## 1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do?

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do?](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2011/_051311.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2011/_051311.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2011/_051311.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction
- Purpose: Review Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) after about a year of implementation, covering December 2009 to the April 2011 meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Washington.
- Scope: Considers Fund inputs against the evolving MAP and discusses expectations going forward. Does not review the G-20 MAP itself. Implications for broader G-20–Fund cooperation for Fund surveillance to be covered in the forthcoming TSR.
- Structure:
  - Section II: Background on the MAP and the Fund’s envisaged role and synergies with Fund surveillance.
  - Section III: Review of Fund’s actual experience with MAP.
  - Section IV: Assessment and proposed amendment to procedures for briefing the Executive Board.
  - Section V: Issues for discussion.

### II. The Framework at Its Inception
- Pittsburgh Summit (September 2009): Launched the “Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth” with a MAP; Fund asked to provide supporting technical analysis with inputs from other international institutions.
- Executive Board (December 2009) framework for Fund involvement:
  - Staff to provide technical analysis of how national and regional policy frameworks fit together and develop forward-looking analysis of whether individual countries’ policies are collectively consistent with sustainable and balanced global trajectories.
  - Staff assessments to be provided directly to the G-20 and sent at the same time to the Board.
  - Staff to brief the Board informally ahead of each Ministerial Meeting and brief on G-20 meeting outcomes.
  - MAP envisioned as an annual exercise with evolving modalities.
- Legal nature and distinction from surveillance:
  - Fund involvement constitutes technical assistance to G-20 members.
  - Technical assistance is voluntary for members and the Fund; Article IV surveillance is mandatory.
  - MAP contributions are provided at the request of G-20 members and are part of a process designed and controlled by G-20 members.
  - Fund contributions to MAP may have synergies with surveillance but are legally distinct.

- Box 1 — Fund’s initial expected tasks (verbatim):
  - Assess the coherence, consistency, and mutual compatibility of G-20 members’ policy frameworks against the objective of securing strong, sustainable, and balanced global economic growth. This assessment was to include:
    - Assessment of individual G-20 submissions. Fund staff would assess the coverage and internal consistency of policy plans and medium-term macroeconomic projections received from the authorities.
    - Aggregation of the contributions and assessment of multilateral consistency. Staff was to construct two global scenarios: a “raw” scenario, not adjusted for inconsistencies in countries’ macroeconomic assumptions, and a globally consistent “base case” scenario, adjusted for such inconsistencies and imposing an adding-up constraint on countries’ current account projections. Also staff was to assess the need for additional policy adjustments to reach the stated growth objectives.
    - Policy recommendations. Staff was to draft an initial assessment using the “base case” scenario, focusing on the multilateral ramifications of inconsistencies between national policies and objectives, the compatibility of policy frameworks, and initial suggestions for additional policy measures.
  - In a second round, staff was to explore alternative scenarios that could help the G-20 achieve its growth objectives.

### III. The Fund’s Experience with the MAP (December 2009–April 2011)

- Main substantive inputs (three reports April, June, November 2010) plus informal notes and presentations:
  - Analysis and Perspectives (April 2010)
    - Assessed G-20 policy frameworks to derive a “base case” scenario based on country individual submissions.
    - Found the base scenario broadly consistent with MAP objectives, but optimistic and subject to downside risks.
    - Highlighted need for more forceful actions to secure strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
  - Alternative Scenarios (June 2010)
    - Included an upside scenario exploring policies that could help secure the G-20 objective, and a downside scenario assessing potential implications of risks identified in the “base case”.
    - Drew key policy recommendations tailored to groups of G-20 countries with similar circumstances (e.g., advanced deficit countries, emerging surplus countries).
  - Staff’s Assessment of G-20 Policies (November 2010)
    - Updated the global outlook using revised G-20 policy frameworks.
    - Enhanced scenario analysis to derive the G-20 upside potential.
    - Took stock of G-20 key policy commitments and actions since Pittsburgh; noted progress in several areas but important challenges remained, especially on fiscal and structural policies.

