2011年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Review_of_the_Fund’s_Involvement_in_the_G_13页_371kb

Summary of the IMF's Involvement in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP)

I. Introduction

This document reviews the IMF's role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) from December 2009 to the April 2011 Washington meeting. The review focuses on the Fund's contributions to the MAP, its synergies with other IMF activities, and future expectations. It does not evaluate the MAP itself but instead highlights the legal and operational framework of the Fund's involvement.

II. The Framework at Its Inception

At the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit, G-20 leaders launched the "Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth." The MAP was designed to assess how national and regional policy frameworks align with this objective, and to evaluate whether policies are collectively consistent with global economic stability. The IMF was tasked with providing technical analysis and support to this process.

The initial scope of the Fund's involvement included:

• Assessing the coherence and consistency of G-20 policy frameworks.
• Constructing two global scenarios: a "raw" scenario based on individual country assumptions, and a "base case" scenario adjusted for global consistency.
• Drafting policy recommendations based on the analysis of these scenarios.

The MAP was intended to be an annual exercise, with the Fund's contributions being voluntary and supportive, not replacing its own surveillance activities.

III. The Fund's Experience with the MAP

A. From Pittsburgh to Seoul: Responding to the Initial Request

The Fund provided three key reports during the first year of the MAP:

1. Analysis and Perspectives (April 2010): Assessed the "base case" scenario derived from country submissions, highlighting optimism and downside risks.
2. Alternative Scenarios (June 2010): Explored upside and downside scenarios, offering policy recommendations tailored to groups of countries with similar circumstances.
3. Staff's Assessment of G-20 Policies (November 2010): Updated the global outlook and outlined progress made since Pittsburgh, noting ongoing challenges in fiscal and structural policies.

Key events and outcomes during this period included:

• Washington Meeting (April 2010): Identified optimistic growth projections and agreed on principles for alternative scenarios.
• Busan Meeting (June 2010): Developed policy options based on the Fund's analysis.
• Toronto Summit (June 2010): Reiterated the need for reforms aligned with the upside scenario.
• Gyeongju Meeting (October 2010): Refined the Framework and committed to an action plan.
• Seoul Summit (November 2010): Agreed on an enhanced MAP to promote external sustainability.
• Paris Meeting (February 2011): Adopted a two-step process and agreed on indicators for assessing imbalances.
• Washington Meeting (April 2011): Finalized indicative guidelines and launched the second step of the MAP.

B. Post-Seoul: Fund's Input to the Enhanced MAP

Following the Seoul Summit, the G-20 agreed to enhance the MAP to focus on external sustainability and reduce imbalances. The Fund supported this enhancement by:

• Providing technical input to the Framework Working Group (FWG) for developing indicative guidelines.
• Supporting the development of a two-step process for identifying and analyzing imbalances.
• Offering statistical and structural approaches to reference values and scoring thresholds for indicators.
• Preparing a statistical guidance note to assist G-20 economies in data collection for the MAP.

The indicative guidelines were based on four approaches: structural, national historical trends, similar development stages, and the full G-20. These guidelines aimed to provide a more robust basis for assessing imbalances.

IV. Assessment of Fund Involvement in the MAP

A. Inputs to the MAP and Synergies with Other Activities

The Fund's involvement in the MAP is distinct from its surveillance activities but has significant synergies, particularly in the multilateral context. The MAP has allowed the Fund to provide independent technical analysis, which complements its own surveillance work.

Key synergies include:

• Enhancing the traction of Fund advice through direct engagement with G-20 leaders.
• Using WEO projections to identify global inconsistencies in country submissions.
• Enriching multilateral surveillance scenarios with MAP insights.
• Supporting the development of the External Sustainability Report and Accountability Report.

The Fund's role has remained voluntary and aligned with the legal nature of technical assistance. As the MAP evolves, the Fund's analytical inputs are expected to increase synergies with bilateral surveillance, particularly in the area of country-specific policy advice.

B. Role of the Executive Board

The Executive Board has followed the framework established in 2009, with MAP reports sent simultaneously to the G-20 and the Board. Staff presented informal briefings to Directors ahead of G-20 meetings, and the IMFC was kept informed of the process.

Some Directors have suggested the possibility of earlier Board input into the analysis, but any changes would need to maintain the G-20's ownership of the process. The Board may consider shifting informal discussions to occur before the submission of MAP reports, allowing for more refined staff analysis.

V. Issues for Discussion

Directors may wish to discuss:

• The experience of the Fund's involvement in the MAP to date.
• The future framework for Fund involvement, including how to better integrate it with surveillance activities.
• The potential benefits of advancing informal Board discussion of the MAP reports before their submission to the G-20.

Appendix: Fund's Input to the MAP in the Initial Stage

The Fund's initial input included:

• April 2010: Base case analysis of G-20 policy frameworks, highlighting optimism and risks.
• June 2010: Alternative scenarios, including upside and downside analyses, with tailored policy recommendations.
• November 2010: Conclusion of the first round, emphasizing the need for internal and external rebalancing to achieve sustainable growth.

These reports provided a foundation for the G-20's subsequent decisions and highlighted the importance of coordinated policy actions for global stability.