Strengthening The Global Financial Safety Net

Since the global financial crisis, the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN), traditionally consisting mainly of countries' own foreign exchange reserves with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) acting as a backstop, has expanded significantly with the continued accumulation of reserves, the sharp increase of swap lines between central banks, and the further development and creation of new Regional Financing Arrangements (RFAs). RFAs have expanded, reaching an aggregate size comparable to that of the IMF and becoming an integral layer of the safety net. Enhancing the cooperation between the IMF and RFAs so that they play complementary roles in case of global distress, becomes critical in order to further strengthen the multi-layered GFSN, while paying attention to issues such as moral hazard, stigma or exit strategies in connection with IMF-RFA cooperation. This paper presents recent experience and lessons learned in IMF-RFA cooperation and proposes how to improve their future interaction.

Since the global financial crisis, the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN), traditionally consisting mainly of countries' own foreign exchange reserves with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) acting as a backstop, has expanded significantly with the continued accumulation of reserves, the sharp increase of swap lines between central banks, and the further development and creation of new Regional Financing Arrangements (RFAs). RFAs have expanded, reaching an aggregate size comparable to that of the IMF and becoming an integral layer of the safety net. Enhancing the cooperation between the IMF and RFAs so that they play complementary roles in case of global distress, becomes critical in order to further strengthen the multi-layered GFSN, while paying attention to issues such as moral hazard, stigma or exit strategies in connection with IMF-RFA cooperation. This paper presents recent experience and lessons learned in IMF-RFA cooperation and proposes how to improve their future interaction.

This report examines how financing arrangements have evolved in Asia to help safeguard the region from financial crises. The 19971998 Asian financial crisis and the 20072008 global financial crisis highlighted the need for global and regional financial safety nets to safeguard financial stability and enhance resilience to future crises. Over the past decade, Asian economies have made progress in establishing financing arrangements to strengthen the region's financial safety net. These arrangements have enhanced regional macroeconomic and financial surveillance, strengthened crisis management, and bolstered cooperation for financial stability and resilience. The report examines the evolution and the toolkits of regional financing arrangements and assesses the Asian Development Bank's role in providing crisis response mechanisms through its policy-based lending facilities.

protracted global uncertainty combined with frequent episodes of capital flow volatility have intensified demand for liquidity support. In response to calls from the IMFC and the G20, the Fund has identified gaps in the global financial safety net (GFSN) and the Fund’s lending toolkit for crisis prevention, including insufficient coverage against liquidity pressures resulting from volatile capital flows. The proposals in this paper draw on the previous Fund work on the adequacy of the GFSN, the review of the Fund’s current toolkit for crisis prevention, and extensive consultations with the membership. The review of the FCL concludes that the FCL has been effective in providing precautionary support against external tail risks. Successor FCL arrangements and associated access levels have been in line with the assessment of external risks and potential balance of payments needs. However, there is scope to strengthen the transparency and predictability of the qualification framework by adding indicator-based thresholds to complement and inform judgment. To enhance crisis resilience while improving the Fund’s toolkit coherence and resource use, the paper proposes three complementary reforms: The establishment of a Short-term Liquidity Swap to provide renewable and reliable liquidity support against potential short-term moderate volatility of capital flows. The proposed instrument is for members with very strong fundamentals and economic policies, and tailored to improve reliability and appeal to users. The use of a core set of indicators with thresholds to guide judgment in FCL qualification. This will improve predictability and transparency while keeping the standards unchanged. The elimination of the PLL to maintain a streamlined and coherent toolkit, given the low use of the PLL, likely reflecting issues of tiering with the FCL. The paper also discusses possible reforms of the current commitment fee policy to promote a more balanced use of Fund resources. Possible options include increasing the commitment fee at high access levels or introducing a new time-based commitment fee.

Access to Fund financial resources provides a financial safety net to help countries manage adverse shocks, acting as a potential supplement to foreign reserves when there is a balance of payments need. Such support is especially important to developing countries with limited capacity to borrow in domestic or foreign markets. This paper proposes a set of measures that would expand access to Fund resources for developing countries, as one of the initiatives the Fund is undertaking as part of the wider effort of the international community to support countries in pursuing the post- 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In response to the global crisis, the Fund overhauled its lending toolkit and boosted its resources, strengthening its ability to pre-empt financial crises. This paper—with the companion paper on Mapping Cross-Border Financial Linkages—takes another look at the recent global crisis in the context of a broader review of past systemic crises to (i) assess whether rising linkages across countries is a source of latent systemic instability and (ii) ascertain whether the global financial safety net (GFSN) is adequate to contain crisis and contagion risks arising from such systemic instability. This paper develops a new methodology to identify systemic crises and reviews associated policy responses from a global, rather than country-level, perspective

In response to the global crisis, the Fund overhauled its lending toolkit and boosted its resources, strengthening its ability to pre-empt financial crises. This paper-with the companion paper onaMapping Cross-Border Financial Linkages-takes another look at the recent global crisis in the context of a broader review of past systemic crises to (i) assess whether rising linkages across countries is a source of latent systemic instability and (ii) ascertain whether the global financial safety net (GFSN) is adequate to contain crisis and contagion risks arising from such systemic instability. This paper develops a new methodology to identify systemic crises and reviews associated policy responses from a global, rather than country-level, perspective.