- Chronology and Fund’s Main Inputs (verbatim highlights by meeting):
  - Washington Meeting, USA, April 23, 2010
    - Fund staff reviewed the G-20 policy frameworks and found growth projections optimistic and subject to downside risks.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors specified their objectives of strong, sustainable and balanced growth and agreed on principles for alternative policy scenarios.
  - Busan Meeting, Korea, June 4-5, 2010
    - G-20 MAP—Alternative Scenarios—A Preliminary Note, outlined staff’s preliminary alternative scenarios based on frameworks submitted by G-20 countries.
    - Communiqué: Based on staff’s input, Ministers and Governors developed policy options to achieve stronger, more sustainable and more balanced growth.
  - Toronto Summit, Canada, June 26-27, 2010
    - G-20 MAP—Final Report on Alternative Policy Scenarios, provided staff’s final analysis of alternative (upside and downside) policy scenarios.
    - Declaration: The Leaders reiterated the importance of the Framework, and highlighted the need for the G-20 to choose a more ambitious path of reforms, along staff’s upside scenario.
  - Gyeongju Meeting, Korea, October 22-23, 2010
    - G-20 MAP--Staff's Assessment of G-20 Policies, reviewed progress on MAP implementation, identified remaining risks, and recommended further action.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors refined the Framework, committed to developing an action plan ahead of Seoul and recommended the continuation of the process beyond Seoul.
  - Seoul Summit, Korea, November 11-12, 2010
    - IMF Report on G-20 MAP (same report as for Gyeongju).
    - Communiqué: Leaders agreed on an enhanced MAP to promote external sustainability and committed to reduce excessive imbalances, as assessed against indicative guidelines.
  - Paris Meeting, France, February 18-19, 2011
    - Among other inputs, Fund staff prepared a note on a possible approach to indicators for assessing imbalances in the G-20.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors agreed on a set of indicators to help focus on persistently large imbalances that require policy actions.
  - Washington Meeting, USA, April 15-16, 2011
    - Among other inputs, Fund staff prepared draft indicative guidelines for assessing persistently large imbalances.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors agreed on a set of indicative guidelines to assess persistently large imbalances, and launched the second step of the process: the assessment of the nature of these imbalances and the root causes of impediments to adjustment.

- Post‑Seoul — Fund’s Input to the Enhanced MAP:
  - Seoul decision (November 2010): Enhance MAP to promote external sustainability; pursue policies to reduce excessive imbalances and maintain current account imbalances at sustainable levels. MAP to continue mutual assessment of individual policy commitments; enhanced by mechanism to identify large imbalances requiring policy actions based on indicative guidelines. G-20 Framework Working Group (FWG) to develop indicative guidelines with Fund staff assistance.
  - Fund technical inputs ahead of Paris 2011:
    - Supported FWG’s development of a two-step economic framework: (1) indicators to help identify large imbalances; (2) deeper analysis of identified imbalances.
    - Proposal to guide selection of indicator reference values.
  - Paris Agreement (February 2011):
    - Ministers and Governors agreed on the two-step process and defined indicators focusing on:
      - “(i) public debt and fiscal deficits; and private savings rate and private debt (ii) and the external imbalance composed of the trade balance and net investment income flows and transfers, taking due consideration of exchange rate, fiscal, monetary and other policies.”
    - Fund asked to continue assistance in developing indicative guidelines.
  - Technical work after Paris included:
    - Note and presentation to FWG on indicative guidelines including statistical and structural approaches to reference values or norms for indicators; specific thresholds for scoring each indicator; rules-based selection criteria for screening G-20 members for deeper second-step analysis; “Robustness checks” on the indicative guidelines.
    - Statistical guidance note to assist G-20 economies with data series underpinning the MAP.
  - Washington (April 2011) outcomes:
    - G-20 agreed on indicative guidelines using four complementary approaches to establish reference values:
      - A structural approach based on economic models and economic theory, taking into account specific circumstances (including large commodity producers).
      - Three statistical approaches benchmarking each G-20 economy against: (i) national historical trends, (ii) groups of countries at similar stages of development, (iii) the full G-20.
  - Staff were asked to prepare three reports ahead of the Cannes Summit:
    - A new MAP report with updated assessment of the outlook and policies to move G-20 economies toward a new upside scenario (based on countries’ submissions).
    - A report assessing progress toward meeting the Seoul summit commitments (presented separately).
    - A new External Sustainability Report assessing progress toward external sustainability based on the indicative guidelines; analyzing root causes of imbalances and proposing preventive and corrective policies; to include in-depth studies on the seven countries identified in the first-step screening.

### IV. Assessment of Fund Involvement in the MAP

- Inputs to the MAP and synergies with other activities:
  - MAP technical assistance is legally separate from Article IV surveillance, yet provides opportunities to increase traction of Fund advice by opening channels to top policymakers.
  - Significant synergies with multilateral surveillance (WEO) and with bilateral surveillance (Article IV and spillover reports).
  - Examples:
    - April 2011 WEO built on staff’s G-20 alternative scenarios and Seoul imbalance analysis to draw global conclusions.
    - Development of indicative guidelines benefited from and enriched research supporting bilateral and multilateral surveillance (e.g., CGER).
  - Expected increased synergies going forward:
    - Enhanced MAP focus on individual country imbalances expected to increase synergies with bilateral surveillance while informing multilateral surveillance.
    - Sustainability Reports to draw upon Article IV, spillover reports, WEO, GFSR, Fiscal Monitor, and work on global financial interconnectedness.
    - The forthcoming 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR) to consider integration of surveillance and MAP-related activities.
  - Legal nature unchanged:
    - Analyses remained within the December 2009 framework and retain characteristics of technical assistance: voluntary for members and the Fund and designed by G-20 members.
    - Emphasis on country‑specific preventive and corrective advice increases synergies but does not change the fundamental nature of the inputs.

- Resource implications:
  - Start-up costs incurred; repeating the exercise less resource intensive after initial investment.
  - Additional costs associated with developing indicative guidelines generated further resource needs.
  - OBP estimates indicate a cost (inclusive of staff and overhead costs) of US$4 million in FY2011 (Table 1), partly met through reprioritization and reallocating existing FTEs.
  - Steady state costs uncertain: potential savings from drafting only one MAP report ahead of the November 2011 Leaders’ summit, but possible additional costs for Accountability and Sustainability Reports.
  - Consideration: benefits for Fund membership (e.g., enhanced traction of surveillance advice) should be weighed against additional resource implications.

- Verbatim excerpt from Table 1 as presented in source:
  - Table 1. Estimated Cost of Work on G-20 MAP, FY 11
  - 1/42217
  - Personnel expenditure3
  - Building and Other Expenses1
  - Total Full-time Equivalents (FTEs)114326
  - Area Departments2
  - SPR1
  - RES7
  - Other2
  - Source: OBP estimates, based on departmental TRS submissions and other inputs.
  - 1/ Travel is excluded as very little travel is conducted specifically for MAP work.
  - MAP
  - Increase in G-20 Work

### V. Executive Board Involvement and Procedural Issues

- Executive Board involvement and timing (Paragraphs 19–20):
  - MAP reports sent to the G-20 were sent to the Board at the same time.
  - Staff subsequently presented the assessments to the Directors in informal briefings, ahead of the G-20 meetings/summits.
  - The Board was briefed on the outcome of the ministerial meetings and Leaders’ Summits.
  - Fund staff assessments were also shared with the IMFC once they were sent to the G-20, and the IMFC was kept informed about the G-20 process.
  - Some Directors suggested benefit to incorporating an opportunity for earlier Board comment on staff’s analysis.
  - Proposal for change: advance the timing of the existing informal Board discussion so meetings could take place ahead of the reports’ submission to the G-20, giving staff the opportunity to consider the Board’s informal comment on what would remain an independent staff report.
  - Any evolution would need consideration of consistency with (and perceived consistency with) G-20 ownership of the MAP.

- Issues for discussion (Paragraph 21):
  - Directors may wish to comment on:
    - The experience under the framework for Fund involvement in the MAP to date.
    - The broad framework for Fund involvement in the MAP going forward, including synergies with surveillance activities.
    - In particular, whether Directors see a benefit to advancing the informal board discussion of the MAP, as suggested in paragraph 20.

