The IMF promotes the development of the economies of participating countries only. See what "IMF" is in other dictionaries. Features of providing financial assistance

International Monetary Fund, IMF (International Monetary Fund, IMF) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, headquartered in Washington, USA.

At the United Nations Monetary and Financial Affairs meeting on July 22, 1944, the basis of the agreement was developed ( IMF Charter). The most significant contributions to the development of the IMF concept were made by the head of the British delegation, and Harry Dexter White- A senior official at the US Treasury Department. The final version of the agreement was signed by the first 29 states on December 27, 1945 - official date creation of the IMF. The IMF began operations on March 1, 1947, as part of Bretton Woods system. In the same year, France took out its first loan. Currently, the IMF unites 188 countries, and its structures employ 2,500 people from 133 countries.

The IMF provides short- and medium-term loans at balance of payments deficit and the states. The provision of loans is usually accompanied by a set of conditions and recommendations.

The IMF's policies and recommendations regarding developing countries have been repeatedly criticized, the essence of which is that the implementation of recommendations and conditions are ultimately not aimed at increasing the independence, stability and development of the national economy of the state, but only at tying it to international financial flows.

Objectives of the IMF International Monetary Fund

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has the following goals:

1. To promote international cooperation in the monetary and financial field through a permanent institution that provides a mechanism for consultation and joint work on international monetary and financial issues.
2. Promote expansion and balanced growth international trade and thereby promote the achievement and maintenance of high levels of employment and real incomes, as well as the development of the productive resources of all Member States, considering these actions as the primary objectives of economic policy.
3. Maintain stability and orderliness currency regime among member states, and to avoid currencies in order to gain a competitive advantage.
4. Assist in the establishment of a multilateral current account settlement system among member countries, as well as in the removal of foreign exchange restrictions that impede the growth of world trade.
5. By temporarily making the general resources of the fund available to member states, subject to adequate guarantees, create confidence among them, thereby ensuring that imbalances in their balance of payments without resorting to measures that could be detrimental to welfare at the national or international level.
6. In accordance with the above, reduce the duration of imbalances in the external balances of payments of member states, as well as reduce the scale of these imbalances.

Goals and role of the IMF:

Main functions of the IMF of the International Monetary Fund

• Assistance international cooperation in monetary policy;
• Expansion of world trade;
• Lending;
• Stabilization of monetary exchange rates;
• Consulting debtor countries;
• Development of standards for international financial statistics;
• Collection and publication of international financial statistics.

www.imf.org
www.youtube.com/user/imf

Discussion is closed.

International Monetary Fund, IMF(eng. International Monetary Fund, IMF) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, headquartered in Washington, USA.

The IMF operates on the principle of a “weighted” number of votes: the ability of member countries to influence the Fund’s activities through voting is determined by their share in its capital. Each state has 250 “basic” votes, regardless of the size of its contribution to the capital, and an additional one vote for every 100 thousand SDR of the amount of this contribution. If a country bought (sold) SDRs received during the initial issue of SDRs, the number of its votes increases (decreases) by 1 for every 400 thousand purchased (sold) SDRs. This adjustment is made by no more than ¼ of the number of votes received for the country's contribution to the capital of the Fund. This arrangement ensures a decisive majority of votes for the leading states.

Decisions in the Board of Governors are usually made by a simple majority (at least half) of votes, and on important issues of an operational or strategic nature - by a “special majority” (70 or 85% of the votes of member countries, respectively). Despite some reduction specific gravity US and EU votes, they can still veto key decisions of the Fund, the adoption of which requires a maximum majority (85%). This means that the United States, together with leading Western countries, has the opportunity to exercise control over the decision-making process in the IMF and direct its activities based on their interests. With coordinated action, developing countries are also able to prevent decisions that do not suit them. However, achieving consistency across a large number of disparate countries is difficult. At the Fund's April 2004 meeting, the intention was expressed to "enhance the ability of developing countries and countries with economies in transition to participate more effectively in the decision-making machinery of the IMF."

Plays a significant role in the organizational structure of the IMF International Monetary and Financial Committee(IMFC; English) International Monetary and Financial Committee). From 1974 until September 1999, its predecessor was the Interim Committee on the International Monetary System. It consists of 24 IMF governors, including from Russia, and meets twice a year. This committee is an advisory body of the Board of Governors and has no power to make policy decisions. However, he does important functions: directs the activities of the Executive Council; develops strategic decisions related to the functioning of the global monetary system and the activities of the IMF; submits to the Board of Governors proposals for amendments to the IMF's Articles of Agreement. A similar role is also played by the Development Committee - the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank and the Fund (Joint IMF - World Bank Development Committee).

The Board of Governors delegates many of its powers Executive Council(eng. Executive Board), that is, the directorate that is responsible for conducting the affairs of the IMF, including a wide range of political, operational and administrative issues, in particular the provision of loans to member countries and the supervision of their exchange rate policies.

The IMF Executive Board elects for a five-year term Managing Director(eng. Managing Director), who heads the staff of the Fund (as of March 2009 - about 2,478 people from 143 countries). As a rule, he represents one of the European countries. Managing Director (since July 5, 2011) is Christine Lagarde (France), her first deputy is John Lipsky (USA).

