Public Debt Vulnerabilities In Low Income Countries The Evolving Landscape

This is the first joint IMF/World Bank report on public debt vulnerabilities in low income countries (LICs). It examines debt-related developments and their underlying causes since the onset of the global financial crisis. The findings will inform the upcoming review of the IMF/WB debt sustainability framework for LICs. Over this period, improved macroeconomic performance in LICs, combined with HIPC/MDRI debt relief and high demand for commodities, contributed to improved LIC creditworthiness. At the same time, new borrowing opportunities emerged as a result of the accommodative liquidity conditions in international capital markets, the deepening of domestic financial markets for some LICs, and the growing lending activities of non-Paris Club countries. These new financing possibilities helped mitigate the decline in Paris Club lending to LICs and have been associated with a shift toward greater reliance on non-concessional credit. The changing financing landscape has been most significant for frontier LICs.

Public debt in lower-income economies (LIEs) has risen in recent years, with half of the countries covered in this report now assessed to be at high risk of or already in debt distress.

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.

There are growing concerns that 25 years after the launch of the HIPC debt relief initiative, many low-income countries are again facing high debt vulnerabilities. This paper compares debt vulnerabilities in LICs today versus those on the eve of the HIPC Initiative and examines challenges to a similarly designed debt-relief framework. While solvency and liquidity indicators in most LICs have steadily worsened in recent years, they remain substantially better on average than they were on the eve of HIPC in the mid-1990s. This said, if current trends persist, debt vulnerabilities in LICs could (but would not necessarily) reach levels comparable to the pre-HIPC era over the medium- to long-term. Today’s more complex creditor landscape makes coordination challenging. It is therefore essential for countries to reduce today’s debt burdens promptly through economic reform, lowering the cost of financing, and debt restructuring on a case-by-case basis. The international community should also step up efforts to improve debt restructuring processes, including the G20 Common Framework, to ensure that debt relief is delivered in a timely and efficient manner where it is needed.

This paper evaluates the IMF’s policy on the use of quantitative limits on public debt in IMF-supported programs (the “debt limits policy”) and proposes a number of modifications. The review is taking place at a time when many countries are experiencing heightened debt vulnerabilities or actual debt distress, aggravated by the COVID-19 shock, and occurring against the backdrop of a changing credit landscape in which concessional finance is scarcer relative to countries’ investment needs.

The Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) for low-income countries (LICs) is a standardized analytical tool to monitor debt sustainability. This paper uses DSAs from three periods around the time of the global economic crisis to analyze the projected trajectories of debt ratios for a sample of LICs. The aggregate data suggest that LIC vulnerabilities improved on the whole during the period prior to the crisis, and that the crisis had a strong short-run impact on key ratios of debt (debt-to-GDP, -exports, and -fiscal revenues) and debt service (debt service-to-exports, and -revenues). Although projected debt burdens increased following the crisis, debt indicators tend to return to their pre-crisis levels over the projection horizon. This may reflect a strong and durable policy response by LICs towards the crisis, or also reflect specific assumptions on the long-run growth dividends of public external debt.

Low-income countries (LICs) face significant challenges in meeting their development objectives while maintaining a sustainable debt position. The international community’s main answer to this dilemma has been to promote recourse to concessional external resources. The Fund’s recommendations to LICs conform to this preference: the practice in Fund-supported programs in LICs has generally been to set zero limits on nonconcessional external borrowing while not restricting concessional financing, although flexibility has been applied on a case-by-case basis to allow some nonconcessional borrowing when warranted.

This paper develops new error assessment methods to evaluate the performance of debt sustainability analyses (DSAs) for low-income countries (LICs) from 2005-2015. We find some evidence of a bias towards optimism for public and external debt projections, which was most appreciable for LICs with the highest incomes, prospects for market access, and at ‘moderate’ risk of debt distress. This was often driven by overly-ambitious fiscal and/or growth forecasts, and projected ‘residuals’. When we control for unanticipated shocks, we find that biases remain evident, driven in part by optimism regarding government fiscal reaction functions and expected growth dividends from investment.