### Appendix 1 — Fund’s Input to MAP in the Initial Stage (Selected Excerpts)

- April 2010: Base case analysis
  - Staff produced a “base case” scenario showing global economic outcomes as envisaged by the G-20 itself, based on individual country submissions.
  - Findings:
    - Base scenario broadly consistent with MAP objectives, but optimistic and subject to downside risks.
    - Individual submissions collectively resulted in growth that was strong (above potential), balanced (broad-based across G-20 members) and sustainable (i.e., increasingly led by the private sector).
    - Downside risks highlighted:
      - fiscal consolidation appeared insufficient to decisively address sustainability issues in a number of advanced economies;
      - the rebalancing of global demand was unlikely to be strong enough to sustain high global growth and low unemployment;
      - financial sector reform that could help meet growth objectives remained to be fully specified and implemented.
  - Recommendations:
    - Move beyond the G-20 “base case” through more forceful action than in the baseline, including:
      - structural reforms in key areas in both advanced and emerging countries;
      - further fiscal adjustment in advanced economies;
      - greater rebalancing of global demand;
      - stronger measures to rebuild the financial system.

- June 2010: Alternative scenarios
  - Staff explored upside and downside scenarios and drew policy recommendations.
  - Upside scenario:
    - Based on layered policies across members of similar characteristics that would result in an upside scenario raising growth outcomes for all.
    - Under such scenario, global growth would be significantly stronger, more balanced and sustainable, and employment would rise notably in all regions.
    - Surplus economies would experience stronger demand, while deficit economies would rebuild their savings owing to stronger external demand.
  - Downside scenario:
    - Assessed implications if global output were lower than expected (by more than 3 percent in the medium term), with lower productivity.
  - Key recommendations:
    - Policy actions tailored to groups of G-20 countries with similar circumstances (e.g., advanced deficit countries, emerging surplus countries).

- November 2010: Conclusion of the first round
  - MAP report updated the global outlook using revised G-20 policy frameworks and enhanced scenario analysis to derive the G-20 upside potential.
  - Stock-taking of G-20 key policy commitments and actions since Pittsburgh showed progress in several areas, but important challenges remained especially on fiscal and structural policies.
  - Re-emergence of global imbalances highlighted need for two rebalancing acts to secure medium-term objectives:
    - Internal rebalancing in the major advanced economies, with a greater role for the private sector and a gradual reduction of public support.
    - External rebalancing through a shift to greater reliance on growth led by domestic demand in external surplus countries and by external demand in deficit countries.

*Source: IMF staff review, “1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do?” (December 2009–April 2011).*

### 1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do? ..................................................3

### 1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do?

### I. Introduction
- Purpose: Review of the Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) after about a year of implementation, covering December 2009 to the April 2011 meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Washington.
- Scope: Considers Fund inputs against the evolving MAP and discusses expectations going forward. Does not review the G-20 MAP itself. Implications for broader G-20–Fund cooperation for Fund surveillance to be covered in the forthcoming TSR.
- Structure:  
  - Section II: Background on the MAP and the Fund’s envisaged role and synergies with Fund surveillance.  
  - Section III: Review of Fund’s actual experience with MAP.  
  - Section IV: Assessment and proposed amendment to procedures for briefing the Executive Board.  
  - Section V: Issues for discussion.

### II. The Framework at Its Inception
- G-20 Pittsburgh Summit (September 2009): Launched “Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth” with a mutual assessment process (MAP). G-20 asked the Fund to provide supporting technical analysis with inputs from other international institutions; initial scope defined (Box 1).
- Executive Board (December 2009): Adopted a general framework for the Fund’s involvement in the MAP:
  - Staff to provide technical analysis of how national and regional policy frameworks fit together and develop forward-looking analysis of whether individual countries’ policies are collectively consistent with sustainable and balanced global trajectories.
  - Staff assessments to be provided directly to the G-20 and sent at the same time to the Board.
  - Staff to brief the Board informally ahead of each Ministerial Meeting and brief on G-20 meeting outcomes.
  - MAP envisioned as an annual exercise with evolving modalities.
- Legal nature and distinction from surveillance:
  - Fund involvement constitutes technical assistance to G-20 members.
  - Technical assistance is voluntary for members and the Fund; Article IV surveillance is mandatory.
  - MAP contributions are provided at the request of G-20 members and are part of a process designed and controlled by G-20 members.
  - Fund contributions to MAP may have synergies with surveillance but are legally distinct.

