Economy World

Wo rld Eco nomi c a nd F i na nci a l S u r v e y s
World Economic Outlook

October 2018
Challenges to Steady Growth
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O N E T A R Y F U N D
©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution
©2018 International Monetary Fund
Cover and Design: Luisa Menjivar and Jorge Salazar

Composition: AGS, An RR Donnelley Company
Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Joint Bank-Fund Library
Names: International Monetary Fund.

Title: World economic outlook (International Monetary Fund)
Other titles: WEO | Occasional paper (International Monetary Fund) | World economic and
financial surveys.
Description: Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund, 1980- | Semiannual | Some
issues also have thematic titles. | Began with issue for May 1980. | 1981-1984: Occasional
paper / International Monetary Fund, 0251-6365 | 1986-: World economic and financial
surveys, 0256-6877.
Identifiers: ISSN 0256-6877 (print) | ISSN 1564-5215 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Economic development—Periodicals. | International economic relations—
Periodicals. | Debts, External—Periodicals. | Balance of payments—Periodicals. |
International finance—Periodicals. | Economic forecasting—Periodicals.
Classification: LCC HC10.W79
HC10.80
ISBN 978-1-48437-679-9 (paper)

978-1-48437-719-2 (Web PDF)
978-1-48437-735-2 (ePub)
978-1-48437-736-9 (Mobi)
The World Economic Outlook (WEO) is a survey by the IMF staff published twice a
year, in the spring and fall. The WEO is prepared by the IMF staff and has benefited
from comments and suggestions by Executive Directors following their discussion of the
report on September 20, 2018. The views expressed in this publication are those of the
IMF staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF’s Executive Directors
or their national authorities.
Recommended citation: International Monetary Fund. 2018. World Economic Outlook:

Challenges to Steady Growth. Washington, DC, October.
Publication orders may be placed online, by fax, or through the mail:

International Monetary Fund, Publication Services
P.O. Box 92780, Washington, DC 20090, USA
Tel.: (202) 623-7430 Fax: (202) 623-7201
E-mail: [email protected]
www.imfbookstore.org
www.elibrary.imf.org

CONTENTS
Assumptions and Conventions ix
Further Information x
Data xi
Preface xii
Foreword xiii
Executive Summary xvi
Chapter 1. Global Prospects and Policies 1

Recent Developments and Prospects 1
Forces Shaping the Outlook 9
The Forecast 12
Policy Priorities 23
Scenario Box 1. Global Trade Tensions 33
Box 1.1. Increasing Market Power 36
Box 1.2. Growth Outlook: Advanced Economies 39
Box 1.3. Growth Outlook: Emerging Market and Developing Economies 40
Box 1.4. Inflation Outlook: Regions and Countries 42
Box 1.5. Sharp GDP Declines: Some Stylized Facts 43
Box 1.6. Predicting Recessions and Slowdowns: A Daunting Task 48
Special Feature: Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Recent
Trends in Energy Demand 52
Box 1.SF.1. The Demand and Supply of Renewable Energy 60
References 68
Online Annexes
Annex 1.SF.1. Commodity Special Feature
Chapter 2. The Global Recovery 10 Years after the 2008 Financial Meltdown 71
Introduction 71
Persistent Post–Global Financial Crisis Deviations in Output 73
Policy Frameworks, Measures, and Postcrisis Output Performance 78
Summary 84
Box 2.1. The Global Financial Crisis, Migration, and Fertility 86
Box 2.2. The Employment Impact of Automation Following the Global Financial Crisis:
The Case of Industrial Robots 90
Box 2.3. The Role of Financial Sector Repair in the Speed of the Recovery 93
References 97
Online Annexes
Annex 2.1. Data Sources and Country Coverage
Annex 2.2. Additional Details on Quantifying Postcrisis Deviations in Activity from Precrisis Trends
Annex 2.3. Robot Diffusion and Its Employment Impact in the Aftermath of the Crisis
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 iii

WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: CHALLENGES TO STEADY GROWTH
Chapter 3. Challenges for Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets as Global Financial Conditions Normalize 101
Introduction 101
Extent of Improvements in Inflation Outcomes 103
Determinants of Inflation in Emerging Markets 105
Anchoring of Inflation Expectations 108
Implications of Anchoring for Monetary Policy 111
Summary and Policy Implications 116
Box 3.1. Inflation Dynamics in a Wider Group of Emerging Market and Developing Economies 118
Box 3.2. Clarity of Central Bank Communications and the Extent of Anchoring of Inflation Expectations 121
References 123
Online Annexes
Annex 3.1. Data Sources and Country Coverage
Annex 3.2. Determinants of Inflation
Annex 3.3. Anchoring of Inflation Expectations
Annex 3.4. Anchoring of Inflation Expectations and Monetary Policy: Model-Based Guidance
Annex 3.5. The Event Study Methodology for the Taper Tantrum
Annex 3.6. Monetary Policy Reaction Function
Statistical Appendix 127

Assumptions 127
What’s New 128
Data and Conventions 128
Country Notes 129
Classification of Countries 130
General Features and Composition of Groups in the World Economic Outlook Classification 130
Table A. Classification by World Economic Outlook Groups and Their Shares in Aggregate GDP,
Exports of Goods and Services, and Population, 2017 131
Table B. Advanced Economies by Subgroup 132
Table C. European Union 132
Table D. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region and Main Source of Export Earnings 133
Table E. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region, Net External Position, and
Status as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries and Low-Income Developing Countries 134
Table F. Economies with Exceptional Reporting Periods 136
Table G. Key Data Documentation 137
Box A1. Economic Policy Assumptions Underlying the Projections for Selected Economies 147
List of Tables 151
Output (Tables A1–A4) 152
Inflation (Tables A5–A7) 159
Financial Policies (Table A8) 164
Foreign Trade (Table A9) 165
Current Account Transactions (Tables A10–A12) 167
Balance of Payments and External Financing (Table A13) 174
Flow of Funds (Table A14) 178
Medium-Term Baseline Scenario (Table A15) 181
World Economic Outlook, Selected Topics 183
IMF Executive Board Discussion of the Outlook, October 2018 193
iv International Monetary Fund | October 2018

CONTENTS
Tables
Table 1.1. Overview of the World Economic Outlook Projections 14
Table 1.5.1. Episodes of Declines in GDP per Capita Exceeding 20 Percent 44
Table 1.5.2. Declines in GDP per Capita: Stylized Facts 46
Table 1.5.3. Postcrisis Outcomes and Crisis Depth 47
Table 1.SF.1. Total Demand Determinant for Baseline Specification 55
Annex Table 1.1.1. European Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance,
and Unemployment 61
Annex Table 1.1.2. Asian and Pacific Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account
Balance, and Unemployment 62
Annex Table 1.1.3. Western Hemisphere Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account
Balance, and Unemployment 63
Annex Table 1.1.4. Commonwealth of Independent States Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices,
Current Account Balance, and Unemployment