IMF Executive Board Reviews Experience with the Fund’s Involvement in the G-20 Mutual Assessment ProcessPublic Information Notice (PIN) No. 11/72
June 10, 2011
Public Information Notices (PINs) form part of the IMF's efforts to promote transparency of the IMF's views and analysis of economic developments and policies. With the consent of the country (or countries) concerned, PINs are issued after Executive Board discussions of Article IV consultations with member countries, of its surveillance of developments at the regional level, of post-program monitoring, and of ex post assessments of member countries with longer-term program engagements. PINs are also issued after Executive Board discussions of general policy matters, unless otherwise decided by the Executive Board in a particular case.
On June 3, 2011, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reviewed the Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP).
In Pittsburgh in September 2009, G-20 Leaders, building on their coordinated efforts to respond to the crisis, launched their “Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth”, and committed to designing a process to set out objectives, develop policies to meet these objectives, and mutually assess progress. The Fund was asked to assist this process, known as the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP).
Following up on this request, the IMF Executive Board adopted, in December 2009, a general framework for the Fund’s involvement in the MAP. The present review covers the Fund’s experience in the period from December 2009 to the April 2011 meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Washington. It considers the Fund’s inputs against the background of the evolving MAP process, and discusses expectations for the Fund’s involvement going forward.
Executive Board Assessment
Executive Directors welcomed the review of the Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) and supported the continuation of Fund engagement in this work.
Directors observed that the Fund’s involvement in the G-20 MAP has significant synergies with its surveillance, most notably at the multilateral level. Most Directors noted that the MAP has helped enhance the traction of Fund advice by opening up new channels of communication to G-20 policy makers. Directors considered it important to review the implications of broader G-20/Fund collaboration for the Fund’s surveillance as part of the forthcoming Triennial Surveillance Review.
Directors agreed that, while the MAP has evolved, the Fund’s input to the exercise has remained within the framework set in December 2009. In this context, Directors took note that the legal nature of the Fund’s involvement as technical assistance had not changed. However, a number of Directors considered whether, in substance, such involvement should be treated as surveillance rather than technical assistance.
Directors concurred that Board involvement in this work should be consistent with G-20 ownership of the MAP and preserve the independent nature of staff analysis and input. They appreciated timely briefings by staff of their work in this regard, but differed on the timing and form of Board involvement. While the majority of the Board supported maintaining the current procedure of holding informal Board discussions of MAP reports at the time of submission to the G-20, a number of other Directors suggested advancing such informal discussion ahead of submission and a number of others expressed support for formal Board discussions.
Directors considered resource implications of the Fund’s involvement in the G-20 MAP. Most Directors noted that any additional cost, which has in part been met through reprioritization and reallocation of existing resources, should be seen in light of the benefits of this work for the Fund’s membership at large, including the synergies with the Fund’s surveillance. Some Directors emphasized the need for ongoing assessment of the evolving cost.