Australia PM: Renewing The IMF
Kevin Rudd眼下这场金融危机暴露出国际货币基金组织(IMF)结构和运转方面的不足。IMF不仅没有预见到这场危机，而且事实还证明它的资源和治理结构难以应对这场危机。然而，任何危机中同时也都蕴藏着机遇。在今年4月举行的二十国集团(G20)领导人峰会上，IMF成员国有机会向着有意义持久的改革努力，确保IMF永远不会再被弄个措手不及。澳大利亚将联合主持二十国集团IMF改革工作小组。澳大利亚认为，为有效地应对这场危机，IMF成员国需要迅速采取行动，改革治理，增加资源渠道，利用IMF放贷工具和其他途径应对目前的形势。其中一些改革已经被证明难度很大，过去也是一拖再拖。不过，满足于零敲碎打的改变将犯历史错误，因为这会维持保守的治理结构，或是令IMF在下次危机面前毫无准备。短期内，我们需要确定务实的能相对较快实施的变革，还需要在可靠的能推进长期改革的进程方面达成一致。首先，成员国可以通过大幅增加IMF的资源，提高人们对它的信心。这样的举措会清晰地表明，在眼下全球经济环境高度不确定的情况下，IMF已经做好充分准备，满足成员国的额外融资请求。由于IMF迫切需要资本，额外的资源将必须来自成员国中的债权国提供的贷款。这类注资可能会以双边协定的方式加以构建，就像最近与日本达成的协议一样。或者，IMF还可能扩大与发达经济体成员国之间的现有信贷额度，也就是所谓的新借款协定(New Arrangements to Borrow)。这种方法会给重要的新兴市场经济体一个贡献力量的机会。其次，有必要调整成员国的份额，进而提高IMF的正统地位。特别值得一提的是，需要加大力度，增加发展迅猛的新兴市场经济体在IMF决策中的份额，使其与它们经济实力的增长相匹配。我们承认，这项改革需要时间。不过，我们迫切需要加快有关份额的综合审议过程，在两年而非五年内完成下一次审议，并承诺大幅提高最重要新兴国家的份额，特别是中国。如果不能做到这点，就是在向新兴市场和发展中国家发出负面信息，损害IMF的正统地位。IMF可能采取的第三个重要积极措施是，向较晚加入的成员分配额外的特别提款权(Special Drawing Rights)。特别提款权是IMF向其成员国发放的一种官方国际储备资产，这些国家可以用特别提款权交换可自由兑换的货币。现在的体系有失公正。1981年后加入IMF的国家从未获得过特别提款权。1997年，IMF理事会同意向这些国家发放特别提款权，不过却从未兑现这个承诺。推进特别提款权的分配会向很多受到危机影响的国家提供它们急需的外汇储备。重要的是，这会提振人们对IMF的信心，表明国际社会切实致力于解决危机。第四，IMF的做法需要与当前危机的本质和范围相适应。IMF已经建立了一项短期流动性工具，这是积极的一步，不过资金的规模尚需相当程度的扩大。IMF必须能够向所有有实力管理完善的国家提供预防性的流动性工具，以备不时之需。此外，IMF还需要支持各国政府复苏其金融体系的努力。IMF总裁多米尼克•斯特劳斯-卡恩(Dominique Strauss-Kahn)上个月敦促各国政府帮助重组银行。他说，只要银行继续堆积新的债务，经济复苏就不会实现。IMF应该考虑支持通过专业知识和融资创建由国家“坏银行”组成的网络，接手不良资产。第五，IMF需要在今后发挥更大的作用，帮助确保这类危机永远不再发生。IMF应该在审慎分析上获得更大的权力，它还应该对脆弱性提出预警，并提供有关补救政策的建议，以降低全球风险，提高系统的稳定性。所有这些方面总的挑战是，确保国际社会在短期实际行动和有意义的IMF长期改革上达成一致。我们需要确定现在可以实现的能向世界表明我们正在进行改革的那些变化。在4月份的伦敦二十国集团会议上，关注力所能及的目标，同时保持必要的抱负是很重要的。今年，所有成员国的目标必须是帮助给予IMF所需要的支持，在眼下的危机中提供帮助，并调整未来的权力。（编者按：本文作者陆克文(Kevin Rudd)为澳大利亚现任总理。）
Kevin RuddThe current financial crisis has exposed inadequacies in the International Monetary Fund's structure and operations. The Fund not only failed to foresee this crisis, but its resources and governance structure have proved inadequate to deal with it. Yet in every crisis lies opportunity. At the Group of 20 Leaders Summit in April, IMF member states have the chance to work toward meaningful, lasting reform to ensure the IMF is never again caught flat-footed.Australia is co-chairing the G-20 working group on IMF reform. Australia believes that to respond effectively to this crisis, IMF member states will need to act quickly to reform the Fund's governance, increase its resourcing and adapt its lending instruments and other procedures to respond to the current situation. Some of these reforms have proved difficult and protracted in the past. But it would be a historic error to settle for piecemeal changes that preserve backward-looking governance structures or leave the IMF unprepared for the next crisis.In the short term, we need to identify practical, pragmatic changes that can be implemented relatively quickly and we need to agree on credible processes for progressing longer-term reforms.First, member states can boost confidence in the Fund by substantially increasing its resources. Such a move would make clear that the Fund is well placed to meet additional requests for financing from members in this highly uncertain global economic environment. Since the Fund needs capital urgently, additional resources will have to come from IMF borrowing from creditor members. This injection could be structured by way of bilateral arrangements such as the one recently announced with Japan. Alternatively, the Fund could also expand an existing line of