Basic lending mechanisms

1. Reserve share. The first portion of foreign currency that a member country can purchase from the IMF within 25% of the quota was called “golden” before the Jamaica Agreement, and since 1978 - the reserve share (Reserve Tranche). The reserve share is defined as the excess of the quota of a member country over the amount in the account of the National Currency Fund of that country. If the IMF uses part of a member country's national currency to provide credit to other countries, that country's reserve share increases accordingly. The outstanding amount of loans provided by a member country to the Fund under the loan agreements of the NHS and NHS constitutes its credit position. The reserve share and the lending position together constitute the “reserve position” of an IMF member country.

2. Credit shares. Funds in foreign currency that can be acquired by a member country in excess of the reserve share (if fully used, the IMF's holdings in the country's currency reach 100% of the quota) are divided into four credit shares, or tranches (Credit Tranches), each constituting 25% of the quota . Member countries' access to IMF credit resources within the framework of credit shares is limited: the amount of a country's currency in the IMF's assets cannot exceed 200% of its quota (including 75% of the quota contributed by subscription). Thus, the maximum amount of credit that a country can receive from the Fund as a result of using reserve and credit shares is 125% of its quota. However, the charter gives the IMF the right to suspend this restriction. On this basis, the Fund's resources are in many cases used in amounts exceeding the limit fixed in the charter. Therefore, the concept of “Upper Credit Tranches” began to mean not only 75% of the quota, as in early period activities of the IMF, and amounts exceeding the first credit share.

3. Stand-by loan arrangements(since 1952) provide the member country with a guarantee that, up to a certain amount and for the duration of the agreement, subject to compliance with specified conditions, the country can freely receive foreign currency from the IMF in exchange for national currency. This practice of providing loans is the opening of a line of credit. While the use of the first credit share can be carried out in the form of an outright purchase of foreign currency after the Fund approves its request, the allocation of funds for the account of the upper credit shares is usually carried out through arrangements with member countries for reserve credits. From the 50s to the mid-70s, agreements on stand-by loans had a term of up to a year, since 1977 - up to 18 months and even up to 3 years due to the increase in balance of payments deficits.

4. Extended lending mechanism(eng. Extended Fund Facility) (since 1974) supplemented the reserve and credit shares. It is designed to provide loans for longer periods and in large sizes in relation to quotas than within the framework of regular credit shares. The basis for a country's request to the IMF for a loan under extended lending is a serious imbalance in the balance of payments caused by adverse structural changes in production, trade or prices. Extended loans are usually provided for three years, if necessary - up to four years, in certain portions (tranches) at set intervals - once every six months, quarterly or (in some cases) monthly. The main purpose of stand-by loans and extended loans is to assist IMF member countries in implementing macroeconomic stabilization programs or structural reforms. The Fund requires the borrowing country to fulfill certain conditions, and the degree of their severity increases as they move from one loan share to another. Certain conditions must be met before receiving a loan. The obligations of the borrowing country, providing for the implementation of relevant financial and economic activities, are recorded in the “Letter of intent” or Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies sent to the IMF. The progress in fulfilling obligations by the country receiving the loan is monitored by periodically assessing the special performance criteria provided for in the agreement. These criteria can be either quantitative, relating to certain macroeconomic indicators, or structural, reflecting institutional changes. If the IMF considers that a country is using a loan in conflict with the goals of the Fund and is not fulfilling its obligations, it may limit its lending and refuse to provide the next tranche. Thus, this mechanism allows the IMF to exert economic pressure on borrowing countries.

It must be taken into account that votes when making decisions on the actions of the Fund are distributed in proportion to contributions. To approve the Fund's decisions, 85% of the votes are required. The US has about 17% of all votes. This is not enough to make an independent decision, but it allows you to block any decision of the Foundation. The US Senate could pass a bill that would prohibit the International Monetary Fund from doing certain things, such as making loans to countries. As the Chinese economist Professor Shi Jianxun points out, the redistribution of quotas does not at all change the basic framework of the organization and the balance of power in it, the US share remains the same, they have the right of veto: “The United States, as before, controls the order of the IMF.”

The IMF provides loans with a number of requirements - freedom of movement of capital, privatization (including natural monopolies - railway transport And public utilities), minimizing or even eliminating government spending on social programs - education, healthcare, cheaper housing, public transport and so on.; refusal of protection environment; wage cuts, restrictions on workers' rights; increasing tax pressure on the poor, etc. [ ]

According to Michel Chosudovsky, [ ]

IMF-sponsored programs have since consistently continued to destroy the industrial sector and gradually dismantle the Yugoslav welfare state. The restructuring agreements increased the external debt and provided a mandate for the devaluation of the Yugoslav currency, which greatly affected the living standards of the Yugoslavs. This initial round of restructuring laid the foundations. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF periodically prescribed further doses of its bitter "economic therapy" as the Yugoslav economy slowly slipped into a coma. Industrial production reached a 10 percent drop by

IMF- intergovernmental monetary and credit organization to promote international currency cooperation based on consultations with its members and the provision of loans to them.

It was created by decision of the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 with the participation of delegates from 44 countries. The IMF began functioning in May 1946.

The International Monetary Fund collects and processes statistical data on issues of international payments, foreign exchange resources, the amount of foreign exchange reserves, etc. The IMF Charter obliges countries, when receiving loans, to provide information about the state of the country's economy, gold and foreign exchange reserves, etc. In addition, the country that took out the loan must follow the IMF's recommendations to improve its economy.

The main task of the IMF is to maintain global stability. In addition, the IMF's responsibility is to inform all IMF members about changes in the financial and other member countries.

More than 180 countries of the world are members of the IMF. When joining the IMF, each country pays a certain amount of money as a membership fee, which is called a quota.

• education for lending to participating countries;
• determining the amount that a country can receive in case of financial difficulties;
• determining the number of votes that a participating country receives.

Quotas are reviewed periodically. The United States has the highest quota and, accordingly, the number of votes (it is just over 17%).

Procedure for granting loans

The IMF provides loans only to stabilize the economy and bring it out of the crisis, but not for economic development.

The procedure for granting a loan is as follows: provided for a period of 3 to 5 years at a rate slightly lower than the market one. The loan is transferred in parts, in tranches. The interval between tranches can be from one to three years. This procedure is designed to control the use of credit. If a country does not fulfill its obligations to the IMF, then the transfer of the next tranche is postponed.

Before providing a loan, the IMF carries out a system of consultations. Several representatives of the fund travel to the country that has applied for a loan, collect statistical information on various economic indicators (price levels, employment levels, tax revenues, etc.) and prepare a Report on the results of the study. The Report is then discussed at a meeting of the IMF Executive Board, which makes recommendations and proposals for improvement. economic situation countries.

• To promote international cooperation in the monetary and financial field through a permanent institution that provides a mechanism for consultation and joint work on international monetary and financial issues.
• To promote the process of expansion and balanced growth of international trade and thereby achieve and maintain high levels of employment and real incomes, as well as the development of productive resources of all Member States.
• Promote currency stability, maintain an orderly exchange rate regime among Member States and avoid using currency devaluations to gain competitive advantage.
• Assist in the establishment of a multilateral current account settlement system between member countries, as well as eliminating currency restrictions hampering growth.
• By temporarily making the general resources of the Fund available to member states, subject to adequate guarantees, create a state of confidence among them, thereby ensuring the ability to correct imbalances in their balance of payments without resorting to measures that could harm welfare at the national or international level.

Organization of the IMF

The International Monetary Fund, IMF, like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, IBRD (later the World Bank), is a Bretton Woods international organization. The IMF and the World Bank formally belong to specialized institutions UN, but from the very beginning of their activities they rejected the coordinating and leadership role of the UN, citing the complete independence of their financial sources.

The creation of these two structures was initiated by the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most influential semi-secret organizations traditionally associated with the implementation of the globalist project.

The task of creating such structures loomed as the end of the Second World War and the collapse of the colonial system approached. The question of the formation of a post-war international monetary and financial system and the creation of relevant international institutions, especially an interstate organization that would be designed to regulate currency and settlement relations between countries, became urgent. US bankers were especially persistent in advocating this.

Plans for the creation of a special body to “streamline” currency and settlement relations were developed by the United States and Great Britain. The American plan proposed the establishment of a “United Nations Stabilization Fund”, the participating states of which would have to undertake obligations not to change, without the consent of the Fund, the rates and parities of their currencies, expressed in gold and a special unit of account, and not to establish currency restrictions on current transactions and not enter into any bilateral (“discriminatory”) clearing and payment agreements. In turn, the Fund would provide them with short-term loans in foreign currency to cover current balance of payments deficits.

This plan was beneficial to the United States, an economically powerful power with higher competitiveness of goods compared to other countries and a steadily active balance of payments at that time.

An alternative English plan, developed by the famous economist J.M. Keynes, envisaged the creation of an “international clearing union” - a credit and settlement center designed to carry out international settlements using a special supranational currency (“bancor”) and ensure balance in payments, especially between the United States and all other states. Within the framework of this union, it was intended to maintain closed currency groups, in particular the sterling zone. The goal of the plan, designed to maintain Britain's position in the countries of the British Empire, was to strengthen its monetary and financial positions largely at the expense of American financial resources and with minimal concessions to the US ruling circles in matters of monetary policy.

Both plans were considered at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, held in Bretton Woods (USA) from July 1 to July 22, 1944. Representatives of 44 states took part in the conference. The struggle that unfolded at the conference ended in the defeat of Great Britain.

The final act of the conference included Articles of Agreement (charter) on the International Monetary Fund and on the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. December 27, 1945 The Articles of Agreement for the International Monetary Fund officially came into force. In practice, the IMF began operations on March 1, 1947.

Money for the creation of this supra-governmental organization came from J. P. Morgan, J. D. Rockefeller, P. Warburg, J. Schiff and other “international bankers.”

The USSR took part in the Bretton Woods Conference, but did not ratify the Articles of Agreement on the IMF.

Activities of the IMF

The IMF is intended to regulate monetary and credit relations of member states and provide short- and medium-term loans in foreign currency. The International Monetary Fund provides most of its loans in US dollars. During its existence, the IMF has become the main supranational body regulating international monetary and financial relations. The seat of the IMF's governing bodies is Washington (USA). This is quite symbolic - in the future it will be seen that the IMF is almost completely controlled by the United States and the countries of the Western alliance and, accordingly, in managerial and operational terms - by the Fed. It is no coincidence, therefore, that these actors and, first of all, the above-mentioned “club of beneficiaries” also receive real benefits from the IMF’s activities.

The official objectives of the IMF are:

• “to promote international cooperation in the monetary and financial sphere”;
• “to promote the expansion and balanced growth of international trade” in the interests of developing productive resources, achieving high levels of employment and real incomes of member states;
• “to ensure the stability of currencies, maintain orderly foreign exchange relations among member states and prevent the depreciation of currencies in order to gain competitive advantages”;
• provide assistance in the creation of a multilateral settlement system between member states, as well as in the elimination of exchange restrictions;
• provide member states with temporary funds in foreign currencies to enable them to “correct imbalances in their balance of payments.”

However, based on the facts characterizing the results of the IMF's activities throughout its history, a different, real picture of its goals is reconstructed. They again allow us to talk about a system of global acquisitiveness in favor of a minority that controls the World Monetary Fund.

As of May 25, 2011, 187 countries are members of the IMF. Each country has a quota expressed in SDR. The quota determines the amount of capital subscription, the possibility of using the fund's resources and the amount of SDRs received by a member state during their next distribution. The capital of the international monetary fund has constantly increased since its formation, with quotas for the most economically developed countries-members (Fig. 6.3).

The United States (SDR 42,122.4 million), Japan (SDR 15,628.5 million) and Germany (SDR 14,565.5 million) have the largest quotas in the IMF, and Tuvalu has the smallest (SDR 1.8 million). The IMF operates on the principle of a “weighted” number of votes, when decisions are made not by a majority of equal votes, but by the largest “donors” (Fig. 6.4).

In total, the United States and the countries of the Western alliance have more than 50% of the votes against a few percent of China, India, Russia, Latin American or Islamic countries. From which it is obvious that the former have a monopoly on decision-making, i.e. the IMF, like the Fed, is controlled by these countries. When critical strategic issues are raised, including issues of reform of the IMF itself, only the United States has veto power.

The United States, along with other developed countries, has a simple majority of votes in the IMF. Over the past 65 years, European countries and other economically prosperous countries have always voted in solidarity with the United States. Thus, it becomes clear in whose interests the IMF functions and by whom it implements the geopolitical goals set.

Requirements of the Articles of Agreement (Charter) of the IMF/IMF Members

Joining the IMF in mandatory requires the country to comply with the rules governing its foreign economic relations. The Articles of Agreement set out the universal obligations of member states. The IMF's statutory requirements are aimed primarily at liberalizing foreign economic activity, in particular the monetary and financial sphere. It is obvious that the liberalization of the external economy of developing countries provides enormous advantages to economically developed countries, opening markets for their more competitive products. At the same time, the economies of developing countries, which, as a rule, need protectionist measures, suffer large losses, entire industries (not related to the sale of raw materials) become ineffective and die. In Section 7.3, statistical generalization allows us to see such results.

The Charter requires member states to eliminate currency restrictions and maintain the convertibility of national currencies. Article VIII contains the obligations of member states not to impose restrictions on current account payments without the fund's consent, as well as to refrain from participating in discriminatory exchange rate agreements and not resorting to the practice of multiple exchange rates.

If in 1978 46 countries (1/3 of the IMF members) assumed obligations under Article VIII to avoid currency restrictions, then in April 2004 there were already 158 countries (more than 4/5 of the members).

In addition, the IMF's charter obliges member states to cooperate with the fund in the conduct of exchange rate policy. Although the Jamaican amendments to the charter gave countries the opportunity to choose any exchange rate regime, in practice the IMF takes measures to establish a floating exchange rate for leading currencies and link the monetary units of developing countries to them (primarily the US dollar), in particular, it introduces a currency board regime ). It is interesting to note that China's return to a fixed exchange rate in 2008 (Figure 6.5), which caused strong dissatisfaction with the IMF, is one of the explanations why the global financial and economic crisis actually did not affect China.

Russia, in its “anti-crisis” financial and economic policy, followed the instructions of the IMF, and the crisis hit Russian economy turned out to be the most difficult not only in comparison with comparable countries in the world, but even in comparison with the vast majority of countries in the world.

The IMF maintains ongoing “close surveillance” of the macroeconomic and monetary policies of its member countries, as well as the state of the global economy.

Supreme governing body The IMF has a Board of Governors, in which each member country is represented by a governor (usually finance ministers or central bankers) and his deputy.

The council is responsible for resolving key issues in the IMF's activities: amending the Articles of Agreement, admitting and expelling member countries, determining and revising their shares in capital, and electing executive directors. Governors usually meet in session once a year, but may hold meetings and vote by mail at any time.

The Board of Governors delegates many of its powers to the Executive Board, a directorate that is responsible for conducting the affairs of the IMF, which includes a wide range of political, operational and administrative issues, such as providing credit to member countries and overseeing their policies. in the field of exchange rates.

Since 1992, there have been 24 executive directors on the executive board. Currently, out of 24 executive directors, 5 (21%) have an American education. The IMF's Executive Board elects a Managing Director for a five-year term, who heads the fund's staff and is the chairman of the executive board. Among the 32 representatives of the IMF's top management, 16 (50%) were educated in the United States, 1 worked for a transnational corporation, and 1 taught at an American university.

The managing director of the IMF, according to informal agreements, is always European, and his first deputy is always American.

Role of the IMF

The IMF provides loans in foreign currency to member countries for two purposes: first, to cover balance of payments deficits, i.e., in fact, to replenish official foreign exchange reserves; secondly, to support macroeconomic stabilization and structural restructuring of the economy, and therefore to finance government budget expenditures.

A country in need of foreign currency purchases or borrows foreign currency or SDRs in exchange for an equivalent amount in domestic currency, which is deposited in the IMF's account with its central bank as depository. At the same time, the IMF, as noted, provides loans mainly in US dollars.

During the first two decades of its activity (1947–1966), the IMF lent to a greater extent to developed countries, which accounted for 56.4% of the loan amount (including 41.5% of the funds received by Great Britain). Since the 1970s The IMF refocused its activities on providing loans to developing countries (Figure 6.7).

It is interesting to note the time limit (late 1970s), after which the global neocolonial system began to actively take shape, replacing the collapsed colonial one. The main lending mechanisms using IMF resources are as follows.

Reserve share. The first “portion” of foreign currency that a member country can purchase from the IMF, within the limits of 25% of the quota, was called “golden” before the Jamaica Agreement, and since 1978 - the reserve tranche.

Credit shares. Funds in foreign currency that can be purchased by a member state in excess of the reserve share are divided into four credit tranches, each representing 25% of the quota. Member states' access to IMF credit resources within the framework of loan shares is limited: the amount of a country's currency in IMF assets cannot exceed 200% of its quota (including 75% of the quota contributed by subscription). The maximum loan amount that a country can receive from the IMF through the use of reserve and credit shares is 125% of its quota.

Reserve loans stand-by arrangements. This mechanism has been used since 1952. This practice of providing loans is the opening of a line of credit. Since the 1950s and until the mid-1970s. agreements on standby loans had a term of up to a year, from 1977 - up to 18 months, later - up to 3 years, due to an increase in balance of payments deficits.

Extended fund facility has been in use since 1974. Under this mechanism, loans are provided for even longer periods (3–4 years) in larger amounts. The use of stand-by loans and extended loans - the most common credit mechanisms before the global financial and economic crisis - is associated with the fulfillment by the borrower state of certain conditions providing for the implementation of certain financial and economic (and often political) measures. At the same time, the degree of severity of conditions increases as you move from one credit share to another. Some conditions must be met before receiving a loan.

If the IMF considers that a country is using a loan “contrary to the goals of the fund” and does not fulfill the requirements, it may limit its further lending and refuse to provide the next loan tranche. This mechanism allows the IMF to actually manage the borrowing country.

Upon expiration of the established period, the borrowing state is obliged to repay the debt (“repurchase” the national currency from the Fund), returning to it the funds in SDRs or foreign currencies. Stand-by loans are repaid within 3 years and 3 months - 5 years from the date of receipt of each tranche, for extended lending - 4.5–10 years. In order to speed up the turnover of its capital, the IMF “encourages” faster repayment of loans received by debtors.

In addition to these standard mechanisms, the IMF has special lending mechanisms. They differ in the purposes, conditions and cost of loans. Special lending facilities include the following. The compensatory lending facility, MCC (com pen sato ry i nancing facility, CFF), is intended for lending to countries whose balance of payments deficit is caused by temporary and external factors beyond their control. The supplementary reserve facility (SRF) was introduced in December 1997 to provide funds to member countries experiencing “exceptional balance of payments difficulties” and in dire need of expanded short-term lending due to a sudden loss of confidence in the currency. which causes capital flight from the country and a sharp reduction in its gold and foreign exchange reserves. This credit is supposed to be provided in cases where capital flight could pose a potential threat to the entire global monetary system.

Emergency assistance is designed to help overcome balance of payments deficits caused by unpredictable natural disasters (since 1962) and crisis situations resulting from civil unrest or military-political conflicts (since 1995). Emergency Financing Mechanism (EFM) (since 1995) is a set of procedures that ensures that the Fund provides accelerated loans to member states in the event of an emergency crisis situation in the field of international payments that requires immediate assistance from the IMF.

The trade integration mechanism (TIM) was created in April 2004 in connection with the possible temporary negative consequences for a number of developing countries of the results of negotiations on further expansion of international trade liberalization within the framework of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization. trade organization. This mechanism is intended to provide financial support countries whose balance of payments is deteriorating due to measures taken in the direction of liberalization of trade policies by other countries. However, MPTI is not an independent credit mechanism in the literal sense of the word, but a certain political setting.

