in the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the United States, to discuss a framework for postwar international economic cooperation and how to rebuild Europe.

There were two views on the role the IMF should assume as a global economic institution. American delegate Harry Dexter White foresaw an IMF that functioned more like a bank, making sure that borrowing states could repay their debts on time.^[42] Most of White’s plan was incorporated into the final acts adopted at Bretton Woods. British economist John Maynard Keynes, on the other hand, imagined that the IMF would be a cooperative fund upon which member states could draw to maintain economic activity and employment through periodic crises. This view suggested an IMF that helped governments and act as the United States government had during the New Deal to the great recession of the 1930s.^[42]

The IMF formally came into existence on 27 December 1945, when the first 29 countries ratified its Articles of Agreement.^[43] By the end of 1946 the IMF had grown to 39 members.^[44] On 1 March 1947, the IMF began its financial operations,^[45] and on 8 May France became the first country to borrow from it.^[44]

The IMF was one of the key organizations of the international economic system; its design allowed the system to balance the rebuilding of international capitalism with the maximization of national economic sovereignty and human welfare, also known as embedded liberalism.^[24] The IMF’s influence in the global economy steadily increased as it accumulated more members. The increase reflected, in particular, the attainment of political independence by many African countries and more recently the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union because most countries in the Soviet sphere of influence did not join the IMF.^[41]

The Bretton Woods exchange rate system prevailed until 1971 when the United States government suspended the convertibility of the US$ (and dollar reserves held by other governments) into gold. This is known as the Nixon Shock.^[41] The changes to the IMF articles of agreement reflecting these changes were ratified in 1976 by the Jamaica Accords. Later in the 1970s, large commercial banks began lending to states because they were awash in cash deposited by oil exporters. The lending of the so-called money center banks led to the IMF changing its role in the 1980s after a world recession provoked a crisis that brought the IMF back into global financial governance.^[46]

21st century[edit]

The IMF provided two major lending packages in the early 2000s to Argentina (during the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression) and Uruguay (after the 2002 Uruguay banking crisis).^[47] However, by the mid-2000s, IMF lending was at its lowest share of world GDP since the 1970s.^[48]

In May 2010, the IMF participated, in 3:11 proportion, in the first Greek bailout that totaled €110 billion, to address the great accumulation of public debt, caused by continuing large public sector deficits. As part of the bailout, the Greek government agreed to adopt austerity measures that would reduce the deficit from 11% in 2009 to «well below 3%» in 2014.^[49] The bailout did not include debt restructuring measures such as a haircut, to the chagrin of the Swiss, Brazilian, Indian, Russian, and Argentinian Directors of the IMF, with the Greek authorities themselves (at the time, PM George Papandreou and Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou) ruling out a haircut.^[50]

A second bailout package of more than €100 billion was agreed upon over the course of a few months from October 2011, during which time Papandreou was forced from office. The so-called Troika, of which the IMF is part, are joint managers of this programme, which was approved by the executive directors of the IMF on 15 March 2012 for XDR 23.8 billion^[51] and saw private bondholders take a haircut of upwards of 50%. In the interval between May 2010 and February 2012 the private banks of Holland, France, and Germany reduced exposure to Greek debt from €122 billion to €66 billion.^[50][52]

As of January 2012, the largest borrowers from the IMF in order were Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Romania, and Ukraine.^[53]

On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout of Cyprus was agreed by the Troika, at the cost to the Cypriots of its agreement: to close the country’s second-largest bank; to impose a one-time bank deposit levy on Bank of Cyprus uninsured deposits.^[54][55] No insured deposit of €100k or less were to be affected under the terms of a novel bail-in scheme.^[56][57]

The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by the IMF in April 2013, for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled «Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework».^[58] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,^[59] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,^[60] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of The Wall Street Journal.^[61]

In the October 2013, Fiscal Monitor publication, the IMF suggested that a capital levy capable of reducing Euro-area government debt ratios to «end-2007 levels» would require a very high tax rate of about 10%.^[62]

The Fiscal Affairs department of the IMF, headed at the time by Acting Director Sanjeev Gupta, produced a January 2014 report entitled «Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality» that stated that «Some taxes levied on wealth, especially on immovable property, are also an option for economies seeking more progressive taxation … Property taxes are equitable and efficient, but underutilized in many economies … There is considerable scope to exploit this tax more fully, both as a revenue source and as a redistributive instrument.»^[63]

At the end of March 2014, the IMF secured an $18 billion bailout fund for the provisional government of Ukraine in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity.^[64][65]

Response and analysis of coronavirus[edit]

In late 2019, the IMF estimated global growth in 2020 to reach 3.4%, but due to the coronavirus, in November 2020, it expected the global economy to shrink by 4.4%.^[66][67]

In March 2020, Kristalina Georgieva announced that the IMF stood ready to mobilize $1 trillion as its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.^[68] This was in addition to the $50 billion fund it had announced two weeks earlier,^[69] of which $5 billion had already been requested by Iran.^[70] One day earlier on 11 March, the UK called to pledge £150 million to the IMF catastrophe relief fund.^[71] It came to light on 27 March that «more than 80 poor and middle-income countries» had sought a bailout due to the coronavirus.^[72]

On 13 April 2020, the IMF said that it «would provide immediate debt relief to 25 member countries under its Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT)» programme.^[73]

In November 2020, the Fund warned the economic recovery may be losing momentum as COVID-19 infections rise again and that more economic help would be needed.^[67]

Member countries[edit]

Not all member countries of the IMF are sovereign states, and therefore not all «member countries» of the IMF are members of the United Nations.^[75] Amidst «member countries» of the IMF that are not member states of the UN are non-sovereign areas with special jurisdictions that are officially under the sovereignty of full UN member states, such as Aruba, Curaçao, Hong Kong, and Macao, as well as Kosovo.^[76][77] The corporate members appoint ex-officio voting members, who are listed below. All members of the IMF are also International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) members and vice versa.^[78]

Former members are Cuba (which left in 1964),^[79] and Taiwan, which was ejected from the IMF^[80] in 1980 after losing the support of the then United States President Jimmy Carter and was replaced by the People’s Republic of China.^[81] However, «Taiwan Province of China» is still listed in the official IMF indices.^[82]

Apart from Cuba, the other UN states that do not belong to the IMF are Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea. However, Andorra became the 190th member on 16 October 2020.^[83][84]

The former Czechoslovakia was expelled in 1954 for «failing to provide required data» and was readmitted in 1990, after the Velvet Revolution. Poland withdrew in 1950—allegedly pressured by the Soviet Union—but returned in 1986.^[85]

Qualifications[edit]

Any country may apply to be a part of the IMF. Post-IMF formation, in the early postwar period, rules for IMF membership were left relatively loose. Members needed to make periodic membership payments towards their quota, to refrain from currency restrictions unless granted IMF permission, to abide by the Code of Conduct in the IMF Articles of Agreement, and to provide national economic information. However, stricter rules were imposed on governments that applied to the IMF for funding.^[24]

The countries that joined the IMF between 1945 and 1971 agreed to keep their exchange rates secured at rates that could be adjusted only to correct a «fundamental disequilibrium» in the balance of payments, and only with the IMF’s agreement.^[86]

Benefits[edit]

Member countries of the IMF have access to information on the economic policies of all member countries, the opportunity to influence other members’ economic policies, technical assistance in banking, fiscal affairs, and exchange matters, financial support in times of payment difficulties, and increased opportunities for trade and investment.^[87]

Leadership[edit]

Board of Governors[edit]

The Board of Governors consists of one governor and one alternate governor for each member country. Each member country appoints its two governors. The Board normally meets once a year and is responsible for electing or appointing an executive director to the executive board. While the Board of Governors is officially responsible for approving quota increases, special drawing right allocations, the admittance of new members, compulsory withdrawal of members, and amendments to the Articles of Agreement and By-Laws, in practice it has delegated most of its powers to the IMF’s executive board.^[88]

The Board of Governors is advised by the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee. The International Monetary and Financial Committee has 24 members and monitors developments in global liquidity and the transfer of resources to developing countries.^[89] The Development Committee has 25 members and advises on critical development issues and on financial resources required to promote economic development in developing countries. They also advise on trade and environmental issues.

The Board of Governors reports directly to the managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva.^[89]

Executive Board[edit]

24 Executive Directors make up the executive board. The executive directors represent all 189 member countries in a geographically based roster.^[90] Countries with large economies have their own executive director, but most countries are grouped in constituencies representing four or more countries.^[88]

Following the 2008 Amendment on Voice and Participation which came into effect in March 2011,^[91] seven countries each appoint an executive director: the United States, Japan, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia.^[90] The remaining 17 Directors represent constituencies consisting of 2 to 23 countries. This Board usually meets several times each week.^[92] The Board membership and constituency is scheduled for periodic review every eight years.^[93]

Managing Director[edit]

The IMF is led by a managing director, who is head of the staff and serves as Chairman of the executive board. The managing director is the most powerful position at the IMF.^[94] Historically, the IMF’s managing director has been a European citizen and the president of the World Bank has been an American citizen. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world.^[95][96] In August 2019, the International Monetary Fund has removed the age limit which is 65 or over for its managing director position.^[97]

In 2011, the world’s largest developing countries, the BRIC states, issued a statement declaring that the tradition of appointing a European as managing director undermined the legitimacy of the IMF and called for the appointment to be merit-based.^[95][98]

List of Managing Directors[edit]

Term	Dates	Name	Citizenship	Background
1	6 May 1946 – 5 May 1951	Camille Gutt	Belgium	Politician, Economist, Lawyer, Economics Minister, Finance Minister
2	3 August 1951 – 3 October 1956	Ivar Rooth	Sweden	Economist, Lawyer, Central Banker
3	21 November 1956 – 5 May 1963	Per Jacobsson	Sweden	Economist, Lawyer, Academic, League of Nations, BIS
4	1 September 1963 – 31 August 1973	Pierre-Paul Schweitzer	France	Lawyer, Businessman, Civil Servant, Central Banker
5	1 September 1973 – 18 June 1978	Johan Witteveen	Netherlands	Politician, Economist, Academic, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, CPB
6	18 June 1978 – 15 January 1987	Jacques de Larosière	France	Businessman, Civil Servant, Central Banker
7	16 January 1987 – 14 February 2000	Michel Camdessus	France	Economist, Civil Servant, Central Banker
8	1 May 2000 – 4 March 2004	Horst Köhler	Germany	Politician, Economist, Civil Servant, EBRD, President
9	7 June 2004 – 31 October 2007	Rodrigo Rato	Spain	Politician, Businessman, Economics Minister, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister
10	1 November 2007 – 18 May 2011	Dominique Strauss-Kahn	France	Politician, Economist, Lawyer, Businessman, Economics Minister, Finance Minister
11	5 July 2011 – 12 September 2019	Christine Lagarde	France	Politician, Lawyer, Finance Minister
12	1 October 2019 – present	Kristalina Georgieva	Bulgaria	Politician, Economist

Former managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in connection with charges of sexually assaulting a New York hotel room attendant and resigned on 18 May. The charges were later dropped.^[99] On 28 June 2011 Christine Lagarde was confirmed as managing director of the IMF for a five-year term starting on 5 July 2011.^[100][101] She was re-elected by consensus for a second five-year term, starting 5 July 2016, being the only candidate nominated for the post of managing director.^[102]

First Deputy Managing Director[edit]

The managing director is assisted by a First Deputy managing director (FDMD) who, by convention, has always been a citizen of the United States.^[103] Together, the managing director and their First Deputy lead the senior management of the IMF. Like the managing director, the First Deputy traditionally serves a five-year term.

