The Fund programme as an external audit
An International Monetary Fund programme is usually discussed as money. Its more valuable function during this period was quarterly verification that other lenders could rely on.
A country at war received a full multi-year Fund programme, which is not something the institution normally does. The lending itself mattered. The review mechanism mattered more.
What a review actually produces
Every quarter, an independent examination of the fiscal accounts, the central bank's position, the reserve level and the reform commitments, published and comparable to the previous quarter.
That document is what every other lender reads before disbursing. A European tranche, a World Bank instrument, a bilateral loan — all of them are far easier to approve when an independent institution has just certified that the numbers are what the government says they are.
In effect the programme functioned as a shared audit for the entire donor community, which saved everyone from conducting their own and reaching different conclusions.
The domestic side
Programmes of this kind also commit a government to things that are politically hard and economically necessary: collecting revenue rather than granting exemptions, keeping the central bank independent, publishing what it spends. Wartime is when the temptation to abandon all three is strongest, and an external commitment is a useful thing to point at when refusing a demand.
Revenue mobilisation
Ukraine continued collecting tax through this period at a level that surprised most observers. That is not a small thing. A state that keeps its revenue administration functioning under bombardment retains the one form of independence that no donor can supply.
My reading
Verification is the underrated half of financial support. Money moves faster and cheaper when someone credible has already checked the books.
Share this analysis
Comments