WorldBank-IMFWatch2013

Eurodad member Debt and Development Coalition (DDCI) says Ireland’s experience should inform Government policy on reform of IMF, World Bank on the recenly released WorldBank-IMFWatch2013.

Debt and Development Coalition say that Ireland has a responsibility to ensure that International Financial Institutions (IFIs) put the wellbeing of people, rather than the interests of big finance, at the heart of policymaking.
The organisation is calling on the Irish Government to publish and monitor its own policy objectives as a member of the IFIs; to advocate for debt audits and debt cancellation; to legislate for curbs on vulture funds; to press for suspension of the World Bank’s Doing Business Rankings until problems of labour and tax policy analysis have been addressed; to press for suspension of World Bank International Finance Corporation investment in damaging projects; and to advocate for the IMF to promote fair and progressive taxation policies in place of regressive ‘quick-win’ policies such as VAT increases.

DDCI states in conclusion that now is the time for IFIs to put social wellbeing rather than financial interests at heart of policymaking.

Read full report here

IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings: arguments and inaction

IMF recognition that it has dramatically underestimated the impacts of austerity policies strengthened calls for reform of IMF conditionality, and the World Bank’s jobs report undermined its own Doing Business rankings, but the IMF/World Bank annual meetings ended this weekend with little concrete agreed. Meanwhile, the meetings witnessed a reinvigorated campaign by civil society organisations, supported by some governments, and echoed by the United Nations, to develop fair and transparent debt workout mechanisms.

IMF austerity mistakes add to calls for conditionality reform

Media coverage at the recently concluded World Bank and IMF annual meetings in Tokyo focused on a spat between Germany and the IMF, when the IMF issued a mea culpa recognition that it – and governments around the world – have been dramatically underestimating the negative effects of austerity policies.  The IMF’s World Economic Outlook estimated that forecasts for the multiplier effects of austerity cuts and stimulus packages have been dramatically too low – meaning austerity has hurt growth far more than expected.  Here is the report’s summary (from page 41):

“The main finding, based on data for 28 economies, is that the multipliers used in generating growth forecasts have been systematically too low since the start of the Great Recession, by 0.4 to 1.2, depending on the forecast source and the specifics of the estimation approach. Informal evidence suggests that the multipliers implicitly used to generate these forecasts are about 0.5. So actual multipliers may be higher, in the range of 0.9 to 1.7.”

This is an extraordinary admission by the IMF and will add to growing calls for the Fund to radically alter the conditionalities it attaches to its loans, which consistently promote austerity.

However, the official communiqués contained no mention of this, nor did they highlight the recently concluded review of IMF conditionality.  The review, while containing a few useful recommendations was limited in scope and did not examine IMF loans to Europe – the vast majority of IMF lending, leading analysts to question its relevance.  The higher level of conditionality attached to European loans creates real concern that the slow but important trend towards less conditionality at the IMF may be reversed.  The region that is likely to be in the forefront of battles to remove damaging IMF conditionality is the Middle East and North Africa, with Egypt close to agreeing a $4.8 billion IMF loan. With the IMF also announcing that it would use its windfall profits from selling its gold to boost lending to low-income countries, we can expect conditionality to be a major issue across the world as the IMF continues to expand its lending.

Going out of Doing Business?

The release of the World Bank’s 2013 World Development Report on jobs, has strengthened campaigns against the World Bank’s controversial Doing Business rankings.

As trade unions pointed out, the WDR’s review of the literature debunks the idea, propagated by the rankings, that deregulating labour markets to make it easier to fire workers is always a good idea. Though the Bank suspended the Doing Business indicator on employing workers in 2008, unions point out that “it continues to collect the raw data for calculating the indicator and the Doing Business team has not hidden its desire to reincorporate it.” The World Bank is currently reviewing Doing Business, and this will add force to the campaign by many civil society organisations, supported by Eurodad, to discontinue the rankings.

