External Study prepared by Jean Pisani-Ferry, André Sapir, and Guntram B. Wolff: This report provides an independent evaluation of recent IMF surveillance in the euro area (EA). It focuses on the euro area as a whole and on four countries severely hit by the recent economic and financial crisis, namely Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

External study prepared by Stephen Pickford, former IMF/World Bank Executive Director for the United Kingdom and former Managing Director of International and Europe at H.M. Treasury and G-20 Finance Deputy, United Kingdom: Surveillance (both bilateral and multilateral) is a key instrument for the Fund’s crisis prevention role, analyzing economic developments and policies at national, regional and global levels. It also identifies risks and vulnerabilities, and forms the main basis for the Fund‘s discussions with policy-makers.

External study prepared by John Palmer, Chair, Toronto Leadership Centre, former Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada, former Deputy Managing Director Monetary Authority of Singapore, former Canadian Managing Partner of KPMG and Yoke Wang Tok, Former Senior Advisor to the IMF Executive Director representing ASEAN, Nepal, Fiji and Tonga and former Principal Economist, Monetary Authority of Singapore: This report aims to provide an independent view of how the Fund is discharging its multilateral surveillance responsibilities, in particular its contribution to global financial stability and crisis prevention, working in coordination with other relevant international groupings/institutions such as the FSB and BIS. As we emerge from the global financial crisis (GFC), the Fund has regained much of its credibility and relevance. The GFC caught many, including the IMF, by surprise. Since then, the Fund has done considerable self-analysis and taken active steps to strengthen its surveillance and policy advice and to improve traction with policy makers. The IEO report on the Fund’s performance in the run-up to the financial and economic crisis identified various shortcomings that needed to be addressed. One of its key findings was the inability of the Fund to connect-the dots, to deliver hard-hitting messages and the difficulty experienced by the Fund in thinking beyond mainstream/official views. Many of the IEO’s findings have relevance to this review.

This paper assesses progress in strengthening Fund surveillance and identifies needed improvements. It differs from past reviews insofar as it: (A) encompasses not only bilateral but also multilateral surveillance; and (B) steps-up external inputs in the form of studies by outside observers, commentaries, and assessment of recommendations by an external advisory group.

NULL

This paper evaluates the IMF’s exchange rate analysis since the 2008 TSR. It focuses on the evolution of methods, the quality of the IMF‘s multilateral and bilateral exchange rate analysis, the evenhandedness and transparency of this analysis, and the need to improve the coverage and integration of external stability assessments.

Commentary prepared by Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia University: Surveillance has widely been viewed as a key instrument by which the IMF ensures member states adhere to the kinds of policies which promote global economic stability and through which the global macroeconomic coordination necessary for economic stability is achieved. Indeed, as Ocampo (2011) notes, "...the first objective of this institution is to provide 'the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary problems.'" But there is also widespread agreement that there are major shortfalls in the achievement of these lofty objectives. Part of the problem has been in the view that countries—particularly those not borrowing from the fund—lack incentives to comply with the advice that would achieve such stability. Since those countries include virtually all of the systemically significant countries, if surveillance has an impact on global stability (as opposed to the well-being of particular countries) it is only the result of (i) a process of consensus building in which actions which they might previously have thought to not be in their interest were in fact in their national interest; or (ii) enough small countries, each of which is systemically insignificant, are affected in a meaningful enough way so as to have systemically significant effects.