credit -- called the New Arrangements to Borrow -- that it already has with advanced-economy members. This option would give significant emerging-market economies an opportunity to contribute.Second, there is a need to improve the legitimacy of the IMF by realigning the distribution of membership shares, called quotas. In particular, more needs to be done to boost the share of dynamic emerging-market economies in IMF decision-making, in line with their growing economic weight. We recognize that this reform will take time. However, there is a pressing case to accelerate the next general review of quotas within two rather than five years, and commit to a significant increase for the most significant emerging countries -- especially China. Anything less would send a negative signal to emerging markets and developing countries and undermine the Fund's legitimacy.A third, major positive step that the IMF membership could take is to allocate additional Special Drawing Rights to its newer members. SDRs are an official international reserve asset issued by the IMF to its members, which can exchange them for freely useable currency. The system, as it stands now, is inequitable. Countries that joined the IMF after 1981 have never received an SDR allocation. In 1997 the board of governors agreed to allocate SDRs to these countries, but that decision was never implemented. Proceeding with such an allocation would provide much-needed foreign exchange reserves to many countries seriously affected by the current crisis. Importantly, it would bolster confidence in the Fund and provide a tangible commitment by the international community to resolving the crisis.Fourth, the IMF needs to adapt its practices to the nature and scale of the current crisis. It has already taken a positive step by establishing a short-term liquidity facility, but this capital pool needs to be significantly increased in size. The Fund must be able to offer all strong and well-managed countries a precautionary liquidity facility that they can take on a standby basis. In addition, the IMF needs to support governments' efforts to revive their financial systems. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn urged governments last month to help restructure banks, noting that 'there will be no economic recovery as long as banks pile up new debt.' The IMF should consider supporting -- through expertise and financing -- the creation of a network of national 'bad banks' to take on toxic assets.Fifth, the IMF needs to take a stronger role in the future to help ensure that this type of crisis never happens again. The IMF should be given a strengthened mandate for prudential analysis and should provide early warning of vulnerabilities and advice on remedial policies to reduce global risk and increase system stability.The overall challenge in all these areas is to secure international agreement on practical action in the short term and meaningful IMF reform for the long term. We need to identify changes that can be made now, and that will signal to the world that reform is underway. At the G-20 meeting in London in April, it will be important to focus on what is achievable while maintaining the required level of ambition. This year, the goal of all member states must be to help give the IMF the support it needs to provide assistance during this crisis and renew its mandate for the future.(Editor's Note: Mr. Rudd is prime minister of Australia.)
