I’m imagining that things have gotten a little chilly for some in the IMF’s cafeteria. Why? Two important studies coming from different quarters of the Fund validate important and long-standing criticisms of the institution.
The first is a recent report by the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (the IEO), an internal body that conducts notably refreshing and often critical audits of various aspects of IMF performance. In an especially hard hitting (and on target) report, the IEO takes on the IMF’s work on exchange rate issues and specifically on “excess” foreign reserve accumulation in some countries during the period 2000-2011. After 2009, we should recall, IMF economists began to argue that excess reserve accumulation contributed to global financial instability. The report provides support for what many Fund watchers have long argued—namely, that the Fund has used the charge of excess reserve accumulation as a Trojan horse to advance the interest of its most powerful members in pushing countries like China to move toward more flexible exchange rates.
The same IEO report finds that the Fund’s analysis of excess reserve accumulation was analytically deficient on several grounds. First, the report’s authors argue that there is scant academic evidence for setting upper or lower limits to countries’ reserve levels (though the IMF has attempted to do so via a reserve adequacy metric since 2011). Second, the obsessive focus on reserves meant that Fund staff overlooked the precautionary motives that caused some countries (in East Asia and elsewhere) to amass massive reserves.