This paper outlines strategic priorities for the IMF’s financial surveillance in the coming years. It complements recent discussions on the work agenda in this area. It takes stock of innovations and gaps in financial surveillance by the Fund during the past decade, including in the wake of the current global financial crisis. It proposes concrete and prioritized steps to further strengthen financial surveillance so that the Fund can fulfill its mandate to ensure the effective operation of the international monetary system and support global economic and financial stability.

The Fund has the responsibility to ensure the effective operation of the international monetary system, thereby promoting economic and financial stability and growth. The recent crisis was a reminder that these goals are best served by Fund surveillance that seeks to ensure that members’ financial systems are properly regulated and supervised, and maintain the right balance between dynamism and stability.

In the wake of the recent global crisis the international community is giving an increased focus on stability of the financial system, so-called financial stability analysis. With the increasing need for data sets to undertake this analysis, the question naturally arises as to what types of data are needed? While various data initiatives are underway, two initiatives at the forefront are: (1) the IMF/FSB G-20 Data Gaps Initiative (DGI) created by the international statistical community and endorsed by the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors as well as the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee, and (2) the new Special Data Dissemination Standard Plus (SDDS Plus), aimed particularly at economies with systemically important financial sectors. This paper explains the relevance of the DGI for financial stability analysis and the close link with the SDDS Plus. The importance of the SDDS Plus in promoting the dissemination to the public of a core set of data for financial stability analysis is emphasized.

This note argues that the IMF is filling a critical gap by integrating gender issues into it work. It makes the case that (i) closing gender gaps is critical for economies because they lead to underdevelopment, underutilization, and misallocation of productive human resources; and (ii) applying a gender lens to macroeconomic, financial, and structural policy design can narrow gender gaps and result in improved economic outcomes. This Note complements this argument by providing an overview of gender gaps in opportunities, outcomes, and representation; taking stock of how these gaps impact macroeconomic and financial outcomes; and identifying which polices can narrow gender gaps. It explains how narrowing gender gaps can benefit societies and outline steps countries can take to unleash the economic gains from gender equality.

The actions in this Management Implementation Plan aim at: • Strengthening financial and macrofinancial analysis in Article IV consultations • Refocusing FSAP country selection and scope • Increasing traction of multilateral surveillance • Enhancing the IMF’s macrofinancial analysis toolkit • Building financial skills and expertise at the Fund

This report seeks to help the IMF enhance its effectiveness by identifying major recurring issues from the IEO’s first 20 evaluations and assessing where they stand. The IMF’s core areas of responsibility are surveillance, lending, and capacity development. The aim of this report is to strengthen the follow-up process by focusing on key issues that recurred in IEO evaluations, rather than on specific recommendations on their implementation. The IEO believes that a framework of reviewing and monitoring recurring issues would be useful in establishing incentives for progress, strengthening the Board’s oversight, and providing learning opportunities for the IMF.

The past year was one of growing economic anxiety tied to skepticism about both economic integration and an international approach to economic policy making. To help make globalization work for all, the IMF focused on providing policy advice in many macro-critical areas.

Monetary sovereignty is a crucial legal concept dictating that states have sovereignty over their own monetary, financial, and fiscal affairs. However, it does not feature as part of any key instruments of international law, including the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. Rather, it has remained a somewhat separate notion, developed under contemporary international law from an assertion of the former Permanent Court of International Justice in 1929. As a consequence of globalization and increasing financial integration and a worldwide trend towards the creation of economic and monetary unions, the principle of monetary sovereignty has undergone significant change. This book examines this evolution in detail, and provides a conceptual framework to demonstrate what this means for the legal and economic challenges faced by the international community. The book examines the historic origins and evolution of the concept of monetary sovereignty, putting it into the context of broader concepts of sovereignty. It argues that monetary sovereignty remains relevant as a dynamic legal concept with both positive and normative components. It investigates the continuing hybridization of international monetary law resulting from changes to its formal and material sources. It then examines the complex phenomenon of exchange rate misalignment under international monetary and trade law, and the increasing regionalization of monetary sovereignty, notably in light of the European sovereign debt crisis. Finally, it assesses the role the concept of monetary sovereignty can play in the reorganization of international finance following the recent global financial crisis.

The Seventh PMR includes: (i) a discussion of progress made over the last year on the actions corresponding to four Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) that were classified as still “in progress” in the previous PMR; and (ii) an assessment of the progress made in achieving the high-level objectives in three areas directly related to those MIPs. In addition, an update on substantive issues related to five older MIPs agreed since 2007 is provided at the end of the report. Three new evaluations have been completed by the IEO since March 2014. In July and August 2015, Management issued the MIPs in response to these evaluations. Given that only a short time has passed since their completion, progress in addressing the actions contemplated in those MIPs will be discussed in the next PMR.

In response to the Global Financial Crisis, the IMF launched many initiatives to strengthen financial surveillance and better advise member countries of vulnerabilities and risks. While these initiatives have not yet been tested by a major crisis, the efforts have delivered a substantial upgrade of the Fund’s financial surveillance, including giving the IMF clearer responsibilities over financial sector stability and cross-country spillovers; making periodic financial stability assessments mandatory for jurisdictions with systemically important financial sectors; invigorating efforts to integrate financial and macroeconomic analysis in bilateral and multilateral surveillance; enhancing cooperation with the Financial Stability Board and standard setting bodies to promote reforms and monitor agreed standards; and taking steps to recruit and train greater financial expertise. While recognizing these achievements, this evaluation finds that the quality and impact of the IMF’s financial surveillance has been uneven. The expansion of products and activities has presented the Fund with difficult trade-offs between bilateral and multilateral surveillance; between countries with systemically important financial sectors and other member countries; and between financial surveillance and other activities. Moreover, resource constraints have slowed the needed build-up of financial and macrofinancial expertise. These are critical issues, given the IMF’s position as the only international financial institution with the mandate and ability to conduct financial and macrofinancial surveillance over the full range of countries as well as the global economy, and given that these issues are at the core of the IMF’s responsibilities. Thus, to further strengthen financial surveillance, the evaluation recommends devoting greater resources to financial surveillance overall; further strengthening financial and macrofinancial analysis in Article IV surveillance; refining resource allocation for FSAPs; enhancing rigor and transparency in multilateral surveillance; intensifying efforts to be a global center of excellence on financial and macrofinancial research; and extending efforts to develop financial expertise among IMF staff.