Such a wide representation of multi-purpose IMF loans indicates that the fund offers borrowing countries its instruments in almost any situation.

For the poorest countries (those with GDP per capita below a certain threshold) that are unable to pay interest on conventional loans, the IMF provides preferential “assistance,” although the share of concessional loans in total IMF loans is extremely small (Figure 6.8).

In addition, the tacit guarantee of solvency provided by the IMF as a “bonus” along with the loan extends to more economically powerful players in the international arena. Even a small loan from the IMF makes it easier for a country to access the global loan capital market and helps obtain loans from the governments of developed countries, central banks, the World Bank group, the Bank for International Settlements, as well as from private commercial banks. Conversely, the IMF’s refusal to provide credit support to a country denies its access to the loan capital market. In such conditions, countries are simply forced to turn to the IMF, even if they understand that the conditions put forward by the IMF will have disastrous consequences for the national economy.

In Fig. 6.8 also shows that at the beginning of its activities the IMF played a rather modest role as a lender. However, since the 1970s. there was a significant expansion of its lending activities.

Terms of loans

The provision of loans by the fund to member states is subject to their fulfillment of certain political and economic conditions. This procedure is called “conditionality” of loans. Officially, the IMF justifies this practice by the need to have confidence that borrowing countries will be able to repay their debts, ensuring the uninterrupted circulation of the Fund's resources. In fact, a mechanism for external management of borrower states has been built.

Since the IMF is dominated by monetarist, and more broadly, neoliberal theoretical views, its “practical” stabilization programs usually include reductions in government spending, including for social purposes, the elimination or reduction of government subsidies for food, consumer goods and services (which leads to higher prices on these goods), increasing personal income taxes (while simultaneously reducing business taxes), curbing growth or “freezing” wages, increasing discount rates, limiting the volume of investment lending, liberalizing foreign economic relations, devaluing the national currency, followed by an increase in the price of imported goods, etc.

The concept of economic policy, which now forms the content of the conditions for obtaining IMF loans, was formed in the 1980s. in the circles of leading economists and business circles in the United States, as well as other Western countries, and is known as the “Washington Consensus”.

It involves such structural changes in economic systems as the privatization of enterprises, the introduction of market pricing, and the liberalization of foreign economic activity. The IMF sees the main (if not the only) reason for the imbalance of the economy and the imbalance in international payments of borrowing countries in the excess aggregate effective demand in the country, caused primarily by the state budget deficit and excessive expansion of the money supply.

The implementation of IMF programs most often leads to a curtailment of investments, a slowdown in economic growth, and an aggravation of social problems. This is due to a decline in real wages and standard of living, rising unemployment, redistribution of income in favor of the rich at the expense of less affluent groups of the population, growing property differentiation.

As for the former socialist states, the obstacle to solving their macroeconomic problems, from the point of view of the IMF, is the defects of an institutional and structural nature, therefore, when providing a loan, the fund focuses its requirements on the implementation of long-term structural changes in their economic and political systems.

The IMF pursues a very ideological policy. In fact, he finances the restructuring and inclusion national economies into global speculative capital flows, i.e. their “linkage” to the global financial metropolis.

With the expansion of lending operations in the 1980s. The IMF has taken a course towards tightening their conditionality. It was then that the use of structural conditions in IMF programs became widespread in the 1990s. it has intensified significantly.

It is not surprising that the IMF’s recommendations to recipient countries in most cases are directly opposite to the anti-crisis policies of developed countries (Table 6.1), which practice countercyclical measures - the fall in demand from households and businesses in them is compensated by increased government spending (benefits, subsidies, etc.) . p.) due to the expansion of the budget deficit and an increase in public debt. At the height of the global financial and economic crisis in 2008, the IMF supported such a policy in the USA, EU and China, but prescribed a different “medicine” for its “patients”. “31 out of 41 IMF assistance agreements provide for pro-cyclical, i.e., tighter monetary or fiscal policy,” notes a report from the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.

These double standards have always existed and have many times led to large-scale crises in developing countries. The application of IMF recommendations is focused on the formation of a unipolar model of development of the world community.

The role of the IMF in regulating international monetary, credit and financial relations

The IMF periodically makes changes to the world monetary system. Firstly, the IMF acted as a conductor of the policy adopted by the West at the initiative of the United States to demonetize gold and weaken its role in the global monetary system. Initially, the IMF's Articles of Agreement gave gold an important place in its liquid resources. The first step toward eliminating gold from the postwar international monetary mechanism was the United States' August 1971 cessation of gold sales for foreign government dollars. In 1978, the IMF's charter was amended to prohibit member countries from using gold as a means of expressing the value of their currencies; At the same time, the official price of gold in dollars and the gold content of the SDR unit were abolished.

The International Monetary Fund has played a leading role in the process of expanding the influence of transnational corporations and banks in countries with transition and developing economies. Providing these countries in the 1990s. IMF borrowing significantly contributed to the activation of the activities of transnational corporations and banks in these countries.