Calls for fair debt workout mechanisms

While the official meetings dawdled to their limited conclusions, there was a reinvigorated push by civil society organisations and the United Nations to put the need for fair and transparent debt workout mechanisms back on the political agenda.  An international coalition of civil society organisations, including Eurodad, issued a statement calling for “a lasting solution to the sovereign debt crisis and the establishment of a fair and independent international debt workout mechanism” and made concrete proposals.  A high level panel in Tokyo saw Ministers from Norway and Argentina echo these calls, and the United Nations (UNDESA) weighed in with its own high level panel on timely debt resolution. This renewed push to stop the chaotic, lengthy, unfair and damaging way debts – of both developed and developing countries – are currently dealt with builds on the recent announcement by the Norwegian government that it will be auditing all its debts to see which are illegitimate.

Other issues: capital controls and private finance ‘innovation’

Meanwhile, the IMFC communiqué notes that “the potential impact from large and volatile cross-border capital flows should be closely monitored” but says nothing about the IMF’s upcoming ‘institutional view’ on capital controls. Critics fear that the Fund’s slow acceptance of the need for governments to regulate finance flowing in and out of their countries will continue to emphasise problems rather than potential for these techniques to benefit stability and development.  Nor does the communiqué mention the continued scandal of huge illicit financial flows that aid tax evasion on a massive scale, an issue Eurodad has campaigned on for a long time.

Finally, while the development committee communiqué says that “the private sector generates most jobs, but the public sector also has an important role to play” it goes on to emphasise importance of “innovative initiatives” by the World Bank’s private sector arms. Eurodad research has highlighted significant problems with the Bank’s approach, finding, for example that the Bank’s private sector lending has focused on supporting firms from rich countries and is often routed through tax havens

 

Campaigners in Toyko call for end of harmful tax policies

Tokyo, Japan, October 12, 2012

As the IMF and World Bank pursue implementation of tax policies in developing countries, members of Civil Society worry that these powerful institutions are putting the interests of international investors above those of the democratic governments of developing countries.

Of particular concern is the World Bank’s influential “Doing Business” ranking which many development experts find particularly damaging.

“The rankings are based upon criteria that might boost the bottom line of foreign investors but often damage national fiscal policies and hamper efforts to increase domestic resources through taxation”, said Øygunn Sundsbø Brynildsen, Senior Policy Analyst at the European Network on Debt and Development (EURODAD).

“The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ ranking pushes countries to lower taxes on corporations, reduce funds for vital public investment in health and education and often forces them to seek revenue elsewhere. It has caused more harm than good and we hope the Bank’s ongoing review of the rankings will result in their discontinuation” Brynildsen added.

Although generally encouraged by the IMF’s growing recognition of the equity effects of tax policies, campaigners in Tokyo expressed dissatisfaction that Value Added Tax (VAT) continues to be seen as a main source of tax revenues. “We are surprised that both the World Bank and the IMF continue to push VAT despite its clearly regressive nature,” said Pooja Rangaprasad of India’s Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability. “Ultimately, it is impossible to dispute the fact that VAT is a heavy tax burden on the poor.

A further issue of concern to tax campaigners is the continued practice by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) of channeling its investments through secrecy jurisdictions. “Tax havens are being used to rob developing countries of much needed tax revenue by facilitating tax dodging. Development finance institutions like the IFC should be the first to discontinue the practice”, said Brynildsen.

Tax revenue for developing countries is a crucial source of independently generated income and as such campaigners feel its importance cannot be exaggerated. Given their influential role in forming national and international fiscal policies, campaigners believe it would be very counterproductive to its development mandate if the World Bank and IMF were unable to stop pushing tax policies that hinder efforts by developing countries to increase local economies and establish greater financial independence.

Contact:
Pooja Rangaprasad, (currently in Tokyo, Japan)
Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), India, member of the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development
rpooja@cbgaindia.org +81 807 008 1838

Øygunn Sundsbø Brynildsen, (currently in Tokyo, Japan)
European Network on Debt and Development (EURODAD), member of the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development
obrynildsen@eurodad.org +32 486 903 491

Dietlind Lerner (United States)
Communications Director, Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development
dlerner@financialtaskforce.org +1 202 577 3455

Smart spending to support sustainable development: time for a positive G20 agenda on procurement

Eurodad in conjunction with Latindadd have produced a briefing on G20 agenda on procurement.

