Home > The Economy > IMF must heed G-20 Decisions

IMF must heed G-20 Decisions

from Kevin P. Gallagher

The G20 meeting in Cannes earlier this month was derailed by the pressing eurozone crisis. Actors were disappointed if they were looking for concrete action on global imbalances and the food crisis, let alone the new global monetary system that French President Nicolas Sarkozy boasted would be the goal of the summit when he first took the helm as host. But behind the scenes, the G20 actually delivered on a set of “coherent conclusions” on the management of speculative capital flows in emerging markets that should not be overlooked, especially by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Sarkozy assumed his role as head of the G20 during a period of excessive volatility in global capital markets that continues to this day. Because of loose monetary policy, low interest rates and a slow recovery in the North Atlantic, accompanied by high interest rates and rapid growth in emerging markets, the world’s investors flocked from north to south – to Brazil, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan and others. More recently, in response to eurozone jitters, capital has retreated from emerging markets to the “safety” of the United States – showing how dangerous speculative capital flows can be. New work released by the IMF this week suggests they are picking and choosing their direction from the G20.

In a significant reversal of past policy, in 2010 the IMF began recommending that nations deploy capital controls to mitigate the effects of speculative capital. Indeed, IMF work in 2010 showed that those countries that deployed capital account regulations were among the least hard-hit during the worst of the global financial crisis. As numerous countries across the globe began using controls in 2010-2011, further IMF work showed that those measures showed signs of working, too.

Sarkozy thus called for a code of conduct on capital controls and tasked the IMF to propose a set of guidelines for reform. The IMF delivered a set of guidelines in April of this year that met stiff resistance from the emerging market and developing countries that have been most successful in deploying capital controls. The IMF’s proposed guidelines recommend that countries deploy capital controls only as a last resort – that is, after such measures as building up reserves, letting currencies appreciate and cutting budget deficits.

Developing countries thought the guidelines missed the point. In the cases where the IMF found controls to be effective, such measures were part of a broader macroeconomic toolkit, and were deployed alongside other measures – not as a “last resort”. In October, these concerns were echoed by an independent task force of academics and former policy-makers that I co-chaired. We stressed that “consigning such measures to ‘last resort’ status would reduce the available options precisely when countries need as many tools as possible to prevent and mitigate crises.”

By the runup to the Cannes meeting, most of the G20’s apparatus was focused on the eurozone. However, a working group was formed to take the capital flows issue to the highest level. Headed by Germany and Brazil, the group forged the “G20 Coherent Conclusions for the Management of Capital Flows Drawing on Country Experiences”. The document was “endorsed by the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in October, then endorsed by the G20 leaders themselves in Cannes.

In stark contrast to the IMF guidelines, the G20’s conclusions say that “there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach or rigid definition of conditions for the use of capital flow management measures”, and that such measures should not be solely seen as a last resort. Instead, the G20 now calls on nations to develop their own country-specific approach to managing capital flows and, as Sarkozy said in his final Cannes speech, “the use of capital controls, and this is very important, is now accepted as a measure of stabilisation.”

Throughout the crisis, the IMF has usually been keen to accept new direction from the G20, but there are signs that it may be resisting the new G20 consensus on capital flows. The IMF’s latest report addresses the fact that industrialised country policies trigger unstable capital flows to developing countries and that the rich nations need to design policies that are mindful of such negative “spillovers”. Yet, the IMF merely adds that such principles will be added to their existing guidelines – seemingly ignoring the fact that those guidelines have now been superseded by the G20’s decisions.

The IMF should not ignore the G20’s direction on capital flows. Rather than pushing ahead on a globally enforceable code of conduct that could eventually lead to capital account liberalisation across the globe, the IMF should instead work to reduce the stigma attached to capital controls, protect countries’ ability to deploy them, and help nations police investors who evade regulation. G20 finance ministers, central bankers and heads of state have endorsed the use of capital controls by emerging markets, and on their own terms. The IMF should not pick and choose which directions by world leaders it will follow.

