This paper is part of the workplan on the 15th General Review of Quotas (15th Review). The paper provides a two-pillar framework for assessing the adequacy of Fund resources, building on the staff paper discussed by the Board in March 2016. The second pillar of the framework is qualitative in nature. The paper also provides information to support a discussion on the mix of Fund resources.
This paper provides background for initial considerations on the appropriate size of the Fund’s overall lending capacity over the medium term. The paper reviews developments in the demand for Fund resources during the global crisis. The paper also argues that the global economy is changing in fundamental ways, with implications for the size of the Fund. Against this background, the analysis suggests that the current overall lending capacity of the Fund should be seen as a minimum. Additional resources would be needed if the Fund were to introduce changes to its lending framework. While the financing structure of the Fund should be largely quota-based, staff sees a strong case for continuing to backstop quota resources with a standing borrowing facility. Maintaining the Fund’s current overall lending capacity would require swift action by the membership.
Precautionary balances are a key element of the Fund’s multilayered framework to mitigate financial risks. Overall financial risks remain elevated but have not increased significantly since the last review. Staff proposes to leave the medium-term target of SDR 25 billion, and the minimum floor of SDR 15 billion, unchanged at this time. With the projected increase in lending income, the pace of reserve accumulation is expected to remain adequate relative to the medium-term indicative target. The paper also reviews policy factors discussed in recent Board meetings that affect the level and accumulation of reserves.
The paper revisits the two-pillar framework for assessing the adequacy of Fund resources. Responding to Directors suggestions, the quantitative pillar is updated to include alternative assumptions and to provide a longer-term perspective on likely resource needs. While quantitative estimates are generally somewhat lower after factoring in the alternative assumptions, these reductions are more than outweighed when the analysis is extended through the middle of the next decade, recognizing that the outcome of the 15th Review will likely determine permanent Fund resources through at least the middle of the next decade. The updated qualitative pillar analysis highlights reforms since the global financial crisis and discusses uncertainties in the global environment. It also provides an assessment of the general impact of the various qualitative considerations. Taken together, the two pillars continue to make a case for at least maintaining existing Fund resources. Against this background, the simulations in the paper cover three illustrative sizes for quota increases (50, 75, and 100 percent), centered on broadly maintaining Fund resources, assuming the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) is maintained at its current level and Bilateral Borrowing Agreements (BBAs) expire.
In discussing the June 2014 paper, Executive Directors broadly supported staff’s proposal to introduce more flexibility into the Fund’s exceptional access framework to reduce unnecessary costs for the member, its creditors, and the overall system. Directors’ views varied on staff’s proposal to eliminate the systemic exemption introduced in 2010. Many Directors favored removing the exemption but some others preferred to retain it and requested staff to consult further with relevant stakeholders on possible approaches to managing contagion. This paper offers specific proposals on how the Fund’s policy framework could be changed, presents staff’s analysis on the specific issue of managing contagion, and addresses some implementation issues. No Board decision is proposed at this stage. The paper is consistent with the Executive Board’s May 2013 endorsement of a work program focused on strengthening market-based approaches to resolving sovereign debt crises.
Reserves remain a critical liquidity buffer for most countries. They are generally associated with lower crisis risks (crisis prevention) as well as space for authorities to respond to shocks (crisis mitigation). While other instruments, such as official credit lines and bilateral swap lines, are also external buffers, for most countries they principally act as a complement to their official reserves. For countries with sound fundamentals and a good policy framework, reserves provide policy makers with considerable space to respond to transitory shocks. However, this space diminishes as fundamentals deteriorate and the existence of adequate reserves does not, by itself, eliminate the risk of market pressures.
The United States annually spends over $300 billion on public elementary and secondary education. As the nation enters the 21st century, it faces a major challenge: how best to tie this financial investment to the goal of high levels of achievement for all students. In addition, policymakers want assurance that education dollars are being raised and used in the most efficient and effective possible ways. The book covers such topics as: Legal and legislative efforts to reduce spending and achievement gaps. The shift from "equity" to "adequacy" as a new standard for determining fairness in education spending. The debate and the evidence over the productivity of American schools. Strategies for using school finance in support of broader reforms aimed at raising student achievement. This book contains a comprehensive review of the theory and practice of financing public schools by federal, state, and local governments in the United States. It distills the best available knowledge about the fairness and productivity of expenditures on education and assesses options for changing the finance system.
This paper takes stock of the progress made in quota discussions to date, and examines options for adjustments in quotas or voting power outside of a general quota increase. Section II reviews the status of recent quota discussions, while Section III presents the results of updating the data through 2003. Section IV discusses the options for addressing the distribution of quotas and voting power outside of a general increase in quotas. Section V concludes and poses some issues for discussion.
Spending on K-12 education across the United States and across local school districts has long been characterized by great disparitiesâ€"disparities that reflect differences in property wealth and tax rates. For more than a quarter-century, reformers have attempted to reduce these differences through court challenges and legislative action. As part of a broad study of education finance, the committee commissioned eight papers examining the history and consequences of school finance reform undertaken in the name of equity and adequacy. This thought-provoking, timely collection of papers explores such topics as: What do the terms "equity" and "adequacy" in school finance really mean? How are these terms relevant to the politics and litigation of school finance reform? What is the impact of court-ordered school finance reform on spending disparities? How do school districts use money from finance reform? What policy options are available to states facing new challenges from court decisions mandating adequacy in school finance? When measuring adequacy, how do you consider differences in student needs and regional costs?