Box 1 — Fund’s initial expected tasks (verbatim content):
- The Fund was asked to assess the coherence, consistency, and mutual compatibility of G-20 members’ policy frameworks against the objective of securing strong, sustainable, and balanced global economic growth. This assessment was to include:
  - Assessment of individual G-20 submissions. Fund staff would assess the coverage and internal consistency of policy plans and medium-term macroeconomic projections received from the authorities.
  - Aggregation of the contributions and assessment of multilateral consistency. Staff was to construct two global scenarios: a “raw” scenario, not adjusted for inconsistencies in countries’ macroeconomic assumptions, and a globally consistent “base case” scenario, adjusted for such inconsistencies and imposing an adding-up constraint on countries’ current account projections. Also staff was to assess the need for additional policy adjustments to reach the stated growth objectives.
  - Policy recommendations. Staff was to draft an initial assessment using the “base case” scenario, focusing on the multilateral ramifications of inconsistencies between national policies and objectives, the compatibility of policy frameworks, and initial suggestions for additional policy measures.  
- In a second round, staff was to explore alternative scenarios that could help the G-20 achieve its growth objectives.

### III. The Fund’s Experience with the MAP (December 2009–April 2011)
A. From Pittsburgh to Seoul — Responding to the Initial Request
- Main substantive inputs by Fund staff in the first year: three reports (April, June, November 2010), plus informal notes and presentations:
  - Analysis and Perspectives (April 2010):
    - Assessed G-20 policy frameworks to derive a “base case” scenario based on country individual submissions.
    - Found the base scenario broadly consistent with MAP objectives, but optimistic and subject to downside risks.
    - Highlighted need for more forceful actions to secure strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
  - Alternative Scenarios (June 2010):
    - Included an upside scenario exploring policies that could help secure the G-20 objective, and a downside scenario assessing potential implications of risks identified in the “base case”.
    - Drew key policy recommendations tailored to groups of G-20 countries with similar circumstances (e.g., advanced deficit countries, emerging surplus countries).
  - Staff’s Assessment of G-20 Policies (November 2010):
    - Updated the global outlook using revised G-20 policy frameworks.
    - Enhanced scenario analysis to derive the G-20 upside potential.
    - Took stock of G-20 key policy commitments and actions since Pittsburgh; noted progress in several areas but important challenges remained, especially on fiscal and structural policies.

- Chronology and Fund’s Main Inputs (Box 2, verbatim highlights by meeting):
  - Washington Meeting, USA, April 23, 2010
    - Fund staff reviewed the G-20 policy frameworks and found growth projections optimistic and subject to downside risks.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors specified their objectives of strong, sustainable and balanced growth and agreed on principles for alternative policy scenarios.
  - Busan Meeting, Korea, June 4-5, 2010
    - G-20 MAP—Alternative Scenarios—A Preliminary Note, outlined staff’s preliminary alternative scenarios based on frameworks submitted by G-20 countries.
    - Communiqué: Based on staff’s input, Ministers and Governors developed policy options to achieve stronger, more sustainable and more balanced growth.
  - Toronto Summit, Canada, June 26-27, 2010
    - G-20 MAP—Final Report on Alternative Policy Scenarios, provided staff’s final analysis of alternative (upside and downside) policy scenarios.
    - Declaration: The Leaders reiterated the importance of the Framework, and highlighted the need for the G-20 to choose a more ambitious path of reforms, along staff’s upside scenario.
  - Gyeongju Meeting, Korea, October 22-23, 2010
    - G-20 MAP--Staff's Assessment of G-20 Policies, reviewed progress on MAP implementation, identified remaining risks, and recommended further action.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors refined the Framework, committed to developing an action plan ahead of Seoul and recommended the continuation of the process beyond Seoul.
  - Seoul Summit, Korea, November 11-12, 2010
    - IMF Report on G-20 MAP (same report as for Gyeongju).
    - Communiqué: Leaders agreed on an enhanced MAP to promote external sustainability and committed to reduce excessive imbalances, as assessed against indicative guidelines.
  - Paris Meeting, France, February 18-19, 2011
    - Among other inputs, Fund staff prepared a note on a possible approach to indicators for assessing imbalances in the G-20.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors agreed on a set of indicators to help focus on persistently large imbalances that require policy actions.
  - Washington Meeting, USA, April 15-16, 2011
    - Among other inputs, Fund staff prepared draft indicative guidelines for assessing persistently large imbalances.
    - Communiqué: Ministers and Governors agreed on a set of indicative guidelines to assess persistently large imbalances, and launched the second step of the process: the assessment of the nature of these imbalances and the root causes of impediments to adjustment.