List of First Deputy Managing Directors[edit]

No.	Dates	Name	Citizenship	Background
1	9 February 1949 – 24 January 1952	Andrew Overby	United States	Banker, Senior U.S. Treasury Official
2	16 March 1953 – 31 October 1962	Merle Cochran	United States	U.S. Foreign Service Officer
3	1 November 1962 – 28 February 1974	Frank Southard	United States	Economist, Civil Servant
4	1 March 1974 – 31 May 1984	William Dale	United States	Civil Servant
5	1 June 1984 – 31 August 1994	Richard Erb	United States	Economist, White House Official
6	1 September 1994 – 31 August 2001	Stanley Fischer	Israel  United States	Economist, Central Banker, Banker
7	1 September 2001 – 31 August 2006	Anne Kreuger	United States	Economist
8	17 July 2006 – 11 November 2011	John Lipsky	United States	Economist
9	1 September 2011 – 28 February 2020	David Lipton	United States	Economist, Senior U.S. Treasury Official
10	20 March 2020 – 20 January 2022	Geoffrey Okamoto	United States	Senior U.S. Treasury Official, Bank Consultant
11	21 January 2022 – present	Gita Gopinath	United States	Professor at Harvard University’s Economics department Chief Economist of IMF

Chief Economist[edit]

The chief economist leads the research division of the IMF and is a «senior official» of the IMF.^[104]

List of Chief Economists[edit]

Term	Dates	Name	Citizenship
1	1946–1958	Edward Bernstein[105]	United States
2	1958–1980	Jacques Polak	Netherlands
3	1980–1987	William Hood[106][107]	Canada
4	1987–1991	Jacob Frenkel[108]	Israel
5	August 1991 – 29 June 2001	Michael Mussa[109]	United States
6	August 2001 – September 2003	Kenneth Rogoff[110]	United States
7	September 2003 – January 2007	Raghuram Rajan[111]	India
8	March 2007 – 31 August 2008	Simon Johnson[112]	United Kingdom  United States
9	1 September 2008 – 8 September 2015	Olivier Blanchard[113]	France
10	8 September 2015 – 31 December 2018	Maurice Obstfeld[114]	United States
11	1 January 2019 – 21 January 2022	Gita Gopinath[115]	United States
12	24 January 2022 – present	Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas[116]	France

Voting power[edit]

Voting power in the IMF is based on a quota system. Each member has a number of basic votes, equal to 5.502% of the total votes,^[117] plus one additional vote for each special drawing right (SDR) of 100,000 of a member country’s quota.^[118] The SDR is the unit of account of the IMF and represents a potential claim to currency. It is based on a basket of key international currencies. The basic votes generate a slight bias in favour of small countries, but the additional votes determined by SDR outweigh this bias.^[118] Changes in the voting shares require approval by a super-majority of 85% of voting power.^[11]

Quota and voting shares for the largest IMF members^[2]

Rank	IMF Member country	Quota	Governor	Alternate	No. of votes	% of total votes
millions of XDR	% of the total
1	United States	82,994.2	17.43	Andy Baukol	Vacant	831,401	16.50
2	Japan	30,820.5	6.47	Shunichi Suzuki	Haruhiko Kuroda	309,664	6.14
3	China	30,482.9	6.40	Gang Yi	Yulu Chen	306,288	6.08
4	Germany	26,634.4	5.59	Joachim Nagel	Christian Lindner	267,803	5.31
5	France	20,155.1	4.23	Bruno Le Maire	François Villeroy de Galhau	203,010	4.03
6	United Kingdom	20,155.1	4.23	Jeremy Hunt MP	Andrew Bailey	203,010	4.03
7	Italy	15,070.0	3.16	Daniele Franco	Ignazio Visco	152,159	3.02
8	India	13,114.4	2.75	Nirmala Sitharaman	Shaktikanta Das	132,603	2.63
9	Russia	12,903.7	2.71	Anton Siluanov	Elvira S. Nabiullina	130,496	2.59
10	Brazil	11,042.0	2.32	Paulo Guedes	Roberto Campos Neto	111,879	2.22
11	Canada	11,023.9	2.31	Chrystia Freeland	Tiff Macklem	111,698	2.22
12	Saudi Arabia	9,992.6	2.10	Mohammed Al-Jadaan	Fahad A. Almubarak	101,385	2.01
13	Spain	9,535.5	2.00	Nadia Calviño	Pablo Hernández de Cos	96,814	1.92
14	Mexico	8,912.7	1.87	Rogelio Eduardo Ramirez de la O	Victoria Rodríguez Ceja	90,586	1.80
15	Netherlands	8,736.5	1.83	Klaas Knot	Christiaan Rebergen	88,824	1.76
16	South Korea	8,582.7	1.80	Choo Kyung-ho	Rhee Chang-yong	87,286	1.73
17	Australia	6,572.4	1.38	Jim Chalmers, M.P.	Steven Kennedy	67,183	1.33
18	Belgium	6,410.7	1.35	Pierre Wunsch	Vincent Van Peteghem	65,566	1.30
19	Switzerland	5,771.1	1.21	Thomas Jordan	Ueli Maurer	59,170	1.17
20	Turkey	4,658.6	0.98	Nureddin Nebati	Şahap Kavcıoğlu	48,045	0.95
21	Indonesia	4,648.4	0.98	Perry Warjiyo	Sri Mulyani Indrawati	47,943	0.95
22	Sweden	4,430.0	0.93	Stefan Ingves	Elin Eliasson	45,759	0.91
23	Poland	4,095.4	0.86	Mateusz Morawiecki	Marta Kightley	42,413	0.84
24	Austria	3,932.0	0.83	Robert Holzmann	Gottfried Haber	40,779	0.81
25	Singapore	3,891.9	0.82	Tharman Shanmugaratnam	Ravi Menon	40,378	0.80

In December 2015, the United States Congress adopted a legislation authorising the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. As a result,

• all 190 members’ quotas will increase from a total of about XDR 238.5 billion to about XDR 477 billion, while the quota shares and voting power of the IMF’s poorest member countries will be protected.
• more than 6 percent of quota shares will shift to dynamic emerging market and developing countries and also from over-represented to under-represented members.
• four emerging market countries (Brazil, China, India, and Russia) will be among the ten largest members of the IMF. Other top 10 members are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.^[119]

Effects of the quota system[edit]

The IMF’s quota system was created to raise funds for loans.^[24] Each IMF member country is assigned a quota, or contribution, that reflects the country’s relative size in the global economy. Each member’s quota also determines its relative voting power. Thus, financial contributions from member governments are linked to voting power in the organization.^[118]

This system follows the logic of a shareholder-controlled organization: wealthy countries have more say in the making and revision of rules.^[24] Since decision making at the IMF reflects each member’s relative economic position in the world, wealthier countries that provide more money to the IMF have more influence than poorer members that contribute less; nonetheless, the IMF focuses on redistribution.^[118]

Inflexibility of voting power[edit]

Quotas are normally reviewed every five years and can be increased when deemed necessary by the Board of Governors. IMF voting shares are relatively inflexible: countries that grow economically have tended to become under-represented as their voting power lags behind.^[11] Currently, reforming the representation of developing countries within the IMF has been suggested.^[118] These countries’ economies represent a large portion of the global economic system but this is not reflected in the IMF’s decision-making process through the nature of the quota system. Joseph Stiglitz argues, «There is a need to provide more effective voice and representation for developing countries, which now represent a much larger portion of world economic activity since 1944, when the IMF was created.»^[120] In 2008, a number of quota reforms were passed including shifting 6% of quota shares to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries.^[121]

Overcoming borrower/creditor divide[edit]

The IMF’s membership is divided along income lines: certain countries provide financial resources while others use these resources. Both developed country «creditors» and developing country «borrowers» are members of the IMF. The developed countries provide the financial resources but rarely enter into IMF loan agreements; they are the creditors. Conversely, the developing countries use the lending services but contribute little to the pool of money available to lend because their quotas are smaller; they are the borrowers. Thus, tension is created around governance issues because these two groups, creditors and borrowers, have fundamentally different interests.^[118]

The criticism is that the system of voting power distribution through a quota system institutionalizes borrower subordination and creditor dominance. The resulting division of the IMF’s membership into borrowers and non-borrowers has increased the controversy around conditionality because the borrowers are interested in increasing loan access while creditors want to maintain reassurance that the loans will be repaid.^[122]

Use[edit]

A recent^[when?] source revealed that the average overall use of IMF credit per decade increased, in real terms, by 21% between the 1970s and 1980s, and increased again by just over 22% from the 1980s to the 1991–2005 period. Another study has suggested that since 1950 the continent of Africa alone has received $300 billion from the IMF, the World Bank, and affiliate institutions.^[123]

A study by Bumba Mukherjee found that developing democratic countries benefit more from IMF programs than developing autocratic countries because policy-making, and the process of deciding where loaned money is used, is more transparent within a democracy.^[123] One study done by Randall Stone found that although earlier studies found little impact of IMF programs on balance of payments, more recent studies using more sophisticated methods and larger samples «usually found IMF programs improved the balance of payments».^[40]

Exceptional Access Framework – sovereign debt[edit]

The Exceptional Access Framework was created in 2003 when John B. Taylor was Under Secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs. The new Framework became fully operational in February 2003 and it was applied in the subsequent decisions on Argentina and Brazil.^[124] Its purpose was to place some sensible rules and limits on the way the IMF makes loans to support governments with debt problem—especially in emerging markets—and thereby move away from the bailout mentality of the 1990s. Such a reform was essential for ending the crisis atmosphere that then existed in emerging markets. The reform was closely related to and put in place nearly simultaneously with the actions of several emerging market countries to place collective action clauses in their bond contracts.

In 2010, the framework was abandoned so the IMF could make loans to Greece in an unsustainable and political situation.^[125][126]

The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by IMF staff in April 2013 for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled «Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework».^[58] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,^[59] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,^[60] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of The Wall Street Journal.^[61]

The staff was directed to formulate an updated policy, which was accomplished on 22 May 2014 with a report entitled «The Fund’s Lending Framework and Sovereign Debt: Preliminary Considerations», and taken up by the executive board on 13 June.^[127] The staff proposed that «in circumstances where a (Sovereign) member has lost market access and debt is considered sustainable … the IMF would be able to provide Exceptional Access on the basis of a debt operation that involves an extension of maturities», which was labeled a «reprofiling operation». These reprofiling operations would «generally be less costly to the debtor and creditors—and thus to the system overall—relative to either an upfront debt reduction operation or a bail-out that is followed by debt reduction … (and) would be envisaged only when both (a) a member has lost market access and (b) debt is assessed to be sustainable, but not with high probability … Creditors will only agree if they understand that such an amendment is necessary to avoid a worse outcome: namely, a default and/or an operation involving debt reduction … Collective action clauses, which now exist in most—but not all—bonds would be relied upon to address collective action problems.»^[127]

Impact[edit]

According to a 2002 study by Randall W. Stone, the academic literature on the IMF shows «no consensus on the long-term effects of IMF programs on growth».^[128]

Some research has found that IMF loans can reduce the chance of a future banking crisis,^[129] while other studies have found that they can increase the risk of political crises.^[130] IMF programs can reduce the effects of a currency crisis.^[131]

Some research has found that IMF programs are less effective in countries which possess a developed-country patron (be it by foreign aid, membership of postcolonial institutions or UN voting patterns), seemingly due to this patron allowing countries to flaunt IMF program rules as these rules are not consistently enforced.^[132] Some research has found that IMF loans reduce economic growth due to creating an economic moral hazard, reducing public investment, reducing incentives to create a robust domestic policies and reducing private investor confidence.^[133] Other research has indicated that IMF loans can have a positive impact on economic growth and that their effects are highly nuanced.^[134]

Criticisms[edit]

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) research undertaken in 1980 included criticisms of the IMF which support the analysis that it is a pillar of what activist Titus Alexander calls global apartheid.^[135]

• Developed countries were seen to have a more dominant role and control over less developed countries (LDCs).
• The Fund worked on the incorrect assumption that all payments disequilibria were caused domestically. The Group of 24 (G-24), on behalf of LDC members, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) complained that the IMF did not distinguish sufficiently between disequilibria with predominantly external as opposed to internal causes. This criticism was voiced in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis. Then LDCs found themselves with payment deficits due to adverse changes in their terms of trade, with the Fund prescribing stabilization programmes similar to those suggested for deficits caused by government over-spending. Faced with long-term, externally generated disequilibria, the G-24 argued for more time for LDCs to adjust their economies.
• Some IMF policies may be anti-developmental; the report said that deflationary effects of IMF programmes quickly led to losses of output and employment in economies where incomes were low and unemployment was high. Moreover, the burden of the deflation is disproportionately borne by the poor.
• The IMF’s initial policies were based in theory and influenced by differing opinions and departmental rivalries. Critics suggest that its intentions to implement these policies in countries with widely varying economic circumstances were misinformed and lacked economic rationale.

