Agenda
Thursday, April 3, 2003
|
8:30 a.m.–9:00 a.m. |
Continental Breakfast |
|
|
|
9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. |
Welcome by Eduardo Aninat |
|
Deputy Managing Director, IMF |
|
|
|
Session I: Macroeconomic
Programming for Poverty Reduction |
9:15a.m.–1:00
pm |
|
|
|
This session will discuss issues
related to macroeconomic programming for poverty reduction. Topics will include
realism in growth and other macroeconomic projections, alternative macroeconomic
frameworks, and poverty and social impact analysis. The session will begin
with opening remarks by the chairperson followed by an overview of the background
papers by the presenter. The three discussants will then provide brief observations
from their respective perspectives on the approaches taken and key issues
raised in the background papers, followed by open discussion and the chairperson's
summing up. |
|
|
|
Co-Chairs: |
* |
Gobind Nankani, Vice President,
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management
(PREM), World Bank |
|
* |
Masood Ahmed, DeputyDirector,
Policy Development and Review Department, IMF |
|
|
|
Presenter: |
* |
Gerda Vrielink, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands |
|
|
|
Discussants: |
* |
Charles Soludo, African
Institute for Applied Economics |
|
* |
Ros Seilava, Economic and
Financial Policy Planning and Monitoring Unit, Government of Cambodia |
|
* |
Max Lawson, OXFAM International |
|
|
|
Background papers: |
* |
IMF issues note on aligning
macroeconomi frameworks under PRGF-supported programs |
|
* |
WB issues note on poverty
and social impact analysis |
|
* |
UK/Dutch note on poverty
and social impact analysis |
|
* |
UNDP note on macroeconomic
policy and poverty reduction |
|
|
|
9:15–10:45 a.m. |
Presentation on and reaction
to the background papers |
|
|
|
10:45–11:15 a.m. |
Coffee break |
|
|
|
11:15 a.m.–12:45 p.m. |
Open discussion |
|
|
|
12:45 p.m.–1:00 p.m. |
Summing up by Chairperson |
|
|
|
1:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. |
Lunch: Speech by Ken Rogoff,
Director, Research Department, IMF |
|
|
|
Session II: Assessing
Macroeconomic Consequences of Large Aid Flows
2:30 p.m.–6:00 pm |
|
|
|
This session will discuss issues
related to the macroeconomic consequences of large aid flows in support of
poverty reduction. Key topics for consideration include absorptive capacity
in the economy, administrative capacity within the government, competitiveness,
and sustainability. The session will begin with opening remarks by the chairperson
followed by an overview of the background papers by the presenter. The three
discussants will then provide brief observations from their respective perspectives
on the approaches taken and key issues raised in the background papers, followed
by open discussion and a summing up by the chairperson. |
|
|
|
Co-Chairs: |
* |
Amor Tahari, Senior Advisor,
African Department, IMF |
|
* |
Yaw Ansu, Director, Economic
Policy, PREM, World Bank |
|
|
|
Presenter: |
* |
Nick Amin, UK DFID |
|
|
|
Discussants: |
* |
David Bevan, Center for
the Study of African Economies |
|
* |
Servus Sagdays, Vice Presidents
Office, Government of Tanzania |
|
* |
Fabien Lefrancois, Bretton
Woods Project |
|
|
|
Background papers: |
* |
IMF issues note on macro
consequences of large aid flows |
|
* |
WB guidance note on macroeconomic
andstructural policy implications of increased aid |
|
* |
UK DFID policy paper on
macroeconomic effects of aid |
|
|
|
2:30 p.m.–4:15 p.m. |
Presentation on and reaction
to the background papers |
|
|
|
4:15 p.m.–4:45 p.m. |
Coffee Break |
|
|
|
4:45 p.m.–6:00 p.m. |
Open discussion |
|
|
|
6:00 p.m.–6:15 p.m. |
Summing up by Chairperson |
|
|
|
6:30 p.m.–7:30 p.m. |
Reception |
|
|
|
Friday, April 4, 2003
|
8:30 a.m.–9:00 a.m. |
Continental Breakfast |
|
|
|
Session III:
Fiscal and Debt Sustainability
9.00 a.m.–12:00pm |
|
|
|
This session will discuss issues
related to fiscal and debt sustainability analysis in low-income countries.