B. Post‑Seoul — Fund’s Input to the Enhanced MAP
- Seoul Summit decision (November 2010):
  - Enhance MAP to promote external sustainability; pursue full range of policies to reduce excessive imbalances and maintain current account imbalances at sustainable levels.
  - MAP to continue mutual assessment of individual policy commitments; enhanced by a mechanism to identify large imbalances requiring policy actions based on indicative guidelines.
  - G-20 Framework Working Group (FWG) to develop indicative guidelines with Fund staff assistance.
- Fund technical inputs ahead of Paris 2011:
  - Supported FWG’s development of:
    - A two-step economic framework: (1) indicators to help identify large imbalances; (2) deeper analysis of identified imbalances.
    - A proposal to guide selection of indicator reference values.
- Paris Agreement (February 2011):
  - Ministers and Governors agreed on the two-step process and defined indicators focusing on:
    - “(i) public debt and fiscal deficits; and private savings rate and private debt (ii) and the external imbalance composed of the trade balance and net investment income flows and transfers, taking due consideration of exchange rate, fiscal, monetary and other policies.”
  - Fund asked to continue assistance in developing indicative guidelines.
- Technical work after Paris:
  - Note and presentation to FWG on indicative guidelines including:
    - Statistical and structural approaches to reference values or norms for indicators.
    - Specific thresholds for scoring each indicator.
    - Rules-based selection criteria for screening G-20 members for deeper second-step analysis.
    - “Robustness checks” on the indicative guidelines.
  - Statistical guidance note prepared to assist G-20 economies with data series underpinning the MAP.
- Washington (April 2011) outcomes:
  - G-20 agreed on indicative guidelines using four complementary approaches to establish reference values:
    - A structural approach based on economic models and economic theory, taking into account specific circumstances (including large commodity producers).
    - Three statistical approaches benchmarking each G-20 economy against: (i) national historical trends, (ii) groups of countries at similar stages of development, (iii) the full G-20.
- Staff were asked to prepare three reports ahead of the Cannes Summit:
  - A new MAP report with updated assessment of the outlook and policies to move G-20 economies toward a new upside scenario (based on countries’ submissions).
  - A report assessing progress toward meeting the Seoul summit commitments (presented separately).
  - A new External Sustainability Report assessing progress toward external sustainability based on the indicative guidelines; analyzing root causes of imbalances and proposing preventive and corrective policies; to include in-depth studies on the seven countries identified in the first-step screening.

### IV. Assessment of Fund Involvement in the MAP
A. Inputs to the MAP and Synergies with Other Activities
- Distinct but synergistic activities:
  - MAP technical assistance is legally separate from Article IV surveillance, yet provides opportunities to increase traction of Fund advice by opening channels to top policymakers.
  - Significant synergies with multilateral surveillance (WEO) and with bilateral surveillance (Article IV and spillover reports).
  - Examples:
    - April 2011 WEO built on staff’s G-20 alternative scenarios and Seoul imbalance analysis to draw global conclusions.
    - Development of indicative guidelines benefited from and enriched research supporting bilateral and multilateral surveillance (e.g., CGER).
- Expected increased synergies going forward:
  - Enhanced MAP focus on individual country imbalances expected to increase synergies with bilateral surveillance while informing multilateral surveillance.
  - Sustainability Reports to draw upon Article IV, spillover reports, WEO, GFSR, Fiscal Monitor, and work on global financial interconnectedness.
  - The forthcoming 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR) to consider integration of surveillance and MAP-related activities.
- Legal nature unchanged:
  - Analyses remained within the December 2009 framework and retain characteristics of technical assistance: voluntary for members and the Fund and designed by G-20 members.
  - Emphasis on country‑specific preventive and corrective advice increases synergies but does not change the fundamental nature of the inputs.

B. Resource Implications
- Start-up costs incurred; repeating the exercise less resource intensive after initial investment.
- Additional costs associated with developing indicative guidelines generated further resource needs.
- OBP estimates indicate a cost (inclusive of staff and overhead costs) of US$4 million in FY2011 (Table 1), partly met through reprioritization and reallocating existing FTEs.
- Steady state costs uncertain: potential savings from drafting only one MAP report ahead of the November 2011 Leaders’ summit, but possible additional costs for Accountability and Sustainability Reports.
- Consideration: benefits for Fund membership (e.g., enhanced traction of surveillance advice) should be weighed against additional resource implications.

- Verbatim excerpt from Table 1 as presented in source:
  - Table 1. Estimated Cost of Work on G-20 MAP, FY 11
  - 1/42217
  - Personnel expenditure3
  - Building and Other Expenses1
  - Total Full-time Equivalents (FTEs)114326
  - Area Departments2
  - SPR1
  - RES7
  - Other2
  - Source: OBP estimates, based on departmental TRS submissions and other inputs.
  - 1/ Travel is excluded as very little travel is conducted specifically for MAP work.
  - MAP
  - Increase in G-20 Work

### V. (Excerpt) Role of the Executive Board
- (Document continues into discussion of the Executive Board’s role; text excerpt ends before detailed treatment.)

*Source: IMF staff review, “1. G-20 MAP: What Was the Fund Initially Expected to Do?” (December 2009–April 2011), prepared by a team composed of Jean-Francois Dauphin, Gillian Nkhata, Michele Shannon, Claire Waysand, Mitali Das, Krishna Srinivasan, Ross Leckow, Meron Makonnen, and Nadia Rendak.*

### 19.      Executive Board involvement in the process has followed the framework

### 19.      Executive Board involvement in the process has followed the framework

### Executive Board involvement and timing
- Paragraph 19:
  - MAP reports sent to the G-20 were sent to the Board at the same time.
  - Staff subsequently presented the assessments to the Directors in informal briefings, ahead of the G-20 meetings/summits.
  - The Board was briefed on the outcome of the ministerial meetings and Leaders’ Summits.
  - Fund staff assessments were also shared with the IMFC once they were sent to the G-20, and the IMFC was kept informed about the G-20 process.

- Paragraph 20:
  - Some Directors suggested benefit to incorporating an opportunity for earlier Board comment on staff’s analysis.
  - Any evolution would need consideration of consistency with (and perceived consistency with) G-20 ownership of the MAP.
  - Proposal for change: advance the timing of the existing informal Board discussion so meetings could take place ahead of the reports’ submission to the G-20, giving staff the opportunity to consider the Board’s informal comment on what would remain an independent staff report.

### Issues for discussion (Paragraph 21)
- Directors may wish to comment on:
  - The experience under the framework for Fund involvement in the MAP to date.
  - The broad framework for Fund involvement in the MAP going forward, including synergies with surveillance activities.
  - In particular, whether Directors see a benefit to advancing the informal board discussion of the MAP, as suggested in paragraph 20.

### APPENDIX 1 — Fund’s Input to MAP in the Initial Stage

#### April 2010: Base case analysis
- 1:
  - In the period leading up to the G-20 Meeting in April 2010, Fund staff conducted an initial assessment of the G-20 policy frameworks based on G-20 individual country submissions.
  - Submissions included qualitative and quantitative inputs on the future path of their policies, and the projection for key macroeconomic indicators based on their intended policies and the G-20 countries own assumptions for the global environment (e.g., commodity prices, world growth, etc.).
  - Staff analysis focused on:
    - identifying inconsistencies in national assumptions;
    - assessing the multilateral consistency of the collective frameworks using WEO projections as a reference point; and,
    - deriving their implications for the global economy, including for growth, employment, demand rebalancing, financial stability and poverty.
  - This work resulted in production of a “base case” scenario, which showed global economic outcomes as envisaged by the G-20 itself.

- 2:
  - The analysis showed the base scenario was broadly consistent with MAP objectives, but appeared optimistic and subject to downside risks.
  - Initial individual submissions, when taken at face value, collectively resulted in growth that was strong (above potential), balanced (broad-based across G-20 members) and sustainable (i.e., increasingly led by the private sector), thus broadly achieving MAP objectives.
  - Staff highlighted significant downward risks:
    - fiscal consolidation appeared insufficient to decisively address sustainability issues in a number of advanced economies;
    - the rebalancing of global demand was unlikely to be strong enough to sustain high global growth and low unemployment;
    - financial sector reform that could help meet growth objectives remained to be fully specified and implemented.

- 3:
  - Fund staff recommended moving beyond the G-20 “base case”.
  - Staff noted more forceful action than in the baseline was needed to anchor strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
  - Specific recommendations included:
    - structural reforms in key areas in both advanced and emerging countries;
    - further fiscal adjustment in advanced economies;
    - greater rebalancing of global demand;
    - stronger measures to rebuild the financial system.

#### June 2010: Alternative scenarios
- 4:
  - The G-20 requested the Fund’s assistance in exploring alternative policy scenarios to demonstrate how medium-term prospects could be improved through coordinated policy actions.
  - Staff’s analysis of alternative policy scenarios was conducted in close collaboration with a G-20 Working Group on the MAP.
  - Work resulted in a Report on Alternative Policy Scenarios discussed by G-20 Deputies (Berlin, May 2010), then by Ministers and Governors (Busan, June 2010) and finally by Leaders (Toronto, June 2010).

- 5:
  - Staff explored upside and downside scenarios and drew policy recommendations accordingly.
  - The report included a refined “base case” to ensure greater multilateral consistency and reflect recent developments.
  - Starting from the refined base case, the report outlined:
    - An upside scenario:
      - Explored policies that could help deliver the G-20 objectives.
      - Based on layered policies across members of similar characteristics that would result in an upside scenario raising growth outcomes for all.
      - Under such scenario, global growth would be significantly stronger, more balanced and sustainable, and employment would rise notably in all regions.
      - Surplus economies would experience stronger demand, while deficit economies would rebuild their savings owing to stronger external demand.
    - A downside scenario:
      - Assessed implications of risks identified in the “base case”, should these risks materialize.
      - Looked in particular at what would happen if global output were lower than expected (by more than 3 percent in the medium term), with lower productivity.
    - Key recommendations:
      - Policy actions tailored to groups of G-20 countries with similar circumstances (e.g., advanced deficit countries, emerging surplus countries).

#### November 2010: Conclusion of the first round
- 6:
  - A MAP report prepared ahead of the Seoul Summit concluded the Fund’s inputs to the first round of the MAP exercise.
  - The G-20 Leaders had asked the Fund in Toronto to identify more concretely policies along the lines suggested in the upside scenario.
  - Key components of the Seoul MAP report:
    - An updated assessment of the global outlook using revised G-20 policy frameworks, and an enhancement of the scenario analysis to derive the G-20 upside potential; and,
    - A stock taking of G-20 key policy commitments and actions undertaken since Pittsburgh.
  - The report outlined progress in several areas, but noted important challenges remained especially on fiscal and structural policies.

- 7:
  - The report highlighted the re-emergence of old problems, such as global imbalances.
  - To secure strong, sustainable and balanced growth over the medium term two rebalancing acts were needed:
    - Internal rebalancing in the major advanced economies, with a greater role for the private sector and a gradual reduction of public support.
    - External rebalancing through a shift to greater reliance on growth led by domestic demand in external surplus countries and by external demand in deficit countries.

*Source: Excerpt from IMF document _051311 - 19.      Executive Board involvement in the process has followed the framework*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2011/_051311.pdf_