ODI conclusions were that the IMF’s very nature of promoting market-oriented approaches attracted unavoidable criticism. On the other hand, the IMF could serve as a scapegoat while allowing governments to blame international bankers. The ODI conceded that the IMF was insensitive to political aspirations of LDCs while its policy conditions were inflexible.^[136]

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001,^[137] which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions—which undercut the government’s ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security—and privatisation of strategically vital national resources.^[138] Others attribute the crisis to Argentina’s misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.^[139] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region’s economic problems. The current—as of early 2006—trend toward moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.^{[citation needed]}

In 2006, a senior ActionAid policy analyst Akanksha Marphatia stated that IMF policies in Africa undermine any possibility of meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) due to imposed restrictions that prevent spending on important sectors, such as education and health.^[140]

In an interview (2008-05-19), the former Romanian Prime Minister Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu claimed that «Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country’s economic performances».^[141] Former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, who claimed that debt-ridden African states were ceding sovereignty to the IMF and the World Bank, famously asked, «Who elected the IMF to be the ministry of finance for every country in the world?»^[142][143]

Former chief economist of IMF and former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Raghuram Rajan who predicted the financial crisis of 2007–08 criticised the IMF for remaining a sideline player to the developed world. He criticised the IMF for praising the monetary policies of the US, which he believed were wreaking havoc in emerging markets.^[144] He had been critical of «ultra-loose money policies» of some unnamed countries.^[145][146]

Countries such as Zambia have not received proper aid with long-lasting effects, leading to concern from economists. Since 2005, Zambia (as well as 29 other African countries) did receive debt write-offs, which helped with the country’s medical and education funds. However, Zambia returned to a debt of over half its GDP in less than a decade. American economist William Easterly, sceptical of the IMF’s methods, had initially warned that «debt relief would simply encourage more reckless borrowing by crooked governments unless it was accompanied by reforms to speed up economic growth and improve governance», according to The Economist.^[147]

Conditionality[edit]

The IMF has been criticised for being «out of touch» with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform.^[23] The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how it is felt by citizens.^[148] Countries charge that with excessive conditionality, they do not «own» the programmes and the links are broken between a recipient country’s people, its government, and the goals being pursued by the IMF.^[149]

Jeffrey Sachs argues that the IMF’s «usual prescription is ‘budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts‘«.^[148] Sachs wrote that the IMF’s role as a generalist institution specialising in macroeconomic issues needs reform. Conditionality has also been criticised because a country can pledge collateral of «acceptable assets» to obtain waivers—if one assumes that all countries are able to provide «acceptable collateral».^[39]

One view is that conditionality undermines domestic political institutions.^[150] The recipient governments are sacrificing policy autonomy in exchange for funds, which can lead to public resentment of the local leadership for accepting and enforcing the IMF conditions. Political instability can result from more leadership turnover as political leaders are replaced in electoral backlashes.^[23] IMF conditions are often criticised for reducing government services, thus increasing unemployment.^[24]

Another criticism is that IMF policies are only designed to address poor governance, excessive government spending, excessive government intervention in markets, and too much state ownership.^[148] This assumes that this narrow range of issues represents the only possible problems; everything is standardised and differing contexts are ignored.^[148] A country may also be compelled to accept conditions it would not normally accept had they not been in a financial crisis in need of assistance.^[37]

On top of that, regardless of what methodologies and data sets used, it comes to same the conclusion of exacerbating income inequality. With Gini coefficient, it became clear that countries with IMF policies face increased income inequality.^[151]

It is claimed that conditionalities retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programmes lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.^[152] The IMF sometimes advocates «austerity programmes», cutting public spending and increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, to bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. In Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank, criticises these policies.^[153] He argues that by converting to a more monetarist approach, the purpose of the fund is no longer valid, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF «was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community.»^[154]

Stiglitz concludes, «Modern high-tech warfare is designed to remove physical contact: dropping bombs from 50,000 feet ensures that one does not ‘feel’ what one does. Modern economic management is similar: from one’s luxury hotel, one can callously impose policies about which one would think twice if one knew the people whose lives one was destroying.»^[153]

The researchers Eric Toussaint and Damien Millet argue that the IMF’s policies amount to a new form of colonisation that does not need a military presence:

Following the exigencies of the governments of the richest companies, the IMF, permitted countries in crisis to borrow in order to avoid default on their repayments. Caught in the debt’s downward spiral, developing countries soon had no other recourse than to take on new debt in order to repay the old debt. Before providing them with new loans, at higher interest rates, future leaders asked the IMF, to intervene with the guarantee of ulterior reimbursement, asking for a signed agreement with the said countries. The IMF thus agreed to restart the flow of the ‘finance pump’ on condition that the concerned countries first use this money to reimburse banks and other private lenders, while restructuring their economy at the IMF’s discretion: these were the famous conditionalities, detailed in the Structural Adjustment Programmes. The IMF and its ultra-liberal experts took control of the borrowing countries’ economic policies. A new form of colonisation was thus instituted. It was not even necessary to establish an administrative or military presence; the debt alone maintained this new form of submission.^[155]

International politics play an important role in IMF decision making. The clout of member states is roughly proportional to its contribution to IMF finances. The United States has the greatest number of votes and therefore wields the most influence. Domestic politics often come into play, with politicians in developing countries using conditionality to gain leverage over the opposition to influence policy.^[156][157]

Reform[edit]

Function and policies[edit]

The IMF is only one of many international organisations, and it is a generalist institution that deals only with macroeconomic issues; its core areas of concern in developing countries are very narrow. One proposed reform is a movement towards close partnership with other specialist agencies such as UNICEF, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).^[148]

Jeffrey Sachs argues in The End of Poverty that the IMF and the World Bank have «the brightest economists and the lead in advising poor countries on how to break out of poverty, but the problem is development economics».^[148] Development economics needs the reform, not the IMF. He also notes that IMF loan conditions should be paired with other reforms—e.g., trade reform in developed nations, debt cancellation, and increased financial assistance for investments in basic infrastructure.^[148] IMF loan conditions cannot stand alone and produce change; they need to be partnered with other reforms or other conditions as applicable.^[11]

US influence and voting reform[edit]

The scholarly consensus is that IMF decision-making is not simply technocratic, but also guided by political and economic concerns.^[158] The United States is the IMF’s most powerful member, and its influence reaches even into decision-making concerning individual loan agreements.^[159] The United States has historically been openly opposed to losing what Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew described in 2015 as its «leadership role» at the IMF, and the United States’ «ability to shape international norms and practices».^[160]

Emerging markets were not well-represented for most of the IMF’s history: Despite being the most populous country, China’s vote share was the sixth largest; Brazil’s vote share was smaller than Belgium’s.^[161] Reforms to give more powers to emerging economies were agreed by the G20 in 2010. The reforms could not pass, however, until they were ratified by the US Congress,^{[162][163][164]} since 85% of the Fund’s voting power was required for the reforms to take effect,^[165] and the Americans held more than 16% of voting power at the time.^[2] After repeated criticism,^[166][167] the United States finally ratified the voting reforms at the end of 2015.^[168] The OECD countries maintained their overwhelming majority of voting share, and the United States in particular retained its share at over 16%.^[169]

The criticism of the American-and-European dominated IMF has led to what some consider ‘disenfranchising the world’ from the governance of the IMF. Raúl Prebisch, the founding secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), wrote that one of «the conspicuous deficiencies of the general economic theory, from the point of view of the periphery, is its false sense of universality.»^[170]

Support of dictatorships[edit]

The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War, because of claims that the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations, but also other anti-communist and Communist regimes (such as Mobutu’s Zaire and Ceaușescu’s Romania, respectively). Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to human rights, and labour rights. The controversy has helped spark the anti-globalization movement.

An example of IMF’s support for a dictatorship was its ongoing support for Mobutu’s rule in Zaire, although its own envoy, Erwin Blumenthal, provided a sobering report about the entrenched corruption and embezzlement and the inability of the country to pay back any loans.^[171]

Arguments in favour of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratised countries fell after receiving IMF loans.^[172]

A 2017 study found no evidence of IMF lending programs undermining democracy in borrowing countries.^[173] To the contrary, it found «evidence for modest but definitively positive conditional differences in the democracy scores of participating and non-participating countries.»^[173]

On 28 June 2021, the IMF approved a US$1 billion loan to the Ugandan government despite protests from Ugandans in Washington, London and South Africa.^[174][175]

Impact on access to food[edit]

A number of civil society organisations^[176] have criticised the IMF’s policies for their impact on access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former United States president Bill Clinton delivered a speech to the United Nations on World Food Day, criticising the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture:

We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

— Former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008^[177]

The FPIF remarked that there is a recurring pattern: «the destabilization of peasant producers by a one-two punch of IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs that gutted government investment in the countryside followed by the massive influx of subsidized U.S. and European Union agricultural imports after the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture pried open markets.»^[178]

Impact on public health[edit]

A 2009 study concluded that the strict conditions resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%.^[179] A 2017 systematic review on studies conducted on the impact that Structural adjustment programs have on child and maternal health found that these programs have a detrimental effect on maternal and child health among other adverse effects.^[180]

In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS, claimed that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from scaling up long-term investment in public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to demoralising working conditions that have fuelled a «brain drain» of medical personnel, all of which has undermined public health and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.^[181]

In 2016, the IMF’s research department published a report titled «Neoliberalism: Oversold?» which, while praising some aspects of the «neoliberal agenda», claims that the organisation has been «overselling» fiscal austerity policies and financial deregulation, which they claim has exacerbated both financial crises and economic inequality around the world.^{[182][183][184]}

Impact on environment[edit]

IMF policies have been repeatedly criticised for making it difficult for indebted countries to say no to environmentally harmful projects that nevertheless generate revenues such as oil, coal, and forest-destroying lumber and agriculture projects. Ecuador, for example, had to defy IMF advice repeatedly to pursue the protection of its rainforests, though paradoxically this need was cited in the IMF argument to provide support to Ecuador. The IMF acknowledged this paradox in the 2010 report that proposed the IMF Green Fund, a mechanism to issue special drawing rights directly to pay for climate harm prevention and potentially other ecological protection as pursued generally by other environmental finance.^[185]

While the response to these moves was generally positive^[186] possibly because ecological protection and energy and infrastructure transformation are more politically neutral than pressures to change social policy, some experts^[who?] voiced concern that the IMF was not representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only US$200 billion a year by 2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems—criticisms often levelled at the World Trade Organization and large global banking institutions.

In the context of the European debt crisis, some observers^[who?] noted that^[when?] Spain and California, two troubled economies^{[citation needed]} within respectively the European Union and the United States, and also Germany, the primary and politically most fragile supporter of a euro currency bailout would benefit from IMF recognition of their leadership in green technology, and directly from Green Fund-generated demand for their exports, which could also improve their credit ratings.^{[citation needed]}

IMF and globalization[edit]

Globalization encompasses three institutions: global financial markets and transnational companies, national governments linked to each other in economic and military alliances led by the United States, and rising «global governments» such as World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, and World Bank.^[187] Charles Derber argues in his book People Before Profit, «These interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized, taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and international bodies».^[187] Titus Alexander argues that this system institutionalises global inequality between western countries and the Majority World in a form of global apartheid, in which the IMF is a key pillar.^[188]

The establishment of globalised economic institutions has been both a symptom of and a stimulus for globalisation. The development of the World Bank, the IMF, regional development banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and multilateral trade institutions such as the WTO signals a move away from the dominance of the state as the primary actor analysed in international affairs. Globalization has thus been transformative in terms of limiting of state sovereignty over the economy.^[189]

Impact on gender equality[edit]

The IMF says they support women’s empowerment and tries to promote their rights in countries with a significant gender gap.^[190]

Scandals[edit]

Managing Director Lagarde (2011-2019) was convicted of giving preferential treatment to businessman-turned-politician Bernard Tapie as he pursued a legal challenge against the French government. At the time, Lagarde was the French economic minister.^[191] Within hours of her conviction, in which she escaped any punishment, the fund’s 24-member executive board put to rest any speculation that she might have to resign, praising her «outstanding leadership» and the «wide respect» she commands around the world.^[192]

Former IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato was arrested in 2015 for alleged fraud, embezzlement and money laundering.^[193][194] In 2017, the Audiencia Nacional found Rato guilty of embezzlement and sentenced him to 41⁄2 years’ imprisonment.^[195] In 2018, the sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Spain.^[196]

Alternatives[edit]

In March 2011, the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the African Union proposed to establish an African Monetary Fund.^[197]

At the 6th BRICS summit in July 2014 the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) announced the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$100 billion, a framework to provide liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance-of-payments pressures.^[198]

In 2014, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established.^[160]

In the media[edit]

Life and Debt, a documentary film, deals with the IMF’s policies’ influence on Jamaica and its economy from a critical point of view. Debtocracy, a 2011 independent Greek documentary film, also criticises the IMF. Portuguese musician José Mário Branco’s 1982 album FMI is inspired by the IMF’s intervention in Portugal through monitored stabilisation programs in 1977–78. In the 2015 film, Our Brand Is Crisis, the IMF is mentioned as a point of political contention, where the Bolivian population fears its electoral interference.^[199]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

a.	^ There is no worldwide consensus on the status of the Republic of Kosovo: it is recognised as independent by 84 countries, while others consider it an autonomous province of Serbia. See: International recognition of Kosovo.