Topics will include a discussion of what debt indicators, time-frame, macroeconomic
assumptions, and sensitivity tests are most useful for assessing sustainability.
The session will begin with opening remarks by the chairpersons followed
by an overview of the background papers by the presenter. The three discussants
will then provide brief observations from their respective perspectives on
the approaches taken and key issues raised in the background papers, followed
by open discussion and a summing up by the chairpersons. |
|
|
|
Co-Chairs: |
* |
Teresa Ter-Minassian, Director,
IMF Fiscal Affairs Department |
|
* |
Stephen Pickford, H.M.
Treasury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
Presenter: |
* |
Thomas Laursen, World Bank,
PREM |
|
|
|
Discussants: |
* |
Steven Radelet, Center
for Global Development |
|
* |
Rajendra Rampersaud, Office
of the President, Guyana |
|
* |
Francis Lemoine, EURODAD |
|
|
|
Background papers: |
* |
IMF background note on
analyzing fiscal and debt sustainability in low-income countries |
|
* |
WB note on fiscal and debt
sustainability work program and key issues |
|
|
|
9:00 a.m.–10:45 a.m. |
Presentation, discussants' reaction
to the background papers and discussion |
|
|
|
10:45 a.m.–11:15 a.m. |
Coffee break |
|
|
|
11:15 a.m.–12:45 p.m. |
Discussion (continued) |
|
|
|
12:45 p.m.–1:00 p.m. |
Summing up by Chairperson |
|
|
|
1:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. |
Lunch: Speech by Nick Stern,
Senior Vice President for Development Economics and Chief Economist, World
Bank |
|
|
|
Session IV: Discussion
of Analytical Gaps, Research Priorities and Next Steps
2:30 p.m.–6:00 pm |
|
|
|
This session will focus on identifying
a set of priority research projects to carried out over the medium-term,
including by the IMF, the World Bank, other development partners, and academia.
The session will begin with opening remarks by the co-chairpersons followed
by presentations by representatives of the IMF and World Bank on their institutions'
respective work program. This will be followed by reactions by the three
discussants on the coverage of the work programs and the identification of
any gaps and/or other research priorities. The open discussion will further
this debate with a view to identifying research priorities, modalities, and
next steps in taking the macroeconomic analytical agenda on low-income country
issues forward. |
|
|
|
Co-Chairs: |
* |
Masood Ahmed, Deputy Director,
Policy Development and Review Department, IMF |
|
* |
Ian Goldin, Director, Development
Policy, World Bank |
|
|
|
Presenters: |
* |
Ratna Sahay, Assistant
Director, Research Dept., IMF |
|
* |
Ian Goldin, Director, Development
Policy, World Bank |
|
|
|
Discussants: |
* |
Tony Addison, United Nations
University, World Institute for Development Economics Research |
|
* |
Enkh-Ariunaa Oidovadzan,
Economic Policy and Planning Department, Government of Mongolia |
|
* |
Alan Whaites, World Vision |
|
|
|
Background papers: |
* |
IMF macroeconomic research
program on low-income countries |
|
* |
Summary of World Bank macroeconomic
research and analytical work program |
|
* |
U.K. proposed macroeconomic
topics warranting further research |
|
|
|
2:30 p.m.–4:15 p.m. |
Opening remarks, presentations
on planned research agendas and discussants reactions |
|
|
|
4:15 p.m.–4:45 p.m. |
Coffee break |
|
|
|
4:45 p.m.–6:15 p.m. |
Open discussion |
|
|
|
6:15 p.m.–6:30 p.m. |
Summing up by co-chairpersons |
|
|
|
|
Closing |
*Open to the
public, IMF Auditorium R-710.
