Listening to Advice: Assessing the External Impact of IMF Article IV Consultations of the United States, 2010–20111. Issue 3 (30th August 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Edwards, Martin S.; Senger, Stephanie
• Is Part Of: International studies perspectives. Volume 16:Issue 3(2015)
• Page Start: 312
• Page End: 326
• Publication Date: 2013-08-30
• Subjects: International relations -- Periodicals; International relations -- Research -- Periodicals; International relations -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; World politics -- Periodicals; 327
• DOI: 10.1111/insp.12059
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1528-3577

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="insp12059-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Since 1997, the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) 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 Website. 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.</p> </abstract>