Since the Global Financial Crisis, the Group of Twenty (G20) has not only become the premier forum for policy coordination among major economies but has also played an important role in promoting reforms to safeguard global financial stability. This paper focuses on the commitments the G20 has made to strengthen the Global Financial Safety Net since its first Leaders' Summit in Washington, D.C. in 2008. This paper first compares reform proposals that the G20 achieved and those it did not during the subsequent six years, or by the 2014 Summit in Australia. The paper finds that reforms aimed at enhancing financial resources and renewing instruments for emergency liquidity provision were substantially implemented. However, institutional reforms concerning the governing structure of International Financial Institutions were delayed. The paper then analyses, from a political economy perspective, why the G20 delivered on the first set of reforms, but not on the second. The urgency of responding to the crisis, the role of particular countries as well as institutional features of the G20 framework determine the political interests in this reform area.

liquidity in the face of increased vulnerabilities calls for enhancing the liquidity support provided through the global financial safety net (GFSN). The global economy is experiencing a period of protracted uncertainty, marked by frequent episodes of volatility. Demand for liquidity has intensified, in particular from emerging markets, which are experiencing a build-up of vulnerabilities and the depletion of their fiscal buffers. The enhanced GFSN meets only partially this higher demand for liquidity. The IMFC and G20 have called on the Fund to further strengthen the safety net. The uneven use of the Fund’s toolkit for crisis prevention suggests the need to reconsider its design. Despite a major overhaul of the Fund’s lending instruments available for precautionary financing, only a modest number of countries have used them. In particular, the lack of access to a liquidity backstop for members with strong policies—similar to the standing bilateral swap arrangements (BSAs) among central banks—limits the availability of Fund support over the whole duration of the shock during protracted periods of global uncertainty. Moreover, the need to resort to Fund financing still carries a high political cost (stigma) for some members. To enhance further the Fund’s toolkit for crisis prevention, consideration could be given to revisiting the existing toolkit and introducing new instruments. The toolkit could thus be enhanced by: establishing a new facility for precautionary financing that would provide a "standing" liquidity backstop to members with strong fundamentals and policies for use when hit by liquidity shocks; and adjusting the existing toolkit to maintain cohesion. Any change to the Fund toolkit would need to take into account the tradeoffs between reducing stigma and containing moral hazard, while simultaneously safeguarding Fund resources. A Fund policy monitoring instrument could improve the cohesion of the global safety net. As the GFSN has expanded and become more multi-layered, there is a need to improve cooperation across the different layers to unlock financing and signal commitment to reforms. Creating a policy monitoring instrument that is available to all Fund members could help in this regard. Next steps . In light of Directors’ views on these points, staff could come back with subsequent papers that lay out specific and detailed proposals for reforming the lending toolkit. While these papers focus on the GRA lending toolkit, a separate forthcoming paper will assess some aspects of the concessional lending toolkit.

The global financial safety net (GFSN) has become larger and more decentralized, creating a need for greater coordination. The expanded GFSN has created multiple sources of official financing for countries in need of support to address balance of payments shocks. Enhanced coordination among these layers would facilitate a more efficient use of global resources and provide better incentives for implementing sound policies. A new non-financing Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI) would address gaps in the GFSN and the Fund’s toolkit. The new Policy Coordination Instrument is designed for countries that are seeking to unlock financing from multiple sources and/or to demonstrate a commitment to a reform agenda. It would enable a closer policy dialogue between the Fund and countries, more regular monitoring of economic developments and policies, as well as Board endorsement of those policies. It would be available for all member countries. The key design features draw on Fund financing arrangements and the Policy Support Instrument (PSI), with some important differences. These include no qualification criteria, a review-based approach for monitoring of conditionality, and a more flexible review schedule. The PCI is part of a broader set of Fund policy proposals to improve coordination with RFAs, enhance liquidity provision for members, and ensure the cohesion of the Fund’s toolkit. The IMFC and the G20 called for further work to strengthen the GFSN and to improve cooperation between the Fund and regional financing arrangements (RFAs). In response, the Fund has produced a diagnostic of the GFSN and the Fund’s toolkit and identified important gaps. Introduction of the PCI, when considered together with the other proposals, will help to move towards a GFSN with improved coverage, more reliable support, and better coordination between the various layers.