International Studies Perspectives 16:3 (August 2015), 312-326.
19 Pages Posted: 21 Aug 2013 Last revised: 28 Jul 2015
Date Written: August 21, 2013
Since 1997, the IMF’s role in surveillance of member countries has changed dramatically. Surveillance, as mandated in Article IV of the Articles of Agreement, has moved from a private process to a public one, with documentation from the consultation freely available at the Fund’s Web site. But does this public process of surveillance make a difference in generating policy debates? To answer this question, we evaluate whether the Fund’s Article IV review was referenced on Capitol Hill and by the White House during two consecutive reviews in the summers of 2010 and 2011. Given the debate about the debt ceiling, the summer of 2011 is a most likely case for the Fund’s advice to enter into the policy process.
There is little evidence that findings from these reports percolated into the public sphere, casting doubt on the effectiveness of IMF surveillance in developed countries.
Keywords: international organizations, IMF, surveillance, United States
JEL Classification: F33, F42
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Edwards, Martin S. and Senger, Stephanie, Listening to Advice: Assessing the External Impact of IMF Article IV Consultations of the United States, 2010–2011 (August 21, 2013). International Studies Perspectives 16:3 (August 2015), 312-326.. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2313743
By Mohsin Khan
By Allan Drazen