Summary of Discussions
A technical workshop on macroeconomic analytical issues in taking the PRSP approach forward was held at IMF headquarters on April 3-4, 2003 bringing together some 40 representatives from low-income country governments, academia, civil society organizations, and multilateral institutions and donor agencies. There was also widespread interest in observing the proceedings of the workshop by Fund and Bank research and operational staff, as well as by the staff of the Executive Directors from both institutions. The purpose of the workshop was to take stock of the current state of research and analysis on macroeconomic analytical issues of importance to countries' design and implementation of their national poverty reduction strategies, with a view to: (1) assessing the knowledge base and the degree to which the guidance put forward in the draft background papers was considered appropriate by countries and development partners; and (2) setting a priority international macroeconomic research agenda on low-income countries. Drawing on three of the priority macroeconomic issues identified by the May 2002 joint Bank/Fund Review of the PRSP and the IMF Review of the PRGF, the first three sessions of the workshop examined background papers prepared by the IMF, World Bank, UNDP, government of the United Kingdom, and government of the Netherlands on macroeconomic programming and poverty reduction; macroeconomic consequences of larger aid flows; and fiscal and external debt sustainability. The final session focused on knowledge gaps, research priorities and next steps. The following is a summary of each of these sessions.
Session 1: Macroeconomic Programming and Poverty Reduction Overview: This session focused on the need for realism in macroeconomic projections and considered possible approaches for bridging the gap between the frameworks presented in PRSPs and those in annual budgets and associated PRGF-supported programs. The question of alternative fiscal deficit paths was also discussed, including with regard to the implications for inflation, real interest rates and growth. Key questions included: How to reconcile the need for ambition with the need for realism regarding projections of growth and other macroeconomic variables? Does the proposed "two-scenario" approach adequately address this issue and, if not, is there a better approach that could achieve the same objective? If so, how can the linkages between PRSPs and budgets be strengthened? Summary: The main issues raised during the discussion can be summarized as follows:
-
Instilling Realism: There was broad-based recognition
that projections of growth and other macroeconomic variables underpinning the
macroeconomic frameworks of countries' poverty reduction strategies and PRGF-supported
programs have been unrealistic. In the short-term, projections should be cast
against the backdrop of past trends and cross-country comparisons. In the medium-term,
they should be grounded in an analysis of the drivers of growth. Projections
could also benefit from greater (regional) disaggregation, analysis of both
the demand and the supply side, and inclusion of the labor, as well as the
capital/investment, dimensions. Further research and analysis on the sources
of and obstacles to growth at the country level should be a priority.
-
Single versus two scenario approach: There was widespread
concern expressed about the Fund staff's proposal that countries adopt a "two
scenario" approach
to their macroeconomic frameworks. This would not only place an additional
burden on the already strained administrative capacity of low-income countries,
but also call into question the operational relevance of the PRSP itself.
A preferred approach would be to have a single realistic macroeconomic framework
with a contingency plan for what to do in the event that assumptions regarding
policy implementation, institutional reform, and external financing proved
too conservative (or too optimistic). There is also a need for greater country
ownership of the macroeconomic frameworks underpinning their strategies. If
countries do not have the capacity to carry out the analysis themselves, development
partners need to assist countries in building such capacity.
-
Risk analysis: The need for risk analysis of macroeconomic
projections and for greater flexibility with regard to how macroeconomic frameworks
respond to exogenous shocks was raised repeatedly. Stress testing of key variables
should be systematically carried out, including for deviations in key world
commodity prices and shortfalls in foreign assistance. The inclusion of confidence
intervals could also be usefully explored.
-
Avoiding unnecessary complexity: There is a need to
avoid macroeconomic models that are too complex to be used in-country. In turn,
there is a need to develop relevant, user-friendly models, and to help countries
build capacity to employ these.
-
Poverty and social impact analysis: The process for
undertaking PSIA was considered to be as important as the tools and techniques
themselves. Early involvement and ownership by stakeholders is essential if
PSIA is to have the desired impact on decision-making. While some called for
the distributional impact of the entire macroeconomic framework (and not just
of individual policies) to be carried out, it was generally recognized that
this would be problematic. Knowledge and experience should therefore be built
up in this regard over the coming 12-18 months.