Mexico has set out five priorities for this year’s G20 summit. They pick up existing themes of past summits, including food security, strengthening financial systems and improving the economic architecture, but add an additional cross-cutting priority:

“Mexico is convinced that the aforementioned priorities have to be enclosed by a renewed political commitment to sustainable development and green growth.”

This emphasis is no surprise, as June’s G20 will directly precede the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio De Janeiro. One key way both summits can help developing countries to create poverty-reducing sustainable economic development is through supporting improved public spending, both by developing countries themselves, and by donors. In particular, the way governments and donors procure goods and services from the private sector can help drive development.

Read the full briefing: Smart spending to support sustainable development: time for a positive G20 agenda on procurement.

For the Spanish version, please click here: Gasto inteligente para apoyar el desarrollo sustentable: es el momento de una agenda positiva del G20 sobre contratación

PRESS RELEASE: Profiting at the expense of the poor? New report takes a long hard look at how donor governments and international institutions are using private companies to deliver on global anti-poverty pledges

BRUSSELS, 29 May 2012: A new Eurodad report reveals how donor governments and international institutions are increasingly seeing investing public money in private companies as a panacea for combatting global poverty, despite weak evidence of effectiveness.

Eurodad’s report shows that this is far from being a silver bullet.  “Private investment where it’s needed and appropriate can be valuable,” said Eurodad private finance analyst and report author Jeroen Kwakkenbos, “but there is little evidence that donors and international institutions have a clear plan. Too much public money ends up supporting rich country firms. Too little goes to nurture the domestic private sector in the world’s poorest countries.”

After examining almost $30 billion of private sector investments in the world’s poorest countries by European governments, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank, the report shows that:

  • Almost half of the investments went to firms from rich countries
  • Some of the biggest investments went to firms based in tax havens
  • 50% of all investments went to the finance sector, despite serious concerns about lack of transparency and accountability

“The majority of the World Bank’s investments go to firms from rich countries,” Kwakkenbos notes. “This is not the way to target limited public resources or help the poorest countries.”

In spite of this, international public finance to private companies investing in developing countries is expected to exceed €100 billion by 2015. While Eurodad’s report acknowledges that supporting private-sector investments can have a useful, if limited, multiplier effect on public funds, it casts serious doubts on claims made about their leveraging potential and reveals that it is often impossible to know where this public money ends up. The report also highlights that much investment is just following rather than leading the market – and potentially locking out investment from private firms.

 

ENDS

The report, “Private profit for public good? Can investing in private companies deliver for the poor?”, is available at: http://eurodad.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Private-Profit-for-Public-Good.pdf

For further details or comment, contact:

  •  Jeroen Kwakkenbos, Eurodad policy and advocacy officer, on jkwakkenbos@eurodad.org or Tel: +32 (0) 02 894 46 48
  •  Jesse Griffiths, Eurodad director, on jgriffiths@eurodad.org or Mobile: +32 (0) 491 429 697

Eurodad (the European Network on Debt and Development) unites 50 non-governmental organizations from 19 European nations working on issues related to debt development finance and poverty reductio.

PRESS RELEASE: Cashing in on climate change? New report lifts the lid on how rich nations use financial intermediaries to dodge climate change commitments to world’s poor

BRUSSELS, 19 April, 2012: A new Eurodad report reveals how rich nations are using a complex web of private funds and financial intermediaries to wiggle out of pledges to provide $100 billion a year to help developing countries cope with the devastating effects of climate change.

Overreliance on the private sector could spell disaster for the world’s poorest,” said Javier Pereira, who authored the report for Eurodad, the European Network on Debt and Development. “Leveraging money through financial intermediaries cannot be used as a substitute for providing sufficient public resources directly to countries who, through no fault of their own, are suffering most from global warming,” he added.

A commitment by the world’s richest nations, and biggest polluters, to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 was one of the few concrete achievements of the Copenhagen Climate Change summit in December 2009. Governments, however, have failed to meet their interim commitments and are now looking to use much smaller amounts of their own money in order to leverage private funding to make up the bulk of the $100billion.