References[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Bordo, M.D. (1993). Bordo, M.D.; Eichengreen, Barry (eds.). The Bretton Woods International Monetary System: A Historical Overview. A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System. London. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226066905.001.0001. ISBN 9780226065878.
• Copelovitch, Mark. 2010. The International Monetary Fund in the Global Economy: Banks, Bonds, and Bailouts. Cambridge University Press.
• deVries, Margaret Garritsen. The IMF in a Changing World, 1945–85, International Monetary Fund, 1986.
• James, H. International Monetary Cooperation since Bretton Woods, Oxford, 1996.
• Joicey, N. and Pickford, S. «The International Monetary Fund and Global Economic Cooperation» in Nicholas Bayne and Stephen Woolcock, The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Relations, (Ashgate Publishing, 2011).
• Keynes, J.M. The Collected Writings, Vol. XXVI. Activities 1941–1946: Shaping the Post-War World: Bretton Woods and Reparations, Cambridge, 1980.
• Moschella, M. Governing Risk: The IMF and Global Financial Crises (Palgrave Macmillan; 2010).
• Skidelsky, R. John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain, London, 2000.
• Truman, E. Strengthening IMF Surveillance: A Comprehensive Proposal, Policy Brief 10–29, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2010.
• Weiss, Martin A. The International Monetary Fund. Archived 1 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 24 May 2018).
• Woods, N. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers, Ithaca, 2006
• Woods, Ngaire and Lombardi, Domenico. (2006). Uneven Patterns of Governance: How Developing Countries are Represented in the IMF. Review of International Political Economy. Volume 13, Number 3: 480–515.

External links[edit]

• Official website

International Monetary Fund

The International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Abbreviation	IMF
Formation	27 December 1945; 77 years ago
Type	International financial institution
Purpose	Promote international monetary co-operation, facilitate international trade, foster sustainable economic growth, make resources available to members experiencing balance of payments difficulties, prevent and assist with recovery from international financial crises[1]
Headquarters	700 19th Street NW, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Coordinates	38°53′56″N 77°2′39″W / 38.89889°N 77.04417°W
Region	Worldwide
Membership	190 countries (189 UN countries and Kosovo)[2]
Official language	English[3]
Managing Director	Kristalina Georgieva
First Deputy Managing Director	Gita Gopinath[4]
Chief Economist	Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas[5]
Main organ	Board of Governors
Parent organization	United Nations[6][7]
Budget (2022)	$1.2 billion USD[8]
Staff	2,400[1]
Website	IMF.org

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a major financial agency of the United Nations, and an international financial institution, headquartered in Washington, D.C., consisting of 190 countries. Its stated mission is «working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.»^[1] Formed in 1944, started on 27 December 1945,^[9] at the Bretton Woods Conference primarily by the ideas of Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes,^[10] it came into formal existence in 1945 with 29 member countries and the goal of reconstructing the international monetary system. It now plays a central role in the management of balance of payments difficulties and international financial crises.^[11] Countries contribute funds to a pool through a quota system from which countries experiencing balance of payments problems can borrow money. As of 2016, the fund had XDR 477 billion (about US$667 billion).^[9] The IMF is regarded as the global lender of last resort.

Through the fund and other activities such as the gathering of statistics and analysis, surveillance of its members’ economies, and the demand for particular policies,^[12] the IMF works to influence the economies of its member countries.^[13] The organization’s objectives stated in the Articles of Agreement are:^[14] to promote international monetary co-operation, international trade, high employment, exchange-rate stability, sustainable economic growth, and making resources available to member countries in financial difficulty.^[15] IMF funds come from two major sources: quotas and loans. Quotas, which are pooled funds of member nations, generate most IMF funds. The size of a member’s quota depends on its economic and financial importance in the world. Nations with greater economic significance have larger quotas. The quotas are increased periodically as a means of boosting the IMF’s resources in the form of special drawing rights.^[16]

The current managing director (MD) and Chairwoman of the IMF is Bulgarian economist Kristalina Georgieva, who has held the post since October 1, 2019.^[17] Indian-American economist Gita Gopinath, who previously served as Chief Economist, was appointed as First Deputy Managing Director, effective January 21, 2022.^[18] Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas replaced Gopinath as Chief Economist on January 24, 2022.^[19]

Functions[edit]

According to the IMF itself, it works to foster global growth and economic stability by providing policy advice and financing the members by working with developing countries to help them achieve macroeconomic stability and reduce poverty.^[20] The rationale for this is that private international capital markets function imperfectly and many countries have limited access to financial markets. Such market imperfections, together with balance-of-payments financing, provide the justification for official financing, without which many countries could only correct large external payment imbalances through measures with adverse economic consequences.^[21] The IMF provides alternate sources of financing such as the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility.^[22]

Upon the founding of the IMF, its three primary functions were:

• to oversee the fixed exchange rate arrangements between countries,^[23] thus helping national governments manage their exchange rates and allowing these governments to prioritize economic growth,^[24] and
• to provide short-term capital to aid the balance of payments^[23] and prevent the spread of international economic crises.
• to help mend the pieces of the international economy after the Great Depression and World War II^[25] as well as to provide capital investments for economic growth and projects such as infrastructure.^{[citation needed]}

The IMF’s role was fundamentally altered by the floating exchange rates after 1971. It shifted to examining the economic policies of countries with IMF loan agreements to determine whether a shortage of capital was due to economic fluctuations or economic policy. The IMF also researched what types of government policy would ensure economic recovery.^[23] A particular concern of the IMF was to prevent financial crises, such as those in Mexico in 1982, Brazil in 1987, East Asia in 1997–98, and Russia in 1998, from spreading and threatening the entire global financial and currency system. The challenge was to promote and implement a policy that reduced the frequency of crises among emerging market countries, especially the middle-income countries which are vulnerable to massive capital outflows.^[26] Rather than maintaining a position of oversight of only exchange rates, their function became one of surveillance of the overall macroeconomic performance of member countries. Their role became a lot more active because the IMF now manages economic policy rather than just exchange rates.^{[citation needed]}

In addition, the IMF negotiates conditions on lending and loans under their policy of conditionality,^[23] which was established in the 1950s.^[24] Low-income countries can borrow on concessional terms, which means there is a period of time with no interest rates, through the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), the Standby Credit Facility (SCF) and the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Non-concessional loans, which include interest rates, are provided mainly through the Stand-By Arrangements (SBA), the Flexible Credit Line (FCL), the Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL), and the Extended Fund Facility. The IMF provides emergency assistance via the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) to members facing urgent balance-of-payments needs.^[27]

Surveillance of the global economy[edit]

The IMF is mandated to oversee the international monetary and financial system and monitor the economic and financial policies of its member countries.^[28] This activity is known as surveillance and facilitates international co-operation.^[29] Since the demise of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, surveillance has evolved largely by way of changes in procedures rather than through the adoption of new obligations.^[28] The responsibilities changed from those of guardians to those of overseers of members’ policies.^{[citation needed]}

The Fund typically analyses the appropriateness of each member country’s economic and financial policies for achieving orderly economic growth, and assesses the consequences of these policies for other countries and for the global economy.^[28] For instance, The IMF played a significant role in individual countries, such as Armenia and Belarus, in providing financial support to achieve stabilization financing from 2009 to 2019.^[30] The maximum sustainable debt level of a polity, which is watched closely by the IMF, was defined in 2011 by IMF economists to be 120%.^[31] Indeed, it was at this number that the Greek economy melted down in 2010.^[32]

In 1995, the International Monetary Fund began to work on data dissemination standards with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers: The General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS).^{[citation needed]}

The executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and subsequent amendments were published in a revised Guide to the General Data Dissemination System. The system is aimed primarily at statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers (PRSPs).^{[citation needed]}

The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage member countries to build a framework to improve data quality and statistical capacity building to evaluate statistical needs, set priorities in improving timeliness, transparency, reliability, and accessibility of financial and economic data. Some countries initially used the GDDS, but later upgraded to SDDS.^{[citation needed]}

Some entities that are not IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems:

• Palestinian Authority – GDDS
• Hong Kong – SDDS
• Macau – GDDS^[33]
• Institutions of the European Union:
  • The European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS
  • Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS on its own)^{[citation needed]}

A 2021 study found that the IMF’s surveillance activities have «a substantial impact on sovereign debt with much greater impacts in emerging than high-income economies.»^[34]

World Economic Outlook[edit]

World Economic Outlook is a survey, published twice a year, by International Monetary Fund staff, which analyzes the global economy in the near and medium term.^[35]

Conditionality of loans[edit]

IMF conditionality is a set of policies or conditions that the IMF requires in exchange for financial resources.^[23] The IMF does require collateral from countries for loans but also requires the government seeking assistance to correct its macroeconomic imbalances in the form of policy reform.^[36] If the conditions are not met, the funds are withheld.^[23][37] The concept of conditionality was introduced in a 1952 executive board decision and later incorporated into the Articles of Agreement.

Conditionality is associated with economic theory as well as an enforcement mechanism for repayment. Stemming primarily from the work of Jacques Polak, the theoretical underpinning of conditionality was the «monetary approach to the balance of payments».^[24]

Structural adjustment[edit]

Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

• Cutting expenditures or raising revenues, also known as austerity.
• Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
• Devaluation of currencies,
• Trade liberalisation, or lifting import and export restrictions,
• Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of facilities for the domestic market),
• Balancing budgets and not overspending,
• Removing price controls and state subsidies,
• Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
• Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
• Improving governance and fighting corruption,

These conditions are known as the Washington Consensus.

Benefits[edit]

These loan conditions ensure that the borrowing country will be able to repay the IMF and that the country will not attempt to solve their balance-of-payment problems in a way that would negatively impact the international economy.^[38][39] The incentive problem of moral hazard—when economic agents maximise their own utility to the detriment of others because they do not bear the full consequences of their actions—is mitigated through conditions rather than providing collateral; countries in need of IMF loans do not generally possess internationally valuable collateral anyway.^[39]

Conditionality also reassures the IMF that the funds lent to them will be used for the purposes defined by the Articles of Agreement and provides safeguards that the country will be able to rectify its macroeconomic and structural imbalances.^[39] In the judgment of the IMF, the adoption by the member of certain corrective measures or policies will allow it to repay the IMF, thereby ensuring that the resources will be available to support other members.^[37]

As of 2004, borrowing countries have had a good track record for repaying credit extended under the IMF’s regular lending facilities with full interest over the duration of the loan. This indicates that IMF lending does not impose a burden on creditor countries, as lending countries receive market-rate interest on most of their quota subscription, plus any of their own-currency subscriptions that are loaned out by the IMF, plus all of the reserve assets that they provide the IMF.^[21]

History[edit]

20th century[edit]

The IMF was originally laid out as a part of the Bretton Woods system exchange agreement in 1944.^[40] During the Great Depression, countries sharply raised barriers to trade in an attempt to improve their failing economies. This led to the devaluation of national currencies and a decline in world trade.^[41]

This breakdown in international monetary cooperation created a need for oversight. The representatives of 45 governments met at the Bretton Woods Conference in the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the United States, to discuss a framework for postwar international economic cooperation and how to rebuild Europe.

There were two views on the role the IMF should assume as a global economic institution. American delegate Harry Dexter White foresaw an IMF that functioned more like a bank, making sure that borrowing states could repay their debts on time.^[42] Most of White’s plan was incorporated into the final acts adopted at Bretton Woods. British economist John Maynard Keynes, on the other hand, imagined that the IMF would be a cooperative fund upon which member states could draw to maintain economic activity and employment through periodic crises. This view suggested an IMF that helped governments and act as the United States government had during the New Deal to the great recession of the 1930s.^[42]

The IMF formally came into existence on 27 December 1945, when the first 29 countries ratified its Articles of Agreement.^[43] By the end of 1946 the IMF had grown to 39 members.^[44] On 1 March 1947, the IMF began its financial operations,^[45] and on 8 May France became the first country to borrow from it.^[44]

The IMF was one of the key organizations of the international economic system; its design allowed the system to balance the rebuilding of international capitalism with the maximization of national economic sovereignty and human welfare, also known as embedded liberalism.^[24] The IMF’s influence in the global economy steadily increased as it accumulated more members. The increase reflected, in particular, the attainment of political independence by many African countries and more recently the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union because most countries in the Soviet sphere of influence did not join the IMF.^[41]

The Bretton Woods exchange rate system prevailed until 1971 when the United States government suspended the convertibility of the US$ (and dollar reserves held by other governments) into gold. This is known as the Nixon Shock.^[41] The changes to the IMF articles of agreement reflecting these changes were ratified in 1976 by the Jamaica Accords. Later in the 1970s, large commercial banks began lending to states because they were awash in cash deposited by oil exporters. The lending of the so-called money center banks led to the IMF changing its role in the 1980s after a world recession provoked a crisis that brought the IMF back into global financial governance.^[46]

21st century[edit]

The IMF provided two major lending packages in the early 2000s to Argentina (during the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression) and Uruguay (after the 2002 Uruguay banking crisis).^[47] However, by the mid-2000s, IMF lending was at its lowest share of world GDP since the 1970s.^[48]

