Debt Sustainability In Low Income Countries Proposal For An Operational Framework And Policy Implications

NULL

This paper seeks to address queries on several operational issues: (i) the robustness of the indicative thresholds; (ii) modalities for implementing DSAs; and (iii) operational implications for the Fund, Bank, and other international financial institutions and creditors.

Building on initial discussions of the proposed framework in February/March 2004, and further considerations in September 2004, this paper responds to remaining concerns that need to be resolved to make the framework operational. These concerns relate to the indicative debt-burden thresholds (Section II); the interaction of the framework with the HIPC Initiative (Section III); and the modalities for Bank-Fund collaboration in deriving a common assessment of sustainability (Section IV). This note should be read in conjunction with the original proposal, which presented the wider issues on the use of the indicative thresholds, the evaluation of policies and institutions, and the need for discretion when assessing sustainability on a forward-looking basis.

NULL

The Debt Sustainability Framework for Low-income Countries (LIC DSF) has been the cornerstone of assessments of risks to debt sustainability in LICs. The framework classifies countries based on their assessed debt-carrying capacity, estimates threshold levels for selected debt burden indicators, evaluates baseline projections and stress test scenarios relative to these thresholds, and then combines indicative rules and staff judgment to assign risk ratings of external debt distress. The framework has demonstrated its operational value since the last review was conducted in 2012, but there are areas where new features can be introduced to enhance its performance in assessing risks. Against the backdrop of the evolving nature of risks facing LICs, both staff analysis and stakeholder feedback suggest gaps in the framework to be addressed. Complexity and lack of transparency have also been highlighted as causes for concern. This paper proposes a set of reforms to enhance the value of the LIC DSF for all users. In developing these reforms, staff has been guided by two over-arching principles: a) the core architecture of the DSF—model-based results complemented by judgment—remains appropriate; and b) reforms should ensure that the DSF maintains an appropriate balance by providing countries with early warnings of potential debt distress without unnecessarily constraining their borrowing for development.

Low-income countries (LICs) face significant challenges in meeting their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while at the same time ensuring that their external debt remains sustainable. In April 2005, the Executive Boards of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Development Association (IDA) approved the introduction of the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF), a tool developed jointly by IMF and World Bank staff to conduct public and external debt sustainability analysis in low-income countries. The DSF has since been serving to help guide the borrowing decisions of LICs, provide guidance for creditors’ lending and grant allocation decisions, and improve World Bank and IMF assessments and policy advice. The latest review of the framework was approved by the Executive Boards in September 2017. This introduced reforms to ensure that the DSF remains appropriate for the rapidly changing financing landscape facing LICs and to further improve insights into debt vulnerabilities. This note provides operational and technical guidance on the implementation of the reformed framework.

The Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) is a standardized framework for analyzing debt-related vulnerabilities in low-income countries (LICs). It aims to help countries monitor their debt burden and take early preventive action, to provide guidance to creditors in ensuring their lending decisions are consistent with countries’ development goals, and to improve the Bank and Fund’s assessments and policy advice. The DSF was last reviewed in 2006, and a reconsideration of some aspects of the framework is timely.