IMF Transparency roundtable (Bretton Woods Project)

Tessa van der Willigen (IMF)

Transparency has a stabilising effect, particularly in crises. It also promotes public debate and also increases scrutiny of IMF which can only improve quality.

Close to 90% of board documents are published and 'nearly all' policy papers are published. Most country documents available ofter 5 years on request. Review of transparency policy is ongoing.

Ulric Erickson von Allmen (IMF) - Tranpsarency policy review

Value of transparency is recognised in the fund, but there are also costs - for example, does it mean that reports will be less candid? Currently:

policy applies to board documents(country and policy and papers)
Publication fo country douments is voluntary but presumed
Publication of policy papers is presumed
Staff reports are not negotiated or shared beforehand with country authorities. Article 4 reports published, but may be deletions of
- (i) highly market-sensitive material and
- (ii) premature disclosure of governments' policy intentions.

Current trends:

80% of staff reports are published and nearly all policy papers.
But long lags for some - 35% of country papers more than 30 days after the baord meeting.
Many modifications (30% have modifications or deletions.)

Discussion

Question/ comment

Useful to have public disclosure on your administrative costs. Would be useful to have a public audit of this. Every administration faces problems of efficiency
Board meetings should be open or transcripts made public. Idea that there is a 'consensus' is not credible.
Management translate board decisions into 'staff instructions' - we should see these.
PINs can be translated by those in the know - should just be stated clearly.

IMF response

Agree with many points - undergoing a cultural change that is not complete yet.
Board minutes don't get released for years; not the same as many central banks who release within weeks. Should be thinking in the direction.
Managment translates board decisions into 'operational guidance' - which are increasingly being published.
Will look into public disclosure of administrative costs, but not sure that they're not already published.

Question/ comment

Recap recommendations of the GTI: presumed disclosure with strictly limited exceptions where clear tests have been satisfied; mechanism for requesting information, with answers to a time frame and an independent appeals mechanism; extend transparency to all documents; timely release - not just after documents are completed, need to see drafts etc in order to have an input.
IEO report surveyed the IMF staff's opinion of the summary of baord meetings - most board members and staff saw these as often vague or contradictory. Transcripts would be a better way of disclosing.

Question/ comment

governments often don't disclose letter of intentions, with no reason given. Should be the other way round; governments should have to give valid reasons not to publish.
Citizens are real stakeholders, not just governments.

IMF response

It's in the IMF Articles of Agreement that governments can withold information - IMF has to have active consent of member. Have tried to change this before, but was not supported by the Board.
Recognise this is a problem as inconsistency
GTI report raises lots of valid questions.