The idea is that development banks and financial institutions, such as the European Investment Bank and the International Finance Corporation, use public money to invest in financial intermediaries working in developing countries to attract private investors. By investing in an African bank, for instance, they believe they can trigger flows up to ten times higher than the initial investment.

While Eurodad’s report acknowledges that supporting private-sector investments can have a useful, if limited, multiplier effect on public funds, it casts serious doubts on claims made about their leveraging potential and reveals that it is often impossible to know where the public money ends up.

These tools only work with very large and mostly Northern companies and the investments are unlikely help those who are most in need,” Pereira added. “The average size of the loans provided by the IFC is above € 15 million and it’s just not possible to pretend that investments of this size will help smallholders in developing countries cope with climate change.”

Eurodad says that international development institutions should make sure financial intermediaries are more transparent and accountable; their investments have to be properly integrated into the national strategies of developing countries; and they must be used effectively to help those most at risk adapt to climate change, notably through support for small, local businesses, rather than Northern-based multinationals.

We are not suggesting developed countries and international organisations should stop using financial intermediaries altogether, but given the evidence this should only be a small part of the solution,” said Eurodad’s Director Jesse Griffiths.

ENDS

The report, “Cashing in on climate change? Assessing whether private funds can be leveraged to help the poorest countries respond to climate challenges” is available at: http://eurodad.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CF-report_final_web.pdf

For further details or comment, contact:

Javier Pereira, Eurodad policy and advocacy officer, on jpereira@eurodad.org or Tel: + 32 2 894 46 47; Mobile: +32 488 570 654; or

Jesse Griffiths, Eurodad director, on jgriffiths@eurodad.org or Mobile: +32 491 429 697 (in Washington DC).

Eurodad (the European Network on Debt and Development) unites 49 non-governmental organizations from 19 European nations working on issues related to debt development finance and poverty reduction.

Cashing in on climate change? Assessing whether private funds can be leveraged to help the poorest countries respond to climate challenges

The effects of climate change on developing countries have created a huge financial burden. Policymakers aim to limit global warming to a rise of 2°C in this century. In this scenario, the cost of adapting to and mitigating the impact of climate change would be in the range of USD 110-275 billion (€79-198 billion) per year for developing countries. Given their historical responsibility, accumulated climate debt and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, developed countries will have to shoulder most of the cost.

Rich countries have pledged to make available USD 100 billion (€72 billion) per year by 2020, most of which will presumably be channelled through the Green Climate Fund. Although originally this money was expected to come from public sources, developed countries have begun to rely on mobilising large amounts of private money.

As the discussion about mobilising private resources is mainstreamed, financial intermediaries (FIs) are placing themselves at the forefront of the debate. They are receiving a great deal of attention due to their perceived ability to use public money to overcome the barriers to private investment in developing countries. Estimates suggest that through the use of FIs, it may be possible to raise in the range of USD 100-200 billion (€72-144 billion) per year of private flows from developed to developing countries.

While climate finance is vital for both mitigation and adaptation, this report focuses on the latter. It looks at some of the main instruments that can be used to leverage private climate finance through financial intermediaries and analyses data from some major development finance institutions (DFIs). It specifically assesses the role of financial intermediaries in low-income countries (LICs) and in supporting small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and looks into the main monitoring and accountability constraints when using financial intermediaries.

Eurodad’s report finds that:

  • Important gaps exist in the knowledge of how money is leveraged through financial intermediaries. These gaps should be filled before channelling any significant amounts of climate finance through FIs.
  • Financial intermediaries and existing investment instruments are very limited when it comes to targeting LICs and SMEs in sectors which are particularly vulnerable to climate change.
  • Developed countries are looking at financial intermediaries as isolated actors without paying attention to the policy and institutional environments in which they operate.
  • Monitoring financial intermediaries is extremely difficult and there are no mechanisms to ensure private climate finance is aligned with developing countries’ priorities.

These shortcomings underscore the importance of direct public finance. Leveraging money through financial intermediaries cannot be used as a substitute for directing sufficient public resources directly to the poorest. Given the gaps, a strong reliance on FIs and the private sector could spell disaster for many citizens in developing countries.

Read the full Eurodad report: “Cashing in on Climate Change?