In connection with the process of globalization of financial markets, the Executive Board in 1997 initiated the development of new amendments to the IMF Articles of Agreement in order to make the liberalization of capital movements a special goal of the IMF, to include them within its sphere of competence, i.e., to extend to them the requirement for the abolition of foreign exchange restrictions. The IMF Interim Committee adopted a special statement on capital liberalization at its session in Hong Kong on September 21, 1997, calling on the Executive Board to expedite work on amendments in order to “add a new chapter to the Bretton Woods Agreement.” However, the development of the global currency and financial crises in 1997–1998. slowed down this process. Some countries have been forced to introduce capital controls. Nevertheless, the IMF remains committed to lifting restrictions on international capital movements.

In the context of analyzing the causes of the global financial crisis of 2008, it is also important to note that the International Monetary Fund relatively recently (since 1999) came to the conclusion that it was necessary to extend its area of ​​responsibility to the functioning of global financial markets and financial systems.

The emergence of the IMF's intention to regulate international financial relations caused changes in its organizational structure. First, in September 1999, the International Monetary and Financial Committee was formed, which became a permanent body for strategic planning of the IMF on issues related to the functioning of the global monetary and financial system.

In 1999, the IMF and The World Bank adopted a joint “Financial Sector Assessment Program”, FSAP, which should provide member states with tools for assessing the state of their financial systems.

In 2001, a department for international capital markets was created. In June 2006, a joint Monetary Systems and Capital Markets Department (MSCMD) was established. Less than 10 years have passed since the inclusion of the global financial sector in the competence of the IMF and since the beginning of its “regulation”, when the largest global financial crisis in history broke out.

The IMF and the global financial and economic crisis of 2008

It is impossible not to note one fundamental point. In 2007, this largest world financial institution was in deep crisis. At that time, practically no one took or expressed a desire to take loans from the IMF. In addition, even those countries that received loans earlier tried to get rid of this financial burden as soon as possible. As a result, the size of conventional loans outstanding fell to a record level for the 21st century. marks - less than 10 billion SDR (Fig. 6.9).

The world community, with the exception of the beneficiaries of the IMF's activities represented by the United States and other economically developed countries, actually abandoned the IMF mechanism. And then something happened. Namely, the global financial and economic crisis broke out. The number of agreements on new loans, which tended to zero before the crisis, increased at a rate unprecedented in the history of the fund’s activities (Figure 6.10).

The crisis that began in 2008 literally saved the IMF from collapse. Is this a coincidence? One way or another, the global financial and economic crisis of 2008 was extremely beneficial to the International Monetary Fund, and therefore to those countries in whose interests it functions.

After the global crisis of 2008, it became obvious that the IMF needed reform. By the beginning of 2010, the total losses of the global financial system exceeded $4 trillion (about 12% of global gross product), two-thirds of which were generated in bad assets of American banks.

In what direction did the reform go? First of all, the IMF tripled its resources. Since the London G20 summit in April 2009, the IMF has received enormous additional lending reserves - more than $500 billion, in addition to its existing $250 billion, although it is using less than $100 billion for assistance programs. After the crisis It has become clear that the IMF wants to take on even greater powers in managing the global economy and finances.

The trend is to gradually turn the IMF into a macroeconomic policy watchdog in almost all countries of the world. It is obvious that in the conditions of such “reform” new world crises are inevitable.

This chapter of the monograph uses material from the dissertation of M.V. Deeva.

Strauss-Kahn continues to fight for political survival, with his supporters claiming the harassment allegations are a conspiracy. At the same time, the struggle for the post of leader has already begun within the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Countries with developing economies are demanding that this prestigious place go to them, but the Europeans are not giving up their claims either.

The International Monetary Fund is a $325 billion organization headquartered in Washington. Until very recently, the IMF had only one main question- saving the euro. The fund's share of the aid packages for Greece, Ireland and Portugal amounts to 78.5 billion euros. Calmly and effectively, the fund acted as an intermediary between Europe's debtors and donors.

Following the arrest of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Saturday evening New York time, the fund itself has become a plaything for various interests. The once powerful head of the IMF continues to fight for his political survival. His supporters are spreading rumors and evidence that the attempted rape charge is a Secret Service-style conspiracy. DSK - as he is sometimes called for short - did not allegedly attempt to rape a maid at the New York Sofitel Hotel, as he was allegedly having lunch with his daughter at that time.

What is established is that nothing is established. The whole world believes that there should be no rush to condemn him. Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel also said yesterday that we need to wait for the results of the investigation.

She said so, but did it differently. A few minutes later, Merkel, speaking on behalf of Europe, announced her claims to the position of head of the IMF: although in principle this is correct, and in the “medium term,” according to Merkel, countries with developing economies can lay claim to leading positions in international organizations. “However, I believe that in modern conditions, when we have a lot of discussions about the European space, there are good reasons for Europe to have good candidates at its disposal,” she emphasized.

Because there is no cost to ignoring one's own interests, Merkel offered hope to emerging economies: “The existing conditions at the IMF must reflect the balance of power in the world,” Merkel said at the G20 summit in Seoul. Shortly before this, the world's 20 major economies decided to increase the share of votes of emerging economies. The words of the head of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, sounded even more definite. Strauss-Kahn is “the last European” to head the IMF “for the foreseeable future,” he said back in 2007.

Countries with developing economies responded joyfully to this Western opinion. It is high time to move away from a model dominated only by industrial states, said Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega.

Now comes sobering up. And after sobering up, a struggle for power begins. Berlin yesterday announced that it was conducting soundings “with our European friends” on the issue of a candidate to head the IMF.

The struggle of countries with developing economies for greater influence in the IMF began even before Strauss-Kahn's arrest. In April this year, Brazil's finance minister complained that Americans regularly run the World Bank while Europeans run the IMF. Such a system, in his opinion, is already outdated. These posts should be allocated based on ability, and the process itself should be transparent, the Brazilian demanded.

In other words, those countries that drive global growth - that is, China, India, and also Brazil - should have a chance to occupy leadership positions in the future. The share of leading developing countries in global gross domestic product over the last 20 years alone (by 2010) has increased from 10.4% to 24.2%, while the share of the seven largest industrial countries, on the contrary, has decreased from 64.9% to 50 .7%.

Therefore, back in the fall, countries with developing economies received additional votes in the IMF. Finance ministers from the 20 largest industrial and emerging economies (G20) have decided to distribute almost 6% of the voting rights previously held by industrial powers to countries such as China, India, Brazil and Russia. As a result of the reform, these four countries received more rights and more responsibility in the executive directorate of the International Monetary Fund. This reform came into force in March.

Now they demand changes on a personal level. That is why, immediately after the events with Dominique Strauss-Kahn in New York, the name of the Turkish politician Kemal Dervis began to be mentioned more and more often. The architect of Turkey's economic reforms, which began a decade ago, and a longtime senior World Bank official, comes from an emerging economy and is considered a brilliant economist. Since he is from Turkey, he could presumably be involved in building bridges between Asia, Europe and the United States.

His work at the Washington-based World Bank allowed him to acquire excellent connections. And in Europe he no longer has the image of a person who primarily protects the interests of Turkey. Kemal Dervis is now seen more as an international economist who happens to have a Turkish passport.

Dervis's name was already mentioned at the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank, which took place almost a week ago in the Vietnamese city of Hanoi. Perhaps it's time for an Asian to head the IMF. Laureate Nobel Prize Joseph Stigliz also thinks he's a great candidate, as he said in a private discussion on Monday.

The Chinese leadership is taking a rather restrained position in connection with Strauss-Kahn's impending departure, but in fact this scandal suits Beijing quite well - the European is leaving his post in disgrace, and this creates the conditions for reconsidering existing structures. The informal agreement among industrial nations that a European should always be at the helm of the International Monetary Fund is causing resentment among this rising economic power. From the Chinese point of view, this kind of arrangement is outdated and reminiscent of colonial times.

Americans and Europeans can share leadership positions between themselves because they together have enough votes to block other proposals. Even after the reform, China, being the second largest economy in the world, has 3.82% of the votes and is significantly behind the United States, which has almost 17%. These figures also reflect the share of capital invested. China would, of course, be willing to pay more for more influence, but existing rules, he can't do it.

That is why the Chinese, at meetings like the G20, constantly advocate for the introduction of a system that would more accurately reflect the economic realities existing in the world. They consider themselves fighters for the rights of other countries with developing economies, and, in addition, the Chinese secretly hope to secure a leading international role for themselves.

Other emerging economies, including India and Russia, have been much less ambitious about IMF reform. “They want to solve the problems they currently have, but they do not intend to rewrite the global rules of the game,” said Jean Pisani-Ferry, an economist at the University of Paris-Dauphine. China also assumes that it is not yet in a position to press its demands - after all, its own national currency is not yet freely convertible.

This is also why the idea is being discussed in French government circles to preserve the existing structures and instead of Strauss-Kahn, send to Washington the Minister of Finance, who has a good international reputation, Christine Lagarde. On paper she
looks like a good candidate: her work as a lawyer has brought her into contact with all the major figures in the financial world, and during the financial crisis she developed a reputation for herself as a charming but exceptionally tough negotiator. In addition, the post of head of the IMF could open up additional prospects for her - primarily taking into account the possible defeat of her boss Nicolas Sarkozy at presidential elections in 2012. For now, judging by the official statements made, she plans to compete for the mandate of an ordinary member of parliament.

Her problem: “The DSK affair has undermined confidence in France and their candidates for high international positions,” according to Paris. DSK is an international abbreviation for Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In addition, Lagarde herself became a participant in a high-profile case, which, however, cannot be compared with the problems of Strauss-Kahn. She is accused of using her influence to achieve a favorable ruling for the famous French entrepreneur in a dispute between the state and Bernard Tapie over the sale of a stake in Adidas. This case has not received much international publicity, but it could become an obstacle if Lagarde aspires to head the IMF.

When we're talking about about such responsible positions as the head of the IMF, then the candidate will be scrutinized - and now for real - twice as carefully.