-
Deficiencies in data and data systems: There was general
recognition that data systems needed to be strengthened so that countries could
develop better growth strategies and conduct distributional analyses of associated
policies. Greater attention needed to be placed on gaps in data systems and
whether the international community's present approaches to improving these
systems are paying off or are ill-designed.
-
Early involvement of Fund staff: IMF staff needed to
engage earlier-on in the PRSP process to assist countries in developing their
macroeconomic frameworks and considering policy choices and alternatives. The
Resident Representative had an important role to play in this regard and many
participants believed that they should be given greater authority.
Session 2: Macroeconomic Consequences of Larger Aid Flows Overview: This session focused on the question of the macroeconomic consequences of larger aid flows, particularly with regard to competitiveness and fiscal and external sustainability. The papers under discussion maintained that, if properly managed, aid had a positive effect on growth. However, due consideration was needed regarding the possible impact of these flows on the real exchange rate and on the absorptive and administrative capacity of the country. The workshop discussion, however, broadened into the question of overall aid effectiveness and what both donors and countries should do about it. Key topics considered included the impact of aid on domestic resource mobilization efforts, the predictability and volatility of aid and its impact on growth, the use of grants versus loans for economic development, and the need for increased transparency. Summary: The main issues raised during the discussion can be summarized as follows:
-
Assessing the impact of aid: It was noted that donors tend
to rally around good performers, which contributed to the problem of the impact
of large aid flows on a country. Even so, there was general recognition that
the relative size of increases in aid flows was not likely to be large enough
to pose problems regarding Dutch Disease and that absorptive and institutional
capacity constraints were the real concerns. The relative size and composition
of the non-tradable goods sector also needed to be analyzed in order to determine
if resource shifts resulting from an exchange rate appreciation would have
a negative effect on the poor. Some argued that positive productivity gains
to be had from aid flows directed at addressing structural rigidities could
in fact offset the negative effect of any exchange rate appreciation on the
tradable sector. Questions were also raised as to what is the appropriate
time frame to measure the results and effectiveness of aid.
-
Harmonization: While there has been a lot of progress on
donor harmonization, problems remained. Some questioned whether there could
be too much harmonization, which could lead to a common negotiated plan rather
than simply common procedures. Concerns were expressed about conditionality
getting out of hand, with problems in one area leading to a shutting down
of donor assistance for the entire program. One participant even suggested
that
there was something to be gained by playing one donor off of another, although
the general consensus was there were gains to be had--for countries and for
donors--from greater harmonization of procedures and practices. Mention was
made of a ongoing donor coordination pilot program being carried out under
the auspices of the Strategic Partnership with Africa (SPA) in collaboration
with the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union, and the United Kingdom Department
for International Development.
-
Capacity building: Emphasis was placed on the need for more "permanent" capacity
building given the constant movement and turnover of country personnel. Moreover,
the need to build capacity within "countries" and not simply within "governments" was
stressed, particularly with regard to civil society and parliaments.
-
IMF Research: Ongoing research at the IMF is looking into
whether monetary policy can be used to offset any real appreciation of the
exchange rate resulting from higher aid flows. Evidence to date indicates
that there is an association between aid flows and real appreciation above
and beyond
terms of trade effects and country trends. One participant queried whether
there is a risk that research conducted by the IMF would be perceived as being
biased and that there was a need therefore for more independent research on
this and other issues.