In May 2010, the IMF participated, in 3:11 proportion, in the first Greek bailout that totaled €110 billion, to address the great accumulation of public debt, caused by continuing large public sector deficits. As part of the bailout, the Greek government agreed to adopt austerity measures that would reduce the deficit from 11% in 2009 to «well below 3%» in 2014.^[49] The bailout did not include debt restructuring measures such as a haircut, to the chagrin of the Swiss, Brazilian, Indian, Russian, and Argentinian Directors of the IMF, with the Greek authorities themselves (at the time, PM George Papandreou and Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou) ruling out a haircut.^[50]

A second bailout package of more than €100 billion was agreed upon over the course of a few months from October 2011, during which time Papandreou was forced from office. The so-called Troika, of which the IMF is part, are joint managers of this programme, which was approved by the executive directors of the IMF on 15 March 2012 for XDR 23.8 billion^[51] and saw private bondholders take a haircut of upwards of 50%. In the interval between May 2010 and February 2012 the private banks of Holland, France, and Germany reduced exposure to Greek debt from €122 billion to €66 billion.^[50][52]

As of January 2012, the largest borrowers from the IMF in order were Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Romania, and Ukraine.^[53]

On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout of Cyprus was agreed by the Troika, at the cost to the Cypriots of its agreement: to close the country’s second-largest bank; to impose a one-time bank deposit levy on Bank of Cyprus uninsured deposits.^[54][55] No insured deposit of €100k or less were to be affected under the terms of a novel bail-in scheme.^[56][57]

The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by the IMF in April 2013, for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled «Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework».^[58] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,^[59] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,^[60] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of The Wall Street Journal.^[61]

In the October 2013, Fiscal Monitor publication, the IMF suggested that a capital levy capable of reducing Euro-area government debt ratios to «end-2007 levels» would require a very high tax rate of about 10%.^[62]

The Fiscal Affairs department of the IMF, headed at the time by Acting Director Sanjeev Gupta, produced a January 2014 report entitled «Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality» that stated that «Some taxes levied on wealth, especially on immovable property, are also an option for economies seeking more progressive taxation … Property taxes are equitable and efficient, but underutilized in many economies … There is considerable scope to exploit this tax more fully, both as a revenue source and as a redistributive instrument.»^[63]

At the end of March 2014, the IMF secured an $18 billion bailout fund for the provisional government of Ukraine in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity.^[64][65]

Response and analysis of coronavirus[edit]

In late 2019, the IMF estimated global growth in 2020 to reach 3.4%, but due to the coronavirus, in November 2020, it expected the global economy to shrink by 4.4%.^[66][67]

In March 2020, Kristalina Georgieva announced that the IMF stood ready to mobilize $1 trillion as its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.^[68] This was in addition to the $50 billion fund it had announced two weeks earlier,^[69] of which $5 billion had already been requested by Iran.^[70] One day earlier on 11 March, the UK called to pledge £150 million to the IMF catastrophe relief fund.^[71] It came to light on 27 March that «more than 80 poor and middle-income countries» had sought a bailout due to the coronavirus.^[72]

On 13 April 2020, the IMF said that it «would provide immediate debt relief to 25 member countries under its Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT)» programme.^[73]

In November 2020, the Fund warned the economic recovery may be losing momentum as COVID-19 infections rise again and that more economic help would be needed.^[67]

Member countries[edit]

Not all member countries of the IMF are sovereign states, and therefore not all «member countries» of the IMF are members of the United Nations.^[75] Amidst «member countries» of the IMF that are not member states of the UN are non-sovereign areas with special jurisdictions that are officially under the sovereignty of full UN member states, such as Aruba, Curaçao, Hong Kong, and Macao, as well as Kosovo.^[76][77] The corporate members appoint ex-officio voting members, who are listed below. All members of the IMF are also International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) members and vice versa.^[78]

Former members are Cuba (which left in 1964),^[79] and Taiwan, which was ejected from the IMF^[80] in 1980 after losing the support of the then United States President Jimmy Carter and was replaced by the People’s Republic of China.^[81] However, «Taiwan Province of China» is still listed in the official IMF indices.^[82]

Apart from Cuba, the other UN states that do not belong to the IMF are Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea. However, Andorra became the 190th member on 16 October 2020.^[83][84]

The former Czechoslovakia was expelled in 1954 for «failing to provide required data» and was readmitted in 1990, after the Velvet Revolution. Poland withdrew in 1950—allegedly pressured by the Soviet Union—but returned in 1986.^[85]

Qualifications[edit]

Any country may apply to be a part of the IMF. Post-IMF formation, in the early postwar period, rules for IMF membership were left relatively loose. Members needed to make periodic membership payments towards their quota, to refrain from currency restrictions unless granted IMF permission, to abide by the Code of Conduct in the IMF Articles of Agreement, and to provide national economic information. However, stricter rules were imposed on governments that applied to the IMF for funding.^[24]

The countries that joined the IMF between 1945 and 1971 agreed to keep their exchange rates secured at rates that could be adjusted only to correct a «fundamental disequilibrium» in the balance of payments, and only with the IMF’s agreement.^[86]

Benefits[edit]

Member countries of the IMF have access to information on the economic policies of all member countries, the opportunity to influence other members’ economic policies, technical assistance in banking, fiscal affairs, and exchange matters, financial support in times of payment difficulties, and increased opportunities for trade and investment.^[87]

Leadership[edit]

Board of Governors[edit]

The Board of Governors consists of one governor and one alternate governor for each member country. Each member country appoints its two governors. The Board normally meets once a year and is responsible for electing or appointing an executive director to the executive board. While the Board of Governors is officially responsible for approving quota increases, special drawing right allocations, the admittance of new members, compulsory withdrawal of members, and amendments to the Articles of Agreement and By-Laws, in practice it has delegated most of its powers to the IMF’s executive board.^[88]

The Board of Governors is advised by the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee. The International Monetary and Financial Committee has 24 members and monitors developments in global liquidity and the transfer of resources to developing countries.^[89] The Development Committee has 25 members and advises on critical development issues and on financial resources required to promote economic development in developing countries. They also advise on trade and environmental issues.

The Board of Governors reports directly to the managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva.^[89]

Executive Board[edit]

24 Executive Directors make up the executive board. The executive directors represent all 189 member countries in a geographically based roster.^[90] Countries with large economies have their own executive director, but most countries are grouped in constituencies representing four or more countries.^[88]

Following the 2008 Amendment on Voice and Participation which came into effect in March 2011,^[91] seven countries each appoint an executive director: the United States, Japan, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia.^[90] The remaining 17 Directors represent constituencies consisting of 2 to 23 countries. This Board usually meets several times each week.^[92] The Board membership and constituency is scheduled for periodic review every eight years.^[93]

Managing Director[edit]

The IMF is led by a managing director, who is head of the staff and serves as Chairman of the executive board. The managing director is the most powerful position at the IMF.^[94] Historically, the IMF’s managing director has been a European citizen and the president of the World Bank has been an American citizen. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world.^[95][96] In August 2019, the International Monetary Fund has removed the age limit which is 65 or over for its managing director position.^[97]

In 2011, the world’s largest developing countries, the BRIC states, issued a statement declaring that the tradition of appointing a European as managing director undermined the legitimacy of the IMF and called for the appointment to be merit-based.^[95][98]

List of Managing Directors[edit]

Term	Dates	Name	Citizenship	Background
1	6 May 1946 – 5 May 1951	Camille Gutt	Belgium	Politician, Economist, Lawyer, Economics Minister, Finance Minister
2	3 August 1951 – 3 October 1956	Ivar Rooth	Sweden	Economist, Lawyer, Central Banker
3	21 November 1956 – 5 May 1963	Per Jacobsson	Sweden	Economist, Lawyer, Academic, League of Nations, BIS
4	1 September 1963 – 31 August 1973	Pierre-Paul Schweitzer	France	Lawyer, Businessman, Civil Servant, Central Banker
5	1 September 1973 – 18 June 1978	Johan Witteveen	Netherlands	Politician, Economist, Academic, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, CPB
6	18 June 1978 – 15 January 1987	Jacques de Larosière	France	Businessman, Civil Servant, Central Banker
7	16 January 1987 – 14 February 2000	Michel Camdessus	France	Economist, Civil Servant, Central Banker
8	1 May 2000 – 4 March 2004	Horst Köhler	Germany	Politician, Economist, Civil Servant, EBRD, President
9	7 June 2004 – 31 October 2007	Rodrigo Rato	Spain	Politician, Businessman, Economics Minister, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister
10	1 November 2007 – 18 May 2011	Dominique Strauss-Kahn	France	Politician, Economist, Lawyer, Businessman, Economics Minister, Finance Minister
11	5 July 2011 – 12 September 2019	Christine Lagarde	France	Politician, Lawyer, Finance Minister
12	1 October 2019 – present	Kristalina Georgieva	Bulgaria	Politician, Economist

Former managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in connection with charges of sexually assaulting a New York hotel room attendant and resigned on 18 May. The charges were later dropped.^[99] On 28 June 2011 Christine Lagarde was confirmed as managing director of the IMF for a five-year term starting on 5 July 2011.^[100][101] She was re-elected by consensus for a second five-year term, starting 5 July 2016, being the only candidate nominated for the post of managing director.^[102]

First Deputy Managing Director[edit]

The managing director is assisted by a First Deputy managing director (FDMD) who, by convention, has always been a citizen of the United States.^[103] Together, the managing director and their First Deputy lead the senior management of the IMF. Like the managing director, the First Deputy traditionally serves a five-year term.

List of First Deputy Managing Directors[edit]

No.	Dates	Name	Citizenship	Background
1	9 February 1949 – 24 January 1952	Andrew Overby	United States	Banker, Senior U.S. Treasury Official
2	16 March 1953 – 31 October 1962	Merle Cochran	United States	U.S. Foreign Service Officer
3	1 November 1962 – 28 February 1974	Frank Southard	United States	Economist, Civil Servant
4	1 March 1974 – 31 May 1984	William Dale	United States	Civil Servant
5	1 June 1984 – 31 August 1994	Richard Erb	United States	Economist, White House Official
6	1 September 1994 – 31 August 2001	Stanley Fischer	Israel  United States	Economist, Central Banker, Banker
7	1 September 2001 – 31 August 2006	Anne Kreuger	United States	Economist
8	17 July 2006 – 11 November 2011	John Lipsky	United States	Economist
9	1 September 2011 – 28 February 2020	David Lipton	United States	Economist, Senior U.S. Treasury Official
10	20 March 2020 – 20 January 2022	Geoffrey Okamoto	United States	Senior U.S. Treasury Official, Bank Consultant
11	21 January 2022 – present	Gita Gopinath	United States	Professor at Harvard University’s Economics department Chief Economist of IMF

Chief Economist[edit]

The chief economist leads the research division of the IMF and is a «senior official» of the IMF.^[104]

List of Chief Economists[edit]

Term	Dates	Name	Citizenship
1	1946–1958	Edward Bernstein[105]	United States
2	1958–1980	Jacques Polak	Netherlands
3	1980–1987	William Hood[106][107]	Canada
4	1987–1991	Jacob Frenkel[108]	Israel
5	August 1991 – 29 June 2001	Michael Mussa[109]	United States
6	August 2001 – September 2003	Kenneth Rogoff[110]	United States
7	September 2003 – January 2007	Raghuram Rajan[111]	India
8	March 2007 – 31 August 2008	Simon Johnson[112]	United Kingdom  United States
9	1 September 2008 – 8 September 2015	Olivier Blanchard[113]	France
10	8 September 2015 – 31 December 2018	Maurice Obstfeld[114]	United States
11	1 January 2019 – 21 January 2022	Gita Gopinath[115]	United States
12	24 January 2022 – present	Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas[116]	France

Voting power[edit]

Voting power in the IMF is based on a quota system. Each member has a number of basic votes, equal to 5.502% of the total votes,^[117] plus one additional vote for each special drawing right (SDR) of 100,000 of a member country’s quota.^[118] The SDR is the unit of account of the IMF and represents a potential claim to currency. It is based on a basket of key international currencies. The basic votes generate a slight bias in favour of small countries, but the additional votes determined by SDR outweigh this bias.^[118] Changes in the voting shares require approval by a super-majority of 85% of voting power.^[11]

Quota and voting shares for the largest IMF members^[2]

Rank	IMF Member country	Quota	Governor	Alternate	No. of votes	% of total votes
millions of XDR	% of the total
1	United States	82,994.2	17.43	Andy Baukol	Vacant	831,401	16.50
2	Japan	30,820.5	6.47	Shunichi Suzuki	Haruhiko Kuroda	309,664	6.14
3	China	30,482.9	6.40	Gang Yi	Yulu Chen	306,288	6.08
4	Germany	26,634.4	5.59	Joachim Nagel	Christian Lindner	267,803	5.31
5	France	20,155.1	4.23	Bruno Le Maire	François Villeroy de Galhau	203,010	4.03
6	United Kingdom	20,155.1	4.23	Jeremy Hunt MP	Andrew Bailey	203,010	4.03
7	Italy	15,070.0	3.16	Daniele Franco	Ignazio Visco	152,159	3.02
8	India	13,114.4	2.75	Nirmala Sitharaman	Shaktikanta Das	132,603	2.63
9	Russia	12,903.7	2.71	Anton Siluanov	Elvira S. Nabiullina	130,496	2.59
10	Brazil	11,042.0	2.32	Paulo Guedes	Roberto Campos Neto	111,879	2.22
11	Canada	11,023.9	2.31	Chrystia Freeland	Tiff Macklem	111,698	2.22
12	Saudi Arabia	9,992.6	2.10	Mohammed Al-Jadaan	Fahad A. Almubarak	101,385	2.01
13	Spain	9,535.5	2.00	Nadia Calviño	Pablo Hernández de Cos	96,814	1.92
14	Mexico	8,912.7	1.87	Rogelio Eduardo Ramirez de la O	Victoria Rodríguez Ceja	90,586	1.80
15	Netherlands	8,736.5	1.83	Klaas Knot	Christiaan Rebergen	88,824	1.76
16	South Korea	8,582.7	1.80	Choo Kyung-ho	Rhee Chang-yong	87,286	1.73
17	Australia	6,572.4	1.38	Jim Chalmers, M.P.	Steven Kennedy	67,183	1.33
18	Belgium	6,410.7	1.35	Pierre Wunsch	Vincent Van Peteghem	65,566	1.30
19	Switzerland	5,771.1	1.21	Thomas Jordan	Ueli Maurer	59,170	1.17
20	Turkey	4,658.6	0.98	Nureddin Nebati	Şahap Kavcıoğlu	48,045	0.95
21	Indonesia	4,648.4	0.98	Perry Warjiyo	Sri Mulyani Indrawati	47,943	0.95
22	Sweden	4,430.0	0.93	Stefan Ingves	Elin Eliasson	45,759	0.91
23	Poland	4,095.4	0.86	Mateusz Morawiecki	Marta Kightley	42,413	0.84
24	Austria	3,932.0	0.83	Robert Holzmann	Gottfried Haber	40,779	0.81
25	Singapore	3,891.9	0.82	Tharman Shanmugaratnam	Ravi Menon	40,378	0.80

In December 2015, the United States Congress adopted a legislation authorising the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. As a result,

• all 190 members’ quotas will increase from a total of about XDR 238.5 billion to about XDR 477 billion, while the quota shares and voting power of the IMF’s poorest member countries will be protected.
• more than 6 percent of quota shares will shift to dynamic emerging market and developing countries and also from over-represented to under-represented members.
• four emerging market countries (Brazil, China, India, and Russia) will be among the ten largest members of the IMF. Other top 10 members are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.^[119]

Effects of the quota system[edit]

The IMF’s quota system was created to raise funds for loans.^[24] Each IMF member country is assigned a quota, or contribution, that reflects the country’s relative size in the global economy. Each member’s quota also determines its relative voting power. Thus, financial contributions from member governments are linked to voting power in the organization.^[118]

This system follows the logic of a shareholder-controlled organization: wealthy countries have more say in the making and revision of rules.^[24] Since decision making at the IMF reflects each member’s relative economic position in the world, wealthier countries that provide more money to the IMF have more influence than poorer members that contribute less; nonetheless, the IMF focuses on redistribution.^[118]

Inflexibility of voting power[edit]

Quotas are normally reviewed every five years and can be increased when deemed necessary by the Board of Governors. IMF voting shares are relatively inflexible: countries that grow economically have tended to become under-represented as their voting power lags behind.^[11] Currently, reforming the representation of developing countries within the IMF has been suggested.^[118] These countries’ economies represent a large portion of the global economic system but this is not reflected in the IMF’s decision-making process through the nature of the quota system. Joseph Stiglitz argues, «There is a need to provide more effective voice and representation for developing countries, which now represent a much larger portion of world economic activity since 1944, when the IMF was created.»^[120] In 2008, a number of quota reforms were passed including shifting 6% of quota shares to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries.^[121]

Overcoming borrower/creditor divide[edit]

The IMF’s membership is divided along income lines: certain countries provide financial resources while others use these resources. Both developed country «creditors» and developing country «borrowers» are members of the IMF. The developed countries provide the financial resources but rarely enter into IMF loan agreements; they are the creditors. Conversely, the developing countries use the lending services but contribute little to the pool of money available to lend because their quotas are smaller; they are the borrowers. Thus, tension is created around governance issues because these two groups, creditors and borrowers, have fundamentally different interests.^[118]

The criticism is that the system of voting power distribution through a quota system institutionalizes borrower subordination and creditor dominance. The resulting division of the IMF’s membership into borrowers and non-borrowers has increased the controversy around conditionality because the borrowers are interested in increasing loan access while creditors want to maintain reassurance that the loans will be repaid.^[122]

Use[edit]

A recent^[when?] source revealed that the average overall use of IMF credit per decade increased, in real terms, by 21% between the 1970s and 1980s, and increased again by just over 22% from the 1980s to the 1991–2005 period. Another study has suggested that since 1950 the continent of Africa alone has received $300 billion from the IMF, the World Bank, and affiliate institutions.^[123]

A study by Bumba Mukherjee found that developing democratic countries benefit more from IMF programs than developing autocratic countries because policy-making, and the process of deciding where loaned money is used, is more transparent within a democracy.^[123] One study done by Randall Stone found that although earlier studies found little impact of IMF programs on balance of payments, more recent studies using more sophisticated methods and larger samples «usually found IMF programs improved the balance of payments».^[40]

Exceptional Access Framework – sovereign debt[edit]

The Exceptional Access Framework was created in 2003 when John B. Taylor was Under Secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs. The new Framework became fully operational in February 2003 and it was applied in the subsequent decisions on Argentina and Brazil.^[124] Its purpose was to place some sensible rules and limits on the way the IMF makes loans to support governments with debt problem—especially in emerging markets—and thereby move away from the bailout mentality of the 1990s. Such a reform was essential for ending the crisis atmosphere that then existed in emerging markets. The reform was closely related to and put in place nearly simultaneously with the actions of several emerging market countries to place collective action clauses in their bond contracts.

In 2010, the framework was abandoned so the IMF could make loans to Greece in an unsustainable and political situation.^[125][126]

The topic of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up by IMF staff in April 2013 for the first time since 2005, in a report entitled «Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework».^[58] The paper, which was discussed by the board on 20 May,^[59] summarised the recent experiences in Greece, St Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Jamaica. An explanatory interview with Deputy Director Hugh Bredenkamp was published a few days later,^[60] as was a deconstruction by Matina Stevis of The Wall Street Journal.^[61]

The staff was directed to formulate an updated policy, which was accomplished on 22 May 2014 with a report entitled «The Fund’s Lending Framework and Sovereign Debt: Preliminary Considerations», and taken up by the executive board on 13 June.^[127] The staff proposed that «in circumstances where a (Sovereign) member has lost market access and debt is considered sustainable … the IMF would be able to provide Exceptional Access on the basis of a debt operation that involves an extension of maturities», which was labeled a «reprofiling operation». These reprofiling operations would «generally be less costly to the debtor and creditors—and thus to the system overall—relative to either an upfront debt reduction operation or a bail-out that is followed by debt reduction … (and) would be envisaged only when both (a) a member has lost market access and (b) debt is assessed to be sustainable, but not with high probability … Creditors will only agree if they understand that such an amendment is necessary to avoid a worse outcome: namely, a default and/or an operation involving debt reduction … Collective action clauses, which now exist in most—but not all—bonds would be relied upon to address collective action problems.»^[127]

Impact[edit]

According to a 2002 study by Randall W. Stone, the academic literature on the IMF shows «no consensus on the long-term effects of IMF programs on growth».^[128]

Some research has found that IMF loans can reduce the chance of a future banking crisis,^[129] while other studies have found that they can increase the risk of political crises.^[130] IMF programs can reduce the effects of a currency crisis.^[131]

Some research has found that IMF programs are less effective in countries which possess a developed-country patron (be it by foreign aid, membership of postcolonial institutions or UN voting patterns), seemingly due to this patron allowing countries to flaunt IMF program rules as these rules are not consistently enforced.^[132] Some research has found that IMF loans reduce economic growth due to creating an economic moral hazard, reducing public investment, reducing incentives to create a robust domestic policies and reducing private investor confidence.^[133] Other research has indicated that IMF loans can have a positive impact on economic growth and that their effects are highly nuanced.^[134]

Criticisms[edit]

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) research undertaken in 1980 included criticisms of the IMF which support the analysis that it is a pillar of what activist Titus Alexander calls global apartheid.^[135]

• Developed countries were seen to have a more dominant role and control over less developed countries (LDCs).
• The Fund worked on the incorrect assumption that all payments disequilibria were caused domestically. The Group of 24 (G-24), on behalf of LDC members, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) complained that the IMF did not distinguish sufficiently between disequilibria with predominantly external as opposed to internal causes. This criticism was voiced in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis. Then LDCs found themselves with payment deficits due to adverse changes in their terms of trade, with the Fund prescribing stabilization programmes similar to those suggested for deficits caused by government over-spending. Faced with long-term, externally generated disequilibria, the G-24 argued for more time for LDCs to adjust their economies.
• Some IMF policies may be anti-developmental; the report said that deflationary effects of IMF programmes quickly led to losses of output and employment in economies where incomes were low and unemployment was high. Moreover, the burden of the deflation is disproportionately borne by the poor.
• The IMF’s initial policies were based in theory and influenced by differing opinions and departmental rivalries. Critics suggest that its intentions to implement these policies in countries with widely varying economic circumstances were misinformed and lacked economic rationale.

ODI conclusions were that the IMF’s very nature of promoting market-oriented approaches attracted unavoidable criticism. On the other hand, the IMF could serve as a scapegoat while allowing governments to blame international bankers. The ODI conceded that the IMF was insensitive to political aspirations of LDCs while its policy conditions were inflexible.^[136]

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001,^[137] which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions—which undercut the government’s ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security—and privatisation of strategically vital national resources.^[138] Others attribute the crisis to Argentina’s misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.^[139] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region’s economic problems. The current—as of early 2006—trend toward moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.^{[citation needed]}

In 2006, a senior ActionAid policy analyst Akanksha Marphatia stated that IMF policies in Africa undermine any possibility of meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) due to imposed restrictions that prevent spending on important sectors, such as education and health.^[140]

In an interview (2008-05-19), the former Romanian Prime Minister Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu claimed that «Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country’s economic performances».^[141] Former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, who claimed that debt-ridden African states were ceding sovereignty to the IMF and the World Bank, famously asked, «Who elected the IMF to be the ministry of finance for every country in the world?»^[142][143]

Former chief economist of IMF and former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Raghuram Rajan who predicted the financial crisis of 2007–08 criticised the IMF for remaining a sideline player to the developed world. He criticised the IMF for praising the monetary policies of the US, which he believed were wreaking havoc in emerging markets.^[144] He had been critical of «ultra-loose money policies» of some unnamed countries.^[145][146]

Countries such as Zambia have not received proper aid with long-lasting effects, leading to concern from economists. Since 2005, Zambia (as well as 29 other African countries) did receive debt write-offs, which helped with the country’s medical and education funds. However, Zambia returned to a debt of over half its GDP in less than a decade. American economist William Easterly, sceptical of the IMF’s methods, had initially warned that «debt relief would simply encourage more reckless borrowing by crooked governments unless it was accompanied by reforms to speed up economic growth and improve governance», according to The Economist.^[147]

Conditionality[edit]

The IMF has been criticised for being «out of touch» with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform.^[23] The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how it is felt by citizens.^[148] Countries charge that with excessive conditionality, they do not «own» the programmes and the links are broken between a recipient country’s people, its government, and the goals being pursued by the IMF.^[149]

Jeffrey Sachs argues that the IMF’s «usual prescription is ‘budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts‘«.^[148] Sachs wrote that the IMF’s role as a generalist institution specialising in macroeconomic issues needs reform. Conditionality has also been criticised because a country can pledge collateral of «acceptable assets» to obtain waivers—if one assumes that all countries are able to provide «acceptable collateral».^[39]

One view is that conditionality undermines domestic political institutions.^[150] The recipient governments are sacrificing policy autonomy in exchange for funds, which can lead to public resentment of the local leadership for accepting and enforcing the IMF conditions. Political instability can result from more leadership turnover as political leaders are replaced in electoral backlashes.^[23] IMF conditions are often criticised for reducing government services, thus increasing unemployment.^[24]

Another criticism is that IMF policies are only designed to address poor governance, excessive government spending, excessive government intervention in markets, and too much state ownership.^[148] This assumes that this narrow range of issues represents the only possible problems; everything is standardised and differing contexts are ignored.^[148] A country may also be compelled to accept conditions it would not normally accept had they not been in a financial crisis in need of assistance.^[37]