Kevin RuddThe current financial crisis has exposed inadequacies in the International Monetary Fund's structure and operations. The Fund not only failed to foresee this crisis, but its resources and governance structure have proved inadequate to deal with it. Yet in every crisis lies opportunity. At the Group of 20 Leaders Summit in April, IMF member states have the chance to work toward meaningful, lasting reform to ensure the IMF is never again caught flat-footed.Australia is co-chairing the G-20 working group on IMF reform. Australia believes that to respond effectively to this crisis, IMF member states will need to act quickly to reform the Fund's governance, increase its resourcing and adapt its lending instruments and other procedures to respond to the current situation. Some of these reforms have proved difficult and protracted in the past. But it would be a historic error to settle for piecemeal changes that preserve backward-looking governance structures or leave the IMF unprepared for the next crisis.In the short term, we need to identify practical, pragmatic changes that can be implemented relatively quickly and we need to agree on credible processes for progressing longer-term reforms.First, member states can boost confidence in the Fund by substantially increasing its resources. Such a move would make clear that the Fund is well placed to meet additional requests for financing from members in this highly uncertain global economic environment. Since the Fund needs capital urgently, additional resources will have to come from IMF borrowing from creditor members. This injection could be structured by way of bilateral arrangements such as the one recently announced with Japan. Alternatively, the Fund could also expand an existing line of credit -- called the New Arrangements to Borrow -- that it already has with advanced-economy members. This option would give significant emerging-market economies an opportunity to contribute.Second, there is a need to improve the legitimacy of the IMF by realigning the distribution of membership shares, called quotas. In particular, more needs to be done to boost the share of dynamic emerging-market economies in IMF decision-making, in line with their growing economic weight. We recognize that this reform will take time. However, there is a pressing case to accelerate the next general review of quotas within two rather than five years, and commit to a significant increase for the most significant emerging countries -- especially China. Anything less would send a negative signal to emerging markets and developing countries and undermine the Fund's legitimacy.A third, major positive step that the IMF membership could take is to allocate additional Special Drawing Rights to its newer members. SDRs are an official international reserve asset issued by the IMF to its members, which can exchange them for freely useable currency. The system, as it stands now, is inequitable. Countries that joined the IMF after 1981 have never received an SDR allocation. In 1997 the board of governors agreed to allocate SDRs to these countries, but that decision was never implemented. Proceeding with such an allocation would provide much-needed foreign exchange reserves to many countries seriously affected by the current crisis. Importantly, it would bolster confidence in the Fund and provide a tangible commitment by the international community to resolving the crisis.Fourth, the IMF needs to adapt its practices to the nature and scale of the current crisis. It has already taken a positive step by establishing a short-term liquidity facility, but this capital pool needs to be significantly increased in size. The Fund must be able to offer all strong and well-managed countries a precautionary liquidity facility that they can take on a standby basis. In addition, the IMF needs to support governments' efforts to revive their financial systems. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn urged governments last month to help restructure banks, noting that 'there will be no economic recovery as long as banks pile up new debt.' The IMF should consider supporting -- through expertise and financing -- the creation of a network of national 'bad banks' to take on toxic assets.Fifth, the IMF needs to take a stronger role in the future to help ensure that this type of crisis never happens again. The IMF should be given a strengthened mandate for prudential analysis and should provide early warning of vulnerabilities and advice on remedial policies to reduce global risk and increase system stability.The overall challenge in all these areas is to secure international agreement on practical action in the short term and meaningful IMF reform for the long term. We need to identify changes that can be made now, and that will signal to the world that reform is underway. At the G-20 meeting in London in April, it will be important to focus on what is achievable while maintaining the required level of ambition. This year, the goal of all member states must be to help give the IMF the support it needs to provide assistance during this crisis and renew its mandate for the future.(Editor's Note: Mr. Rudd is prime minister of Australia.)