In the Casa Rosada it is estimated that the work will have a critical vision of the loan granted to Argentina because, in their opinion, this money “Favored capital flight”.
This point is important since, as established by the multilateral organization itself, we lend they cannot be used for these purposes.
In any case, however critical the work on the performance of the Fund’s staff and authorities may be, it should be clarified that it is not binding. The body’s board of directors may or may not take into account the recommendations made in the report.
In general, from reading these reports, the Board of Directors usually establishes some measures to be taken into account by the IMF’s management. And the OIE is in charge of drawing up a plan, carrying out its follow-up and subsequent evaluations.
Although the evaluation takes a critical look at the actions of the officials who dealt with the loan to Argentina, this can hardly represent any advantage in the current negotiation for a new loan.
These reports are usually technical, they analyze from a theoretical point of view the reasons for the loan and their results hardly indicate personal responsibilities.
On the other hand, those mainly responsible for granting the large loan that the Macri government received they no longer belong to the multilateral body.
The then head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, now heads the European Central Bank. And whoever was the director of the region, Alexander Werner works in the private sector.
It should be noted that this report is not carried out because it is considered that the loan granted to Argentina was a failure.
Since 2001, the Fund established the Independent Evaluation Office as a kind of internal “audit” with the objective of “Conduct research and assessments on issues of concern aimed at fulfilling the mandate of the IMF.” Another purpose is to increase the transparency and accountability of the IMF.
This independent office usually publishes two investigations per year and has carried out 24 evaluations to date. The Argentine crisis of 2001 and the role of the Fund was one of the first works.
It is interesting to read today some excerpts from the report The Role of the IMF in Argentina, 1991-2002. published in 2003 prepared by the Independent Evaluation Office.
- “At the end of 2000, Argentina’s access to capital markets began to be severely limited, with a pronounced and sustained increase in the spreads of the country’s bonds relative to those of the United States treasury. Faced with this, the IMF reacted by providing exceptional financial support ”.
- “At various times during the following year, the IMF faced a critical dilemma: provide financing, thereby avoiding a crisis, but also prolonging a potentially unsustainable situation or ending its support, thus unleashing unpredictable consequences that potentially they could be extended to other emerging market economies ”.
- At point 122 it can be read that “The appropriate response to Argentina’s request for IMF support depended crucially on the correct diagnosis.
- If the country was really confronting
- A liquidity crisis, and it had good prospects of regaining access to markets under adequate conditions in the immediate future, justified, due to its catalytic effect, a large financing from the IMF combined with certain adjustments.
- On the other hand, if there was a strong real exchange rate mismatch or if the debt was unsustainable, the IMF should not provide high access without demanding a fundamental change in economic policy, possibly leading to a devaluation, restructuring of debt or, more likely, both.