Session 3: Fiscal and External Debt Sustainability Overview: This session focused on issues related to fiscal and external debt sustainability in low-income countries. Topics discussed included what indicators, time-frame, assumptions, and sensitivity tests are most useful for assessing sustainability. A preliminary draft template on fiscal and debt sustainability was put forward by the IMF for consideration and the consensus was that this template was useful, subject to certain caveats. It was broadly recognized that further work would be required, particularly with regard to the policy implications of the template. Summary: The main issues raised during the discussion can be summarized as follows:
-
Definition of sustainability: No general consensus emerged in the discussion regarding the definition of sustainability. Participants agreed that debt sustainability can be both very easy and very difficult to define. While it is easy to define it ex post as the point at which a country defaults, it is more difficult to precisely predict ex ante when
this will happen. The choice of the appropriate definition of debt sustainability
is therefore an issue on which there is still no consensus among researchers,
and further thought and analysis is needed. As many participants pointed out,
besides an "economic" definition of debt sustainability, policymakers also have to pay attention to the "political" and "social" sustainability
dimensions of public and external debt. In particular, many participants raised
the issue of a possible trade-off between fiscal consolidation needed to achieve
debt sustainability objectives and poverty-reduction targets.
-
Analyzing sustainability: Most participants agreed that the
Net Present Value (NPV) of debt was a better indicator of sustainability than
the nominal value, but that alternative indicators may also be useful; for
example, debt service and gross financing need ratios may help capture debt-related
liquidity constraints faced by governments. Moreover, several participants
stressed that the definition of sustainability is highly country-specific and
must be related not only to the level of debt that is deemed sustainable, but
also to the path to achieve it. There was also consensus that a 10-20 year
time frame is appropriate, although with the caveat that this increases the
uncertainty of the projections. Many participants noted that it is important
to consider domestic as well as external debt in low-income countries and welcomed
the intention of the Fund and the Bank to supplement external debt sustainability
with fiscal sustainability analysis in low-income countries.
-
Assumptions: There was widespread agreement that more thought
needs to go into the assumptions that underlie baseline scenarios. In particular,
it is clear that growth is the single most important factor affecting fiscal
and external debt sustainability. Thus, to have reliable analyses and better
policies, one needs to have a better understanding of the determinants of growth
and its links to the policies implicit in sustainability analyses. Similarly,
several participants stressed the need to think carefully about what assumptions
should be made about future aid flows. In particular, there was some significant
support for moving more towards grants-based aid. Many participants stressed
the importance of fully capturing the policy implications of such a change
in the formulation of forecast scenarios and for the choice of debt sustainability
indicators.
-
Stress tests: While many participants considered the set of
stress test used in the debt sustainability framework appropriate, some argued
in favor of considering non-economic stress factors as well. For example, HIV-AIDS
pandemics, natural disasters, and conflicts are likely to cause large short-term
and permanent shocks to major economic variables. However, some participants
thought that such shocks could be subsumed under the more general shocks to
real GDP growth.
-
Bigger questions: Beyond the draft template, bigger questions
were raised by the participants. Low-income countries face major challenges
in financing their PRSPs and, ultimately, making progress towards achieving
the MDGs, yet there are limits to current resources. Countries also need to
improve their capacity to deliver on the reforms required to make progress
on these fronts. A range of potential solutions were discussed. Some argued
that, given a potential low growth scenario, this may require full debt cancellation
and a major increase in grant flows in order to avoid another debt trap and
further debt write-offs. Fiscal and debt sustainability analysis should therefore
hope to highlight the dangers of this lower than projected growth, but also
suggest means for overcoming constraints. Others considered a more optimistic
scenario whereby some countries could achieve higher levels of growth and borrow
at sustainable levels. Questions remain as to whether HIPCs can take on more
IDA resources in order to achieve growth and poverty reduction (given that
their debt levels will then rise above the threshold of 150 percent debt/exports)
and, for low-income countries in general, whether additional finance can be
mobilized to support more rapid progress toward achieving the MDGs.
Session 4: Knowledge Gaps, Research Priorities and Next Steps Overview: This session focused on identifying a set of priority research projects to be carried out over the medium-term, including by the IMF, the World Bank, other development partners, and academia. There was broad consensus on a set of research topics that should receive highest priority, as well as those which were considered to be of less importance. Issues regarding how best to approach the carrying out of such research were also discussed. A proposal by the IMF, World Bank, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands as to how to take this process forward was also briefly discussed, with details to be circulated to the participants in the aftermath of the workshop Summary: The main issues raised during the discussion can be summarized as follows:
|