Editorial
Negotiations with IMF
Any deal should be a matter of public discourse
In less than a week's time Finance Adviser Mirza Azizul Islam has made emphatic observations about IMF's possible new package deal on the expiry of the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (PRGF) in last June.
A common thread wove through Mirza Aziz's statements: he said he would not sign any deal with IMF compromising the country's interest and that "transparency will be ensured and conditions behind the deal will be made public." He sounded pragmatic when he said that he could not promise anything that he would not deliver.
These words go down well with us and is in sync with widespread criticism of IMF policy prescription and a general demand for a lower role of global lenders in countries' economic policy making.
His comments came during IMF Adviser for Asia-Pacific Department Thomas R. Rumbaugh's visit to Dhaka to negotiate a credit scheme policy support instrument. Three options were put forward by IMF: a new PRGF programme, albeit with conditionality; a staff monitored programme (SMP) involving no financing but same level of conditionality as a PRGF "designed primarily for countries that need to build a track record before they can access fund financing;" and a close consultation predicated on regular IMF surveillance of macro-economic performance.
There is the option of no conditionality and no financing but with the caveat that the donor opinion has to be given weightage.
We are reminded here of Paris Declaration, 2005 signed by Bangladesh government which enunciated five principles of donor-recipient relationship: "ownership, alignment, harmonisation, mutual accountability and managing for results."
We take it that the finance adviser's assurances of making the contents of any deal public means that it would be publicly debated. Since there is no parliament now, a discourse should take place among the civil society, think tanks and the media with their crystallised opinion reflected on what might be eventually adopted.
Comments