On top of that, regardless of what methodologies and data sets used, it comes to same the conclusion of exacerbating income inequality. With Gini coefficient, it became clear that countries with IMF policies face increased income inequality.^[151]

It is claimed that conditionalities retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programmes lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.^[152] The IMF sometimes advocates «austerity programmes», cutting public spending and increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, to bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. In Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank, criticises these policies.^[153] He argues that by converting to a more monetarist approach, the purpose of the fund is no longer valid, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF «was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community.»^[154]

Stiglitz concludes, «Modern high-tech warfare is designed to remove physical contact: dropping bombs from 50,000 feet ensures that one does not ‘feel’ what one does. Modern economic management is similar: from one’s luxury hotel, one can callously impose policies about which one would think twice if one knew the people whose lives one was destroying.»^[153]

The researchers Eric Toussaint and Damien Millet argue that the IMF’s policies amount to a new form of colonisation that does not need a military presence:

Following the exigencies of the governments of the richest companies, the IMF, permitted countries in crisis to borrow in order to avoid default on their repayments. Caught in the debt’s downward spiral, developing countries soon had no other recourse than to take on new debt in order to repay the old debt. Before providing them with new loans, at higher interest rates, future leaders asked the IMF, to intervene with the guarantee of ulterior reimbursement, asking for a signed agreement with the said countries. The IMF thus agreed to restart the flow of the ‘finance pump’ on condition that the concerned countries first use this money to reimburse banks and other private lenders, while restructuring their economy at the IMF’s discretion: these were the famous conditionalities, detailed in the Structural Adjustment Programmes. The IMF and its ultra-liberal experts took control of the borrowing countries’ economic policies. A new form of colonisation was thus instituted. It was not even necessary to establish an administrative or military presence; the debt alone maintained this new form of submission.^[155]

International politics play an important role in IMF decision making. The clout of member states is roughly proportional to its contribution to IMF finances. The United States has the greatest number of votes and therefore wields the most influence. Domestic politics often come into play, with politicians in developing countries using conditionality to gain leverage over the opposition to influence policy.^[156][157]

Reform[edit]

Function and policies[edit]

The IMF is only one of many international organisations, and it is a generalist institution that deals only with macroeconomic issues; its core areas of concern in developing countries are very narrow. One proposed reform is a movement towards close partnership with other specialist agencies such as UNICEF, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).^[148]

Jeffrey Sachs argues in The End of Poverty that the IMF and the World Bank have «the brightest economists and the lead in advising poor countries on how to break out of poverty, but the problem is development economics».^[148] Development economics needs the reform, not the IMF. He also notes that IMF loan conditions should be paired with other reforms—e.g., trade reform in developed nations, debt cancellation, and increased financial assistance for investments in basic infrastructure.^[148] IMF loan conditions cannot stand alone and produce change; they need to be partnered with other reforms or other conditions as applicable.^[11]

US influence and voting reform[edit]

The scholarly consensus is that IMF decision-making is not simply technocratic, but also guided by political and economic concerns.^[158] The United States is the IMF’s most powerful member, and its influence reaches even into decision-making concerning individual loan agreements.^[159] The United States has historically been openly opposed to losing what Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew described in 2015 as its «leadership role» at the IMF, and the United States’ «ability to shape international norms and practices».^[160]

Emerging markets were not well-represented for most of the IMF’s history: Despite being the most populous country, China’s vote share was the sixth largest; Brazil’s vote share was smaller than Belgium’s.^[161] Reforms to give more powers to emerging economies were agreed by the G20 in 2010. The reforms could not pass, however, until they were ratified by the US Congress,^{[162][163][164]} since 85% of the Fund’s voting power was required for the reforms to take effect,^[165] and the Americans held more than 16% of voting power at the time.^[2] After repeated criticism,^[166][167] the United States finally ratified the voting reforms at the end of 2015.^[168] The OECD countries maintained their overwhelming majority of voting share, and the United States in particular retained its share at over 16%.^[169]

The criticism of the American-and-European dominated IMF has led to what some consider ‘disenfranchising the world’ from the governance of the IMF. Raúl Prebisch, the founding secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), wrote that one of «the conspicuous deficiencies of the general economic theory, from the point of view of the periphery, is its false sense of universality.»^[170]

Support of dictatorships[edit]

The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War, because of claims that the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations, but also other anti-communist and Communist regimes (such as Mobutu’s Zaire and Ceaușescu’s Romania, respectively). Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to human rights, and labour rights. The controversy has helped spark the anti-globalization movement.

An example of IMF’s support for a dictatorship was its ongoing support for Mobutu’s rule in Zaire, although its own envoy, Erwin Blumenthal, provided a sobering report about the entrenched corruption and embezzlement and the inability of the country to pay back any loans.^[171]

Arguments in favour of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratised countries fell after receiving IMF loans.^[172]

A 2017 study found no evidence of IMF lending programs undermining democracy in borrowing countries.^[173] To the contrary, it found «evidence for modest but definitively positive conditional differences in the democracy scores of participating and non-participating countries.»^[173]

On 28 June 2021, the IMF approved a US$1 billion loan to the Ugandan government despite protests from Ugandans in Washington, London and South Africa.^[174][175]

Impact on access to food[edit]

A number of civil society organisations^[176] have criticised the IMF’s policies for their impact on access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former United States president Bill Clinton delivered a speech to the United Nations on World Food Day, criticising the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture:

We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

— Former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008^[177]

The FPIF remarked that there is a recurring pattern: «the destabilization of peasant producers by a one-two punch of IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs that gutted government investment in the countryside followed by the massive influx of subsidized U.S. and European Union agricultural imports after the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture pried open markets.»^[178]

Impact on public health[edit]

A 2009 study concluded that the strict conditions resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%.^[179] A 2017 systematic review on studies conducted on the impact that Structural adjustment programs have on child and maternal health found that these programs have a detrimental effect on maternal and child health among other adverse effects.^[180]

In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS, claimed that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from scaling up long-term investment in public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to demoralising working conditions that have fuelled a «brain drain» of medical personnel, all of which has undermined public health and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.^[181]

In 2016, the IMF’s research department published a report titled «Neoliberalism: Oversold?» which, while praising some aspects of the «neoliberal agenda», claims that the organisation has been «overselling» fiscal austerity policies and financial deregulation, which they claim has exacerbated both financial crises and economic inequality around the world.^{[182][183][184]}

Impact on environment[edit]

IMF policies have been repeatedly criticised for making it difficult for indebted countries to say no to environmentally harmful projects that nevertheless generate revenues such as oil, coal, and forest-destroying lumber and agriculture projects. Ecuador, for example, had to defy IMF advice repeatedly to pursue the protection of its rainforests, though paradoxically this need was cited in the IMF argument to provide support to Ecuador. The IMF acknowledged this paradox in the 2010 report that proposed the IMF Green Fund, a mechanism to issue special drawing rights directly to pay for climate harm prevention and potentially other ecological protection as pursued generally by other environmental finance.^[185]

While the response to these moves was generally positive^[186] possibly because ecological protection and energy and infrastructure transformation are more politically neutral than pressures to change social policy, some experts^[who?] voiced concern that the IMF was not representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only US$200 billion a year by 2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems—criticisms often levelled at the World Trade Organization and large global banking institutions.

In the context of the European debt crisis, some observers^[who?] noted that^[when?] Spain and California, two troubled economies^{[citation needed]} within respectively the European Union and the United States, and also Germany, the primary and politically most fragile supporter of a euro currency bailout would benefit from IMF recognition of their leadership in green technology, and directly from Green Fund-generated demand for their exports, which could also improve their credit ratings.^{[citation needed]}

IMF and globalization[edit]

Globalization encompasses three institutions: global financial markets and transnational companies, national governments linked to each other in economic and military alliances led by the United States, and rising «global governments» such as World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, and World Bank.^[187] Charles Derber argues in his book People Before Profit, «These interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized, taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and international bodies».^[187] Titus Alexander argues that this system institutionalises global inequality between western countries and the Majority World in a form of global apartheid, in which the IMF is a key pillar.^[188]

The establishment of globalised economic institutions has been both a symptom of and a stimulus for globalisation. The development of the World Bank, the IMF, regional development banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and multilateral trade institutions such as the WTO signals a move away from the dominance of the state as the primary actor analysed in international affairs. Globalization has thus been transformative in terms of limiting of state sovereignty over the economy.^[189]

Impact on gender equality[edit]

The IMF says they support women’s empowerment and tries to promote their rights in countries with a significant gender gap.^[190]

Scandals[edit]

Managing Director Lagarde (2011-2019) was convicted of giving preferential treatment to businessman-turned-politician Bernard Tapie as he pursued a legal challenge against the French government. At the time, Lagarde was the French economic minister.^[191] Within hours of her conviction, in which she escaped any punishment, the fund’s 24-member executive board put to rest any speculation that she might have to resign, praising her «outstanding leadership» and the «wide respect» she commands around the world.^[192]

Former IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato was arrested in 2015 for alleged fraud, embezzlement and money laundering.^[193][194] In 2017, the Audiencia Nacional found Rato guilty of embezzlement and sentenced him to 41⁄2 years’ imprisonment.^[195] In 2018, the sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Spain.^[196]

Alternatives[edit]

In March 2011, the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the African Union proposed to establish an African Monetary Fund.^[197]

At the 6th BRICS summit in July 2014 the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) announced the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$100 billion, a framework to provide liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance-of-payments pressures.^[198]

In 2014, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established.^[160]

In the media[edit]

Life and Debt, a documentary film, deals with the IMF’s policies’ influence on Jamaica and its economy from a critical point of view. Debtocracy, a 2011 independent Greek documentary film, also criticises the IMF. Portuguese musician José Mário Branco’s 1982 album FMI is inspired by the IMF’s intervention in Portugal through monitored stabilisation programs in 1977–78. In the 2015 film, Our Brand Is Crisis, the IMF is mentioned as a point of political contention, where the Bolivian population fears its electoral interference.^[199]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

a.	^ There is no worldwide consensus on the status of the Republic of Kosovo: it is recognised as independent by 84 countries, while others consider it an autonomous province of Serbia. See: International recognition of Kosovo.

References[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Bordo, M.D. (1993). Bordo, M.D.; Eichengreen, Barry (eds.). The Bretton Woods International Monetary System: A Historical Overview. A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System. London. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226066905.001.0001. ISBN 9780226065878.
• Copelovitch, Mark. 2010. The International Monetary Fund in the Global Economy: Banks, Bonds, and Bailouts. Cambridge University Press.
• deVries, Margaret Garritsen. The IMF in a Changing World, 1945–85, International Monetary Fund, 1986.
• James, H. International Monetary Cooperation since Bretton Woods, Oxford, 1996.
• Joicey, N. and Pickford, S. «The International Monetary Fund and Global Economic Cooperation» in Nicholas Bayne and Stephen Woolcock, The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Relations, (Ashgate Publishing, 2011).
• Keynes, J.M. The Collected Writings, Vol. XXVI. Activities 1941–1946: Shaping the Post-War World: Bretton Woods and Reparations, Cambridge, 1980.
• Moschella, M. Governing Risk: The IMF and Global Financial Crises (Palgrave Macmillan; 2010).
• Skidelsky, R. John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain, London, 2000.
• Truman, E. Strengthening IMF Surveillance: A Comprehensive Proposal, Policy Brief 10–29, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2010.
• Weiss, Martin A. The International Monetary Fund. Archived 1 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 24 May 2018).
• Woods, N. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers, Ithaca, 2006
• Woods, Ngaire and Lombardi, Domenico. (2006). Uneven Patterns of Governance: How Developing Countries are Represented in the IMF. Review of International Political Economy. Volume 13, Number 3: 480–515.

External links[edit]

• Official website

Международный валютный фонд

Размещённые в настоящем разделе сайта публикации носят исключительно ознакомительный характер, представленная в них информация не является гарантией и/или обещанием эффективности деятельности (доходности вложений) в будущем. Информация в статьях выражает лишь мнение автора (коллектива авторов) по тому или иному вопросу и не может рассматриваться как прямое руководство к действию или как официальная позиция/рекомендация АО «Открытие Брокер». АО «Открытие Брокер» не несёт ответственности за использование информации, содержащейся в публикациях, а также за возможные убытки от любых сделок с активами, совершённых на основании данных, содержащихся в публикациях. 18+

АО «Открытие Брокер» (бренд «Открытие Инвестиции»), лицензия профессионального участника рынка ценных бумаг на осуществление брокерской деятельности № 045-06097-100000, выдана ФКЦБ России 28.06.2002 г. (без ограничения срока действия).

ООО УК «ОТКРЫТИЕ». Лицензия № 21-000-1-00048 от 11 апреля 2001 г. на осуществление деятельности по управлению инвестиционными фондами, паевыми инвестиционными фондами и негосударственными пенсионными фондами, выданная ФКЦБ России, без ограничения срока действия. Лицензия профессионального участника рынка ценных бумаг №045-07524-001000 от 23 марта 2004 г. на осуществление деятельности по управлению ценными бумагами, выданная ФКЦБ России, без ограничения срока действия.

Международный валютный фонд: что это такое и зачем он нужен

Когда у отдельного человека или организации возникают финансовые трудности, им нередко приходится пользоваться кредитами банков. Для того чтобы во время кризиса помочь целому государству, действует Международный валютный фонд (МВФ). Но всем ли он помогает, каковы его цели и возможности, а также взаимоотношения с Россией — в статье.

МВФ — одна из крупнейших международных финансовых организаций. Его штаб-квартира находится в Вашингтоне, США. Фонд создан по соглашению стран для консультаций, поддержки и финансирования государств. МВФ — это не банк, который рассматривает каждую поступившую заявку. Чтобы обратиться в организацию за помощью, государству необходимо быть членом фонда. На данный момент большинство стран мира являются членами МВФ — это около 190 государств, включая Россию.

• Появление и задачи фонда
• Откуда в МВФ деньги
• Как МВФ оказывает помощь нуждающимся странам
• Программы кредитования МВФ
• Минусы МВФ
• Отношения России и МВФ
• Кратко

Появление и задачи фонда

Мысль о создании такой глобальной финансовой организации, как МВФ, была впервые озвучена на Бреттон-Вудской конференции Организации объединенных наций (ООН) в 1944 году. Мировой финансовый кризис 30-х годов, а также Вторая мировая война тяжело ударили по экономикам многих стран. Официальная дата создания фонда — 27 декабря 1945 года. Он был создан решением группы из 29 стран. Однако в полную силу заработал несколько позже, а первые кредитные деньги МВФ предоставил Франции лишь в 1947 году. Рост количества стран происходил постепенно. На данный момент членами Международного фонда являются свыше 190 стран. У МВФ развитая структура, в нем работают более 2500 сотрудников из 130 государств мира.

У Международного валютного фонда и Всемирного банка разные подходы к деятельности. Рассчитывать на финансовую поддержку Всемирного банка могут в первую очередь бедные страны. МВФ же нацелен на устранение краткосрочных финансовых кризисов в любых, в том числе и вполне обеспеченных, государствах. Также задачей фонда является поддержание баланса на мировом валютном рынке.

Высший орган — Совет управляющих, в нем представлены все страны-участники. Обычно в совет входят министр финансов страны и его заместитель. Функции Совета — рассматривать заявки, вносить изменения в Соглашение, выбирать исполнительных директоров, распределять капитал и проводить ежегодное заседание, по итогам которого направляются поручения в Исполнительный совет.

Роль фонда — получать запросы от участников и определять пути решения. В результате этого специалисты формируют ряд рекомендаций, чтобы решить возникшую проблему и не допустить очередного кризиса.

Откуда в МВФ деньги

Каждый член, принявший решение о вступлении в МВФ, платит вступительный взнос, который распределяется на две части:

• ¾ суммы, которую государство вносит в собственной валюте. Например, Россия сделала свой взнос в российских рублях, США — в долларах США и тому подобное;
• ¼ суммы, которую страна платит в специальных правах заимствования МВФ — СДР или же в одной из пяти резервных валют: доллар США, японская иена, евро, фунт стерлингов или китайский юань.

СДР — это специальная расчетная единица, которую МВФ использует для распределения своих ресурсов. Эту валюту использует только фонд. Подержать в руках банкноты СДР не получится, они существует только в электронном виде. Стоимость СДР привязана к курсам пяти резервных валют. Специальное право заимствования создано для удобства расчетов между членами — участниками МВФ и выдачи кредитов. Однако не все деньги МВФ держит в СДР. У него есть счета и со всеми основными мировыми валютами. Обмен происходит по курсу на текущую дату.

Размер вклада в МВФ каждой страны рассчитывается с учетом размера ВВП, открытости экономики и ряда других показателей. В соответствии с рассчитанной квотой государство вносит определенную сумму в валюте при вступлении, а также при плановых пересмотрах квот. В прямой зависимости от этого показателя будет находиться возможная помощь конкретной стране со стороны МВФ.

Самая большая квота принадлежит США — 17,43%. Второе и третье места отстают от первого практически в три раза, и это квоты неевропейских стран: Япония — 6,47%, Китай — 6,4%. На 4-м месте расположилась Германия, ее квота находится на уровне в 5,59%. Квота России в МВФ — 2,71%. Перераспределение долей происходит раз в пять лет.

Как МВФ оказывает помощь нуждающимся странам

Ключевые принципы работы Международного валютного фонда выглядят следующим образом:

1. Страна — участник Международного валютного фонда с проблемным бюджетом подает заявку на выдачу валютного кредита.
2. Фонд анализирует текущее состояние экономики и дает прогноз развития.
3. Фонд утверждает условия выдачи займа и разрабатывает для страны программу действий по стабилизации экономики.
4. Фонд выдает заем. Как правило, средства МВФ предоставляет в форме кредитной линии в течение определенного срока в валюте, необходимой конкретной стране.
5. Страна направляет денежные средства на стабилизацию экономической ситуации, параллельно выполняя список рекомендаций фонда.
6. Страна выплачивает долг МВФ в установленный договором срок.

В некоторых случаях разработка программы для членов фонда не потребуется. Как правило, это относится к развитым странам со стабильной экономикой. Обычно решение о выдаче займа основывается лишь на заявке страны, и МВФ выдает такой займ по упрощенной схеме, дополнительные документы участник не предоставляет. Повышенные требования Международный валютный фонд предъявляет к странам с серьезными экономическими проблемами, для которых потребуется детальная разработка рекомендаций со стороны МВФ.

Программы кредитования МВФ

В зависимости от тяжести финансового состояния страны — участники МВФ могут воспользоваться несколькими программами предоставления кредитования.

Источник: аналитический отдел сервиса Газпромбанк Инвестиции

Все перечисленные программы кредитования носят общий характер. Также у МВФ есть программы льготного предоставления кредитов под ставку 0% государствам, испытывающим крайнюю нужду. Кредит предоставляется на срок до 5,5 лет, а погашать его государство может по соглашению на период до 10 лет. В частности, МВФ активно использовал такие льготные программы кредитов для поддержки беднейших стран во время пандемии коронавируса.

Минусы МВФ

Как и любая крупная организация, Международный валютный фонд имеет свои цели и стандарты, которые не всегда выгодны странам-участникам. Страна-заемщик обязана выполнить рекомендации, данные фондом. Однако зачастую они идут вразрез с собственной экономической политикой государства. Например, МВФ может затребовать снижение пошлин или их отмену на определенный вид товаров, сокращение добычи полезных ископаемых, проведение непопулярных внешних реформ, рекомендовать ограничения в сфере торговли и тому подобное. То есть экономика заемщика, оздоравливаясь за счет финансовых вложений МВФ, становится зависимой. И не все соглашения в рамках займа выгодны заемщику.

Программы поддержки менее развитых государств зачастую разработаны с выгодой для более развитых, и они управляют этим процессом. Поэтому государства, получившие займ, становятся зависимыми не только от фонда, но и от более крупных и богатых стран.

Обладая самой большой квотой, США могут заблокировать любое решение МВФ. Это является главным минусом и вызывает недовольство всех остальных стран-участников. Они обладают меньшим количеством голосов, могут оказаться без поддержки в виде кредитов, и не все принятые решения могут быть в их пользу.

Политика МВФ в целом направлена на глобализацию экономики всех членов сообщества. Идея такова, что для поддержания глобального равновесия все различия между странами должны быть стерты.

Отношения России и МВФ

Несмотря на то что МВФ существует с 1945 года, сотрудничество России с фондом началось только в 90-х после распада СССР. Хотя делегация СССР и участвовала в разработке Хартии о создании Международного фонда, иметь какое-либо отношение к нему руководство страны отказалось. Важным пунктом, который был озвучен, стало нежелание выдавать МВФ информацию об экономических показателях и состоянии золотовалютных резервов.

В 90-е годы прошлого века Россия столкнулась с рядом проблем, связанных с переводом экономики на рыночную модель. Поэтому было принято решение, что Россия станет страной — участником МВФ и начнет активно пользоваться кредитными средствами. Соглашение с Международным фондом было достигнуто 1 июня 1992 года.

За все время сотрудничества РФ с МВФ страна получила примерно 17,1 млрд долларов. Однако не все одобренные транши поступили на ее счета. Причиной тому были высокие показатели безработицы, инфляция и дефолт 1998 года. В начале 2000-х с повышением цены на «черное золото» для России отпала необходимость в займах МВФ. В этой связи страна смогла самостоятельно рассчитываться по обязательствам, в том числе и перед МВФ.

В 2005 году Россия полностью погасила свои долги перед Международным валютным фондом. Нынешняя политическая и финансовая ситуация оказывают влияние на отношения фонда и России. Не все члены фонда довольны участием РФ, но сотрудничество по всем достигнутым соглашениям продолжается.

Кратко

1. 1
   МВФ — крупнейшая финансовая организация, созданная для помощи национальным экономикам и поддержания мировой валютной системы.
2. 2
   Полномочия Международного фонда несколько иные, чем у банков: он не только выдает займы своим членам, но и консультирует, анализирует, оказывает содействие и разрабатывает программы для многосторонней поддержки и обеспечения стабильности экономик государств.
3. 3
   Для участия в Международном валютном фонде страны вносят денежные средства в соответствии с квотой участия, рассчитанной на основе экономических и других показателей в СДР, долларах США и других валютах.
4. 4
   Условия кредитования в МВФ для государств не одинаковы и зависят от экономической устойчивости и базовых показателей статистики. Также существуют отдельные льготные программы МВФ с упрощенной выдачей кредитов, разработанные для экстренных случаев.

Данный справочный и аналитический материал подготовлен компанией ООО «Ньютон Инвестиции» исключительно в информационных целях. Оценки, прогнозы в отношении финансовых инструментов, изменении их стоимости являются выражением мнения, сформированного в результате аналитических исследований сотрудников ООО «Ньютон Инвестиции», не являются и не могут толковаться в качестве гарантий или обещаний получения дохода от инвестирования в упомянутые финансовые инструменты. Не является рекламой ценных бумаг. Не является индивидуальной инвестиционной рекомендацией и предложением финансовых инструментов. Несмотря на всю тщательность подготовки информационных материалов, ООО «Ньютон Инвестиции» не гарантирует и не несет ответственности за их точность, полноту и достоверность.

---

Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Ньютон Инвестиции» осуществляет деятельность на
основании лицензии профессионального участника рынка ценных бумаг на осуществление
брокерской деятельности №045-14007-100000, выданной Банком России 25.01.2017, а также
лицензии на осуществление дилерской деятельности №045-14084-010000, лицензии на
осуществление деятельности по управлению ценными бумагами №045-14085-001000 и лицензии
на осуществление депозитарной деятельности №045-14086-000100, выданных Банком России
08.04.2020. ООО «Ньютон Инвестиции» не гарантирует доход, на который рассчитывает инвестор,
при условии использования предоставленной информации для принятия инвестиционных
решений. Представленная информация не является индивидуальной инвестиционной
рекомендацией. Во всех случаях решение о выборе финансового инструмента либо совершении
операции принимается инвестором самостоятельно. ООО «Ньютон Инвестиции» не несёт
ответственности за возможные убытки инвестора в случае совершения операций либо
инвестирования в финансовые инструменты, упомянутые в представленной информации.

С целью оптимизации работы нашего веб-сайта и его постоянного обновления ООО «Ньютон
Инвестиции» используют Cookies (куки-файлы), а также сервис Яндекс.Метрика для
статистического анализа данных о посещениях настоящего веб-сайта. Продолжая использовать
наш веб-сайт, вы соглашаетесь на использование куки-файлов, указанного сервиса и на
обработку своих персональных данных в соответствии с «Политикой конфиденциальности» в
отношении обработки персональных данных на сайте, а также с реализуемыми ООО «Ньютон
Инвестиции» требованиями к защите персональных данных обрабатываемых на нашем сайте.
Куки-файлы — это небольшие файлы, которые сохраняются на жестком диске вашего
устройства. Они облегчают навигацию и делают посещение сайта более удобным. Если вы не
хотите использовать куки-файлы, измените настройки браузера.

Условия обслуживания могут быть изменены брокером в одностороннем порядке в любое время в соответствии с условиями
регламента брокерского обслуживания. Клиент обязан самостоятельно обращаться на
сайт брокера
за сведениями об изменениях, произведенных в регламенте
брокерского обслуживания и несет все риски в полном объеме, связанные с неполучением или несвоевременным получением
сведений в результате неисполнения или ненадлежащего исполнения указанной обязанности.

© 2023 Ньютон Инвестиции