2013年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Iceland_Selected_Issues_24页_1mb

Summary of the Document: Iceland

Core Content

This document is part of the IMF's Article IV Consultation and Third Post-Program Monitoring Discussions for Iceland, published in August 2013. It contains two main sections:

1. An analysis of the potential impact of lifting capital controls on the balance of payments and capital outflows from Icelandic residents' investment portfolios.
2. An evaluation of the efficiency of public spending on health and education in Iceland, with recommendations for improving efficiency and reducing costs.

Main Issues and Key Findings

A. Lifting Capital Controls and Portfolio Rebalancing

• Capital Controls Context: Introduced in 2008 to stabilize the krona and prevent a devaluation-inflation spiral, they have now been largely removed.
• Liberalization Strategy: Iceland is following a two-phase approach. Phase one focuses on unwinding offshore krona overhangs and reducing non-residents' krona holdings. Phase two involves the gradual elimination of capital account restrictions.
• Potential Capital Outflows:
  • The paper estimates that capital outflows from residents could range from 35 to 170 percent of 2011 GDP depending on the degree of portfolio rebalancing.
  • A more realistic estimate, based on Nordic countries' average growth, suggests an outflow of around 35–45 percent of 2011 GDP.
  • Pension funds, which hold ~140% of GDP in foreign assets, are a major contributor to these outflows.
  • Speed limits on capital outflows are essential to prevent a destabilizing impact on the balance of payments (BoP) and the exchange rate.
  • If outflows are limited to 7–8% of 2011 GDP annually for eight years, the reserve coverage of short-term debt can remain above 100% and the exchange rate stable.

B. Efficiency of Public Spending on Health and Education

• Fiscal Consolidation Needs: Iceland has implemented significant fiscal consolidation following the 2008 crisis, but further measures are needed to reduce public debt (currently at 99% of GDP).
• Health and Education Expenditure: These are the two most costly public services in Iceland, excluding social protection.
• Efficiency Analysis: Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), the paper finds that improving the efficiency of health and education spending could lead to budgetary savings of up to 3.2% of GDP.
• Potential Savings: Without compromising outcomes, annual savings could reach up to 6.5% of GDP.
• Health System Overview:
  • The healthcare system is largely managed by the central government, with 85% of health expenditures coming from public funds.
  • Health outcomes are among the best in the OECD, with high life expectancy and low infant and maternal mortality.
  • However, health spending per capita is 40% above the OECD benchmark, while GDP per capita is only 25% above average.
  • Staffing ratios are excessive by international standards, and the system is expected to face significant cost increases due to demographic changes.
• Education System Overview:
  • Education performance is average compared to other OECD countries.
  • Public spending on education is somewhat above the OECD average, but not as high as in health.
  • There is room for efficiency improvements in both sectors.

Key Recommendations

Capital Account Liberalization

• Implement Speed Limits: To manage the risk of large and disorderly capital outflows, especially in the early stages of liberalization, speed limits should be introduced for both pension funds and the broader economy.
• Constrained Efficient Frontier: The analysis shows that pension funds are constrained in their asset allocation (maximum 60% in equities, 50% foreign exchange exposure), which reduces the potential outflow.
• Consider Maturities: The liberalization process should also consider the maturities of capital outflows to ensure stability.

Health and Education Efficiency

• Healthcare Reforms:
  • The paper recommends reforms to improve efficiency, including reducing unnecessary spending and optimizing resource allocation.
  • It emphasizes the need for cost-effective delivery of health services and reducing staffing ratios.
• Education Reforms:
  • Efficiency gains can be achieved through better resource management and performance evaluation.
  • The paper highlights the importance of targeted policy interventions to improve the efficiency of public spending in both sectors.

Conclusion

• Capital Account Liberalization: The results suggest that liberalization could lead to significant capital outflows, which may destabilize the BoP. Therefore, a conditions-based strategy with speed limits is crucial.
• Public Spending Efficiency: There is a strong potential for budgetary savings in health and education through efficiency improvements, which can support fiscal consolidation and long-term sustainability.
• Integrated Approach: The paper underscores the need for an integrated approach to capital account liberalization, including prudential measures, strong institutional frameworks, and macroeconomic stability.
• Caution in Interpretation: The analysis has limitations, including the use of historical data and the uncertainty of future economic conditions. It should be viewed as a worst-case scenario rather than a precise estimate.

Key Tables and Figures

• Figure 1: Portfolio Investment in Iceland and Comparator Countries (2004–2011)
• Figure 2: Efficient Frontier and Asset Allocations
• Figure 3: Changes in Asset Allocation to Achieve Efficient Portfolios
• Figure 4: "Constrained" Efficient Frontier for the Pension Funds
• Figure 5: Stylized Representation of a Broad Liberalization Plan
• Table 1: Capital Outflows from Residents' Portfolio Rebalancing (in percent of 2011 GDP)
• Table 2: Resident Capital Outflows with Constraints on the Pension Funds (in percent of 2011 GDP)
• Table 1 (Health Spending): Public Health Spending Projections (2010–2050) and potential changes

References

• Central Bank of Iceland, 2011–2012. Reports on Capital Account Liberalization and Prudential Rules.
• International Monetary Fund, 2012. "The Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows: An Institutional View".