Съдържанието не е налично на български език.
Menno Broos
- 2 October 2018
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 213Details
- Abstract
- In this report, three methodological approaches are applied to assess the size of the International Monetary Fund: benchmarking Fund resources against a number of relevant global economic and financial indicators; an extrapolation of past and current IMF programme characteristics; and a shock scenario analysis. Overall, while the results of the different approaches depend on the assumptions and the timeframe considered, the quantitative analysis indicates that a prudent approach would call for maintaining Fund total resources at their current levels. Yet, the quantitative analysis of the size of the Fund made in this report should be seen only as one element to assess the adequacy of Fund resources. It does not take into account qualitative considerations, such as the increased resilience of the global economy and the efforts made to strengthen regulation and supervision since the financial crisis, which should complement the quantitative analysis to complete the analytical basis for decision makers. Moreover, the final decision on the appropriate size of Fund resources will need to include political judgement. Therefore, this report does not provide recommendations on the appropriate level of IMF resources after the expiration of borrowed resources.
- JEL Code
- F3 : International Economics→International Finance
F32 : International Economics→International Finance→Current Account Adjustment, Short-Term Capital Movements
F38 : International Economics→International Finance→International Financial Policy: Financial Transactions Tax; Capital Controls
F42 : International Economics→Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance→International Policy Coordination and Transmission
F65 : International Economics→Economic Impacts of Globalization→Finance
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
- 30 September 2016
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 180Details
- Abstract
- The last decade has been characterised by the pronounced volatility of capital flows. While cross-border capital flows can have many benefits for both advanced and emerging market economies, they may also carry risks, which require appropriate policy responses. Disentangling the push from the pull factors driving capital flows is key to designing appropriate policies to deal with them. Strong institutions, sound fundamentals and a large domestic investor base tend to shield economies from adverse global conditions and attract less volatile types of capital. However, when the policy space for using traditional macroeconomic policies is limited, countries may also turn to macroprudential and capital flow management policies in a pragmatic manner. The IMF can play an important role in helping countries to deal with capital flows, through its surveillance and lending policy and through international cooperation.
- JEL Code
- F3 : International Economics→International Finance
F32 : International Economics→International Finance→Current Account Adjustment, Short-Term Capital Movements
F38 : International Economics→International Finance→International Financial Policy: Financial Transactions Tax; Capital Controls
F42 : International Economics→Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance→International Policy Coordination and Transmission
F65 : International Economics→Economic Impacts of Globalization→Finance
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation