国际货币基金组织 发表评论(0) 编辑词条

国际货币基金组织(International Monetary Fund,IMF)

国际货币基金组织官方网站: http://www.imf.org/ 英文

　　IMF即国际货币基金组织(International Monetary Fund)的缩写。根据1944年7月44个国家在美国新罕布什尔州布雷顿森林达成的《国际货币基金协定》，于1946年3月正式成立。1980年4月17 日，IMF正式决定恢复中国的合法席位。到2007年1月18日为止，基金组织成员国已达185个国家(黑山共和国(Montenegro)于2007年1月18日加入，成为第185位成员国)。其宗旨是促进成员国在国际货币问题上的磋商与协作；促进汇率的稳定和有秩序的汇率安排，从而避免竞争性的汇率贬值；为经常项目收支建立一个多边支付和汇兑制度，消除外汇管制；提供资金融通，缓解国际收支不平衡；促进国际贸易的发展，实现就业和实际收入水平的提高及生产能力的扩大。其职能为汇率监督、资金融通、提供国际货币合作与协商的场所。IMF的最高决策机构是理事会，日常行政工作由执行董事会负责。基金组织的份额由特别提款权(SDR)表示，份额的多少同时决定了在IMF的投票权。

　　在于建立一永久性的国际金融合作机构，促进国际金融合作，以维持汇率的安定，扩展国际贸易，提高就业水平与实质国民所得，并以资金供给会员国，调节会员国国际收支的暂时性不平衡。

　　国际货币基金为推行国际间货币合作的永久性机构，属于联合国的社会经济委员会。基金会的最高权力机构为理事会，每个会员国均可派任理事一名，通常由各该国的财政部长或中央银行总裁参加担任。理事会每年在9月至10月间召开一次。至于经常处理基金会业务者，则为执行董事会，其名额现为20名。执行董事的产生方法，凡基金会员国中，摊额最大的5个国家各可指派一名，而其余摊额较小的国家，必须联合若干国家选出一名。

　　摊额与表决权：国际货币基金（IMF)规定每一会员国应根据其经济的重要性（国民所得及贸易额），向基金缴纳一定摊额（Quota）的资金，以供基金运用。此一摊额必须以黄金或可自由兑换货币（如美元）与本国货币缴纳。以黄金或可自由兑换货币缴纳部分，应等于一国摊额的25％，或该国当时国际准备持有额的10％，而以其中较少者为准。自1970年特别提款权实施后，各会员国的摊额，须经总投票权85％的同意，才能变更。

　　至于各会员国的表决权，则以各会员国所认定的摊额为标准。每一会员国各具有250票基本表决权。此外，每10万美元摊额可增一票表决权。

　　1976年3月22日，国际货币基金第6次决定增资，于1978年4月1日正式实施。基金总额增资约33.6％，自292亿特别提款单位增至 390亿单位。同年9月24日，其临时委员会又决定：①基金增资50％；②在1979年至1981年3年间，每年发行特别提款权40亿单位。

　　基金的增资，在于扩充基金所能运用的资金总额。在基金会员国家而言，增资的结果可使其基金融通的额度增大。因此，增资以后，国际上的流通性就趋扩充，至于新创造特别条款，也在增加国际流动性。

　　（1）外汇资金的融通：会员国家在国际收支困难时，可以向基金申请贷给外汇资金。但其用途限于短期性经常收支的不均衡，各会员国可利用基金的资金，其最高限额为该国摊额的2倍，而在此限额内1年仅能利用摊额的25％。后来，基金已慢慢放宽会员国对于资金利用的限制，以配合实际的需要。

　　（2）规定各会员国汇率、资金移动和其他外汇管制措施：会员国的国际收支，除非发生基本不均衡，否则不得任意调整其本国货币的平价。所谓基本不均衡，乃指除了因季节性、投机性、经济循环等短期因素外的原因，所产生的国际收支不均衡。对于资金移动，基金则规定：各会员国不得以基金的资金，用于巨额或持续的资本流出的支付。对于此种资本流出，会员国得加以管制，但不得因此而妨碍经济交易的对外支付。

　　（3）对会员国有提供资料和建议的作用:我国在基金的历史较早，1944年的布雷敦森林会议我国便是与会44国之一，并作为大国而摊额十分庞大，仅次于美国的275亿美元及英国的130亿美元，而为55亿美元，与美、英、法、印度并列入摊额最大的国家。1959年基金增资时，由于种种原因，我国摊额并未增加，因此不能列入摊额最大的5国之内，1961年单独任命执行董事的资格为西德取代。过去，我国在国际货币基金的资格由国民党政府当局代表，自从我国恢复联合国合法席位后，于1980年4月国际货币基金通过取消台湾当局资格，恢复我国为会员国资格。

　　（4）基金的平价：国际货币基金对于外汇汇率采取平价制度，规定各会员国均须设定本国货币的平价。基金第4条规定：会员国的货币的平价，概用黄金1盎司（英两）等于35美元表示。各国外汇买卖价格上下变动，不得超过平价的1％。1971年史密松宁协定成立后，此一现货汇率的波动幅度，已扩大为平价上下2.25％的范围，而决定"平价"的标准，也由黄金改为特别提款权。至于经基金公布的平价，非经基金同意不得变更。但如果会员国的国际收支发生基本不均衡时，即可向基金提出调整平价的要求。若整幅度在平价的10％以内时，会员国得自行调整后，由基金予以追认。若超过10％以上时，则须先经基金同意才能调整。此种平价制度就是“可调整的盯住汇率”。虽然与金汇兑本位制颇接近，但基金的平价，是基金与会员国所决定，而金汇兑本位制则由黄金含量比率所决定。

In 1995, the International Monetary Fund began work on data dissemination standards with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers: The General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS).

The International Monetary Fund executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in 1996 and 1997 respectively and subsequent amendments were published in a revised “Guide to the General Data Dissemination System”. The system is aimed primarily at statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals and Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers.

The IMF established a system and standard to guide members in the dissemination to the public of their economic and financial data. Currently there are two such systems: General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and its superset Special Data Dissemination System(SDDS), for those member countries having or seeking access to international capital markets.

The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage IMF member countries to build a framework to improve data quality and increase statistical capacity building. This will involve the preparation of metadata describing current statistical collection practices and setting improvement plans. Upon building a framework, a country can evaluate statistical needs, set priorities in improving the timeliness, transparency, reliability and accessibility of financial and economic data.

Some countries initially used the GDDS, but lately upgraded to SDDS.

Some entities that are not themselves IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems:

• Palestinian Authority – GDDS
• Hong Kong – SDDS
• European Union institutions:
  • the European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS
  • Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS on its own)

Any country may apply for membership to the IMF. The application will be considered first by the IMF's Executive Board. After its consideration, the Executive Board will submit a report to the Board of Governors of the IMF with recommendations in the form of a "Membership Resolution." These recommendations cover the amount of quota in the IMF, the form of payment of the subscription, and other customary terms and conditions of membership. After the Board of Governors has adopted the "Membership Resolution," the applicant state needs to take the legal steps required under its own law to enable it to sign the IMF's Articles of Agreement and to fulfil the obligations of IMF membership. Similarly, any member country can withdraw from the Fund, although that is rare. For example, in April 2007, the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa announced the expulsion of the World Bank representative in the country. A few days later, at the end of April, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that the country would withdraw from the IMF and the World Bank. Chavez dubbed both organizations as “the tools of the empire” that “serve the interests of the North”. As of April 2008, both countries remain as members of both organizations. Venezuela was forced to back down because a withdrawal would have triggered default clauses in the country's sovereign bonds.^[2]

A member's quota in the IMF determines the amount of its subscription, its voting weight, its access to IMF financing, and its allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). A member state cannot unilaterally increase its quota — increases must be approved by the Executive Board and are linked to formulas that include many variables such as the size of a country in the world economy. For example, in 2001, China was prevented from increasing its quota as high as it wished, ensuring it remained at the level of the smallest G7 economy (Canada).^[2] In September 2005, the IMF's member countries agreed to the first round of ad hoc quota increases for four countries, including China. On March 28, 2008, the IMF's Executive Board ended a period of extensive discussion and negotiation over a major package of reforms to enhance the institution's governance that would shift quota and voting shares from advanced to emerging markets and developing countries. The Fund's Board of Governors must vote on these reforms by April 28, 2008. See "Reform of IMF Quotas and Voice: Responding to Changes in the Global Economy" at www.imf.org.

Examples of press coverage of the discussions regarding changes to the voting formula to increase equity:IMF Seeks Role in Shifting Global Economy

Table showing the top 21 member countries in terms of voting power:^[3]

The primary mission of the IMF is to provide financial assistance to countries that experience serious financial and economic difficulties using funds deposited with the IMF from the institution's 185 member countries. Member states with balance of payments problems, which often arise from these difficulties, may request loans to help fill gaps between what countries earn and/or are able to borrow from other official lenders and what countries must spend to operate, including to cover the cost of importing basic goods and services. In return, countries are usually required to launch certain reforms, which have often been dubbed the "Washington Consensus". These reforms are generally required because countries with fixed exchange rate policies can engage in fiscal, monetary, and political practices which may lead to the crisis itself. For example, nations with severe budget deficits, rampant inflation, strict price controls, or significantly over-valued or under-valued currencies run the risk of facing balance of payment crises. Thus, the structural adjustment programs are at least ostensibly intended to ensure that the IMF is actually helping to prevent financial crises rather than merely funding financial recklessness.

[edit] IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships

The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War period, as the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of democracy, human rights, and labor rights. The controversy has helped spark the anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy, however critics highlight various examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.^[4]

In the 60’s, the IMF and the World Bank supported the government of Brazil’s military dictator Castello Branco with tens of millions of dollars of loans and credit that were denied to previous democratically-elected governments.^[5]

Countries that were or are under a Military dictatorship whilst being members of the IMF/World Bank (support from various sources in $ Billion):^[6]

Notes: Debt at takeover by dictatorship; earliest data published by the World Bank is for 1970. Debt at end of dictatorship (or 1996, most recent date for World Bank data).

Two criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called "Conditionalities", including Structural Adjustment Programs. Conditionalities, which are the economic performance targets established as a precondition for IMF loans, it is claimed, retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.^[7]

Typically the IMF and its supporters advocate a Keynesian approach. As such, adherents of supply-side economics generally find themselves in open disagreement with the IMF. The IMF frequently advocates currency devaluation, criticized by proponents of supply-side economics as inflationary. Secondly they link higher taxes under "austerity programmes" with economic contraction.

Currency devaluation is recommended by the IMF to the governments of poor nations with struggling economies. Supply-side economists claim these Keynesian IMF policies are destructive to economic prosperity.

That said, the IMF sometimes advocates "austerity programmes," increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, in order to generate government revenue and balance budget deficits, which is the opposite of Keynesian policy. These policies were criticised by Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank, in his book Globalization and Its Discontents.^[8] He argued that by converting to a more Monetarist approach, the fund no longer had a valid purpose, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF "was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community."^[9]

Complaints are also directed toward International Monetary Fund gold reserve being undervalued. At its inception in 1945, the IMF pegged gold at US$35 per Troy ounce of gold. In 1973 the Nixon administration lifted the fixed asset value of gold in favor of a world market price. Hence the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. This largely came about because Petrodollars outside the United States were more than could be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system. The fixed rate system only served to limit the amount of assistance the organization could use to help debt-ridden countries. Current IMF rules prohibit members from linking their currencies to gold.[citation needed]

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001 , which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions — which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security — and privatization of strategically vital national resources.^[10] Others attribute the crisis to Argentina's maldesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.^[11] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region's economic problems.^[12] The current — as of early 2006 — trend towards moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.

Another example of where IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes aggravated the problem was in Kenya. Before the IMF got involved in the country, the Kenyan central bank oversaw all currency movements in and out of the country. The IMF mandated that the Kenyan central bank had to allow easier currency movement. However, the adjustment resulted in very little foreign investment, but allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal Damji Pattni, with the help of corrupt government officials, to siphon off billions of Kenyan shillings in what came to be known as the Goldenberg scandal, leaving the country worse off than it was before the IMF reforms were implemented.[citation needed] In a recent interview, the Prime Minister of Romania stated that "Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country's economic performances".^[13]

Overall the IMF success record is perceived as limited.[citation needed] While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any time in Post-Depression history.[citation needed] The considerable delay in the IMF's response to any crisis, and the fact that it tends to only respond to them or even create them^[14] rather than prevent them, has led many economists to argue for reform. In 2006, an IMF reform agenda called the Medium Term Strategy was widely endorsed by the institution's member countries. The agenda includes changes in IMF governance to enhance the role of developing countries in the institution's decision-making process and steps to deepen the effectiveness of its core mandate, which is known as economic surveillance or helping member countries adopt macroeconomic policies that will sustain global growth and reduce poverty. On June 15, 2007, the Executive Board of the IMF adopted the 2007 Decision on Bilateral Surveillance, a landmark measure that replaced a 30-year-old decision of the Fund's member countries on how the IMF should analyse economic outcomes at the country level.

Whatever the feelings people in the Western world have for the IMF, research by the Pew Research Center shows that more than 60 percent of Asians and 70 percent of Africans feel that the IMF and the World Bank have a positive effect on their country.^[15] However it is pertinent to note that the survey aggregated international organizations including the World Trade Organization. Also, a similar percentage of people in the Western world believed that these international organizations had a positive effect on their countries. In 2005, the IMF was the first multilateral financial institution to implement a sweeping debt-relief program for the world's poorest countries known as the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. By year-end 2006, 23 countries mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central America had received total relief of debts owed the IMF.

In 2008, a study by analysts from Cambridge and Yale universities published on the open-access Public Library of Science concluded that strict conditions on the international loans by the IMF resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6 %.^[16]

Historically the IMF's managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world. Executive Directors, who confirm the managing director, are voted in by Finance Ministers from countries they represent. The First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, the second-in-command, has traditionally been (and is today) an American.

The IMF is for the most part controlled by the major Western Powers, with voting rights on the Executive board based on a quota derived from the relative size of a country in the global economy. Critics claim that the board rarely votes and passes issues contradicting the will of the US or Europeans, which combined represent the largest bloc of shareholders in the Fund. On the other hand, Executive Directors that represent emerging and developing countries have many times strongly defended the group of nations in their constituency. Alexandre Kafka, who represented several Latin American countries for 32 years as Executive Director (including 21 as the dean of the Board), is a prime example. Mohamed Finaish from Libya, the Executive Director representing the majority of the Arab World and Pakistan, was a tireless defender[citation needed] of the developing nations' rights at the IMF until the 1992 elections.

Rodrigo Rato became the ninth Managing Director of the IMF on June 7, 2004 and resigned his post at the end of October 2007.

EU ministers agreed on the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as managing director of the IMF at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on July 10, 2007. On September 28, 2007, the International Monetary Fund's 24 executive directors elected Mr. Strauss-Kahn as new managing director, with broad support including from the United States and the 27-nation European Union. Strauss-Kahn succeeded Spain's Rodrigo de Rato, who retired on October 31, 2007.^[17]The only other nominee was Josef Tosovsky, a late candidate proposed by Russia. Strauss-Kahn said: "I am determined to pursue without delay the reforms needed for the IMF to make financial stability serve the international community, while fostering growth and employment."^[18]

Life and Debt a documentary film, deals with the IMF's policies' influence on Jamaica and its economy from a critical point of view. In 1978, one year after Jamaica first entered a borrowing relationship with the IMF, the Jamaican dollar was still worth more on the open exchange than the US dollar; by 1995, when Jamaica terminated that relationship, the Jamaican dollar had eroded to less than 2 cents US. Such observations lead to skepticism that IMF involvement is necessarily helpful to a third world economy.

The Debt of Dictators explores the lending of billions of dollars by the IMF, World Bank multinational banks and other international financial institutions to brutal dictators throughout the world. (see IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships)

• IMF中期贷款
• IMF临时信用贷款
• IMF补偿与应急贷款
• IMF普通贷款
• IMF储备部分贷款
• IMF缓冲库存贷款
• IMF信用部分贷款
• IMF备用与扩大安排下的贷款
• IMF特别提款权
• IMF信托基金
• IMF补充贷款