This paper assesses progress made in deepening and integrating systemic risk analysis and macroprudential policy advice in Article IV consultations following up on the findings of the IEO evaluation. The assessment informs the Comprehensive Surveillance Review and the FSAP Review in their recommendations to strengthen these areas in Article IV consultations. The findings point to notable improvements made since the launch of the macrofinancial mainstreaming initiative, particularly in staff reports for advanced economies and in covering bank and credit-related risks.

Fund surveillance needs to evolve to face the economic and financial challenges that will shape the global landscape for years to come. This paper first takes stock of the current economic and financial landscape. To better serve the membership in this context, Fund surveillance should be prioritized around four key priorities: (i) confronting risks and uncertainties: policymakers will need to actively manage the risks of a highly uncertain outlook; (ii) preempting and mitigating adverse spillovers: shifting patterns of global economic integration will bring about new channels for contagion and policy spillovers; (iii) fostering economic sustainability: a broader understanding of sustainability to better account for the impact of economic and non-economic developments on stability; and (iv) unified policy advice: better accounting for the trade-offs and synergies among different policy combinations in the face of limited policy space and overlapping priorities, tailored to country-specific circumstances. These priorities should further enhance the traction of Fund surveillance.

Modern Fund surveillance needs to be more targeted, topical and timely, better interconnected and better informed. Modernizing surveillance will likely require additional resources, although estimates are highly uncertain at this stage. The paper offers a tentative costing of new proposals with significant budgetary implications. Other proposals could rely on optimizing processes, while others are underway and funded separately; the resource implications of yet others are being picked up in context of other workstreams. Estimates do not include short-term transition costs or pressures on support services and are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. A flexible approach to implementing the new modalities, characterized by experimentation and learning-by- doing—a “sandbox” for new modalities—is proposed.

A key criterion for judging the success of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) is the extent to which the program has enhanced the IMF’s engagement with policymakers and influenced country policies. This reflects the fact that achieving one of the program’s key objectives—reducing the frequency and severity of financial crises—rests on its ability to encourage policy action by country authorities, either directly or through other bilateral and multilateral activities. The “traction” of FSAPs thus reflects the degree to which the program is seen as useful by the authorities and the effect it has in shaping the domestic policy agenda. And the impact that the FSAP may have on wider domestic and international audiences.

The global financial crisis (GFC) underscored the need for additional policy tools to safeguard financial stability and ultimately macroeconomic stability. Systemic financial vulnerabilities had developed under a seemingly tranquil macroeconomic surface of low inflation and small output gaps. This challenged the precrisis view that achieving these traditional policy targets was a sufficient condition for macroeconomic stability. Thus, new tools had to be deployed to target specific financial vulnerabilities and to build buffers to cushion adverse aggregate shocks, while allowing traditional policy levers, including monetary and microprudential policies to focus on their traditional roles. Macroprudential policy measures emerged as the solution to this gap. Some of these measures had been used before the GFC (mostly in emerging markets). But it was only after the crisis that they were more widely adopted, and the toolkit expanded. This spurred a growing body of empirical research on the effects and potential shortfalls of these measures, with a further deepening of this knowledge gaining importance as policymakers confront increased financial stability risks in the post-pandemic world. Recognizing that there still is much to learn, this paper takes stock of our expanding understanding about the effects (and side effects) of macroprudential measures by focusing on these questions: What have we learned about the effects of macroprudential policy in containing the buildup of vulnerabilities? What do we know about the effects on economic activity and resilience? How do policy effects vary with conditions and over time? How important are leakages and circumvention? How do the effects on credit depend on other policies?

The Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows, adopted in 2012, provides the basis for consistent advice, and where relevant, assessments on policies related to capital flows. This paper reviews the IV, informed by advances in research, notably the work on an Integrated Policy Framework (IPF), the findings of the 2020 evaluation by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) on IMF Advice on Capital Flows, and staff’s experience with the implementation of the IV. The core premises and objectives of the IV remain unchanged. The IV rests on the premises that capital flows are desirable as they can bring substantial benefits for countries, and that capital flow management measures (CFMs) can be useful in certain circumstances but should not substitute for warranted macroeconomic adjustment. With those premises in mind, the IV aims to help countries reap the benefits of capital flows, while managing the associated risks in a way that preserves macroeconomic and financial stability and does not generate significant negative outward spillovers.

Developing a systemic liquidity stress testing tool is challenging due to data constraints and hard-to-model behavioral factors. There has yet to be a uniformly accepted model partly because the nature of systemic liquidity risks differs significantly across countries. This paper offers a simple Excel-based tool to assess the high-level impact of aggregate liquidity stress on the whole economy and gauge its spillover across banks, non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), and non-financial economic sectors. It primarily uses the balance sheet approach (BSA) data—a sector-aggregate matrix of financial exposure by counterpart—that have become increasingly available for various economies with all income levels. The results can identify systemically important financial linkages to be analyzed further and help calibrate macroprudential measures and a liquidity support framework. When liquidity stress stems from capital outflows, the tool can enrich policy discussion based on integrated policy framework (IPF) and international reserve adequacy perspectives.