Since then were again called to its loans

The international monetary fund is one of the few winners of the global economic crisis. Only two years ago, it worked to idle. Since then, were again called to its loans. Member countries have decided to triple its budget and it was authorized to raise additional funds by selling its own obligations. The IMF now noise as a hive in full activity. But the crisis will not last forever. The Fund would be well advised to define its missions as long as it has the goodwill of the international community.

His first mission is to help countries facing a crisis in the balance of payments due to intérieurs issues. Their Governments have no choice but to borrow from the Fund. To ensure that its shareholders fit into their funds, the IMF must demand of the painful adjustments to its borrowers. The problem is that it gives reason to the rhetoric of his critics by agreeing to standardize lending conditions. When the origin of a crisis is structural issues, it will require structural changes in exchange for his help. Appearing to give reason to his opponents on this issue to increase its popularity and its influence, it creates unnecessary confusion.

His second mission is to serve as a global monetary reserve. Some countries have accumulated enormous reserves as protection against crises, which is costly for poor countries, which would better use their resources to invest and stimulate consumption. It would be more efficient to create a pool with the reserves of the countries that are likely to be used at different times. The IMF took a step in this direction by creating a mechanism for short-term liquidity, which countries applying serious economic policies can withdraw up to five times their quota without condition. But the process by which access is very heavy. So far, only the Mexico, the Colombia and the Poland there are committed. It had an interest as long as the IMF's resources were limited, the loan application process to limit its liability. But, with a budget that has tripled, the argument becomes worthless. The IMF should say what countries can have access to the device, which would automatically make them members of the pool.

Its third mission is to carry out a macro-prudential control. Recent events have shown that must be an institution which anticipates and prevents the risks which can threaten the stability of the international financial system. The g-20 suggests that the financial stability Board (FSB), established by the supervisory authorities of different countries, to take the initiative in this area, the Fund do not enjoy only a secondary role with its early warning exercises and its financial climate assessment device. But it is not clear why the FSB should lead this process. The IMF is more representative and has of more expertise.

If the national controllers are reluctant to give up this responsibility to a multilateral organization, they are evidence of myopia. Financial markets need a macro-prudential regulator, pas only to controllers College little structured. It can also be that politicians do not trust the IMF because it has not provided the financial crisis. If this is the case, he must regain their confidence.

This brings us to the fourth mission of the IMF, namely its authority to warn of the risks that can lead to the policy of the major countries. As any Latvian can attest, the small countries are disciplined by the market. But if the large countries whose currency is used everywhere need of more resources, it is sufficient to run snowboarding tickets. The discipline of market therefore applies less strongly to them, as well as the IMF, since they do not need to apply to him to borrow.

However, as demonstrated by the collapse of real estate loans at risk, the policy of the major powers may put the international financial system at risk. In this case, the Fund, not wanting to take the hand that feeds, reluctant to raise their voices. Yet, if he wants to preserve its future, its leaders must launch clear warnings the next time that the US current account deficit will reach a dangerous scale, when the next bubble in the