Addresses And Articles

Bilateral surveillance is mandatory for both the Fund and its members, and all members have an obligation to consult with the Fund for this purpose.3 Periodic consultations with members on their policies and access to necessary information are essential for effective bilateral surveillance. Furthermore, to enable the Fund to effectively conduct multilateral surveillance, bilateral surveillance needs to cover all economies at a reasonable frequency.

In the growing field of address research, Spanish emerges as one of the most complex Indo European languages. Firstly, it presents second person variation in its nominal, pronominal, and verbal systems. Moreover, several Spanish varieties have more than two address variants, which compete and mix in intricate ways. Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas showcases current research into this unique linguistic situation, by presenting the original research of twelve scholars from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. The articles cover diachronic change and regional variation, pragmatics, dialect contact, attitudes, and identity. The contributions are contextualized through an introduction and the responses of three established experts, while a conclusion delineates a research agenda for the future. This collection in English is meant to reach scholars beyond the confines of Hispanic linguistics. It should be of interest to Romance linguists and specialists on second person variation across languages.

In February 2012, the Executive Board adopted new procedures to address excessive delays in the completion of Article IV consultations. These consisted of three formal steps to be applied to all members with serious delays, regardless of the reason for delay, recognizing that the obligation to consult with the Fund under Article IV applies uniformly to all members. These steps are: (i) sending a letter from the Managing Director where an Article IV consultation is delayed for more than 12 months from the expected deadline for its conclusion; (ii) publishing a list of members with Article IV consultations delayed for over 18 months; and (iii) holding an informal session to brief Executive Directors on the economic developments and policies of a member with Article IV consultations delayed for over 18 months. While the implementation of the Decision has been relatively smooth, experience to date has led staff to believe that a modification of the Decision should be considered. In particular, the lack of leeway in the Decision regarding the notification by the Managing Director to a member whose Article IV consultation has been delayed by more than 12 months has proved to be inappropriate in some cases.

Management has received a request from the Argentine authorities to publish documents on economic developments in the country prepared by Fund staff for informal Board briefings in 2013–15. The Argentine authorities see publication of these papers as part of their commitment to transparency and accountability in their operations. The documents were prepared pursuant to the Fund’s policy on excessive delays in the completion of Article IV consultations and mandatory financial stability assessments, which requires that staff informally brief Executive Directors every 12 months on the economic developments and policies of relevant members. The objectives of the policy are to promote re-engagement with members with excessively delayed consultations, and to share information with the Board to help it fulfill its surveillance function. Under current policy, the briefing documents are not published. Instead, a short factual statement is issued in a press release, noting that the Board was given an informal staff briefing on the member’s economy based on available information. Under the policy, the Fund decided against publication of the briefing documents since it was considered that publication could expose the Fund to a significant reputational risk if the analysis set out in the documents missed key vulnerabilities due to large information gaps created by the lack of consultation with the member. Also, outside audiences may not appreciate that the documents represent the views of staff, not the views of the Board, and do not constitute an Article IV consultation. A further concern was that publication could reduce the pressure on members to proceed with an Article IV consultation. In light of the current policy, any publication of these documents would require a change in policy approved by the Executive Board