Published in the Guardian, 11-29-2011

Follow Gallagher on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/BUKevinGallagher

  1. November 30, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Naturally, the ruthlessly clueless prefer a 3 ring clown act to an equitable global monetary system. And a nod is as good as a wink (to a blind horse)…

    Is it any wonder that the epitaph on Adam Smith’s tombstone mentions his generally overlooked masterpiece, the “Theory of Moral Sentiments”? There is no mention of his later musings on the “Wealth of Nations” (meant to be read after digesting the content of the main body work preceding it). Perhaps he intuited how obsolete it would become as society devolved into its unimaginably weird future…?

    Anyway, some friends and acquaintances tend to believe in conspiracy theories much more than I do. I think that moral turpitude, neurotic delusion, selfish complacency, sociopathic ambition, and the legion of other demons afflicting governments and Consumer Society in general can look and act exactly like a massive conspiracy. I also think that the smartest 1%ers and Market Makers think as I do, and watch the cyclic patterns of the herd like successful hunters of every species watch the environment for cues on when and where to go for the kill.

    Although he clearly deplored the sorry state of the world, Lord Keynes was pragmatic enough to make a fortune for himself and his employer with his realistic responses to the madness of the crowd. Now, however, all the financial predators want to go for massive overkill, sending whole herds of stampeding sheeple over the cliff. This does not bode well for the species or the environment or for what little’s left of humane civilization.

    Until there is a new socioeconomic paradigm that looks and functions a lot like the one that supports the “gifting economy” of the ecologically sane spiritual cultures, the madness and virulent evils will run rampant round the world; and the consequences will mount as our collective karma ripens.

    This pathetic debacle of oblivious mass stupidity can only be arrested and remedied by a well orchestrated, concerted effort on the part of all the leaders of society of every field of endeavor. Political ambitions, theorems, and notions must take a back seat to humane responsibility and effective response — mainly informing & instructing the ill-informed — and noble leadership. We are nearly at or beyond the tipping point and a turning point.

    For humanity to survive and thrive, we must start acting on The Seven Essentials of Sustainable Success:

    1. A viable paradigm, a biocentric conceptual context supporting a sane worldview

    2. Loving respect for nature, sustaining commitment to the commonwealth, the joy and wellness of children, elders, enlightened spiritual leaders and wise guardians

    3. Biocentric awareness and empathy, compassionate sensitivity to environmental conditions, fostering and supporting optimal quality of life for all generations

    4. Consciousness of climate change with active commitment to eliminating or mitigating contributing factors and circumstances affecting its severity and rapidity

    5. Commitment to sustainably positive, peaceful relations with neighbors, allies and enemies alike, fostering constant improvement with Win-Win strategies and dialogue

    6. Thriving through ongoing development and maintenance of beneficial policies, strategies, and enterprises that foster and support lively cultural exchange with economic allies and competitors, while minimizing negativity, risk, damage, and losses

    7. Positive, creative cultural responses to whatever challenges sustainably healthy success

    Doing otherwise would be the doing of what the ancient called demons and devils. Are the realities of negative attitudes, heartless ill-will, sociopathic greed, and normative delusion (denial, selective inattention, wildly unrealistic expectatons, ecocidal corporations, etc.) really any better than evil demons and devils?

    I’m from Missouri, USA. We Missourians love good old common sense sayings of the country folk, like “the proof is in the pudding,” and our home state’s motto is “show me.”

    If y’all think that I’m wrong about any of this, please, don’t tell me, show me. And, if you can figure out how to convince our benighted leaders to start leading us away from the cliff of no return, I’d love to see the plan.

    Until then, this amateur* will keep working to make economics a proactive discipline, centered on solutions, rather than an intellectual indulgence focused on recounting problems and pontificating about closing the barn door after the mule’s long gone.

    * Amateur: (Fr., ama = love/passion + teur = divine doer) 1. Essentially, one devoted to an endeavor, enterprise, or art primarily for the love of it, rather than for monetary reward or socioeconomic, professional, or academic status, etc…

  2. Dave Taylor
    December 5, 2011 at 11:57 am

    “The IMF should not pick and choose which directions by world leaders it will follow”.

    Perhaps, Kevin, you are saying here the opposite of what you intend? As I read the siituation, the IMF is effectively dictating the directions leaders throughout the world must follow. But by what right? The IMF is the tool not of the United Nations but of financially interested private parties and a few national leaders acting unaccountably as private parties, and even the United Nations is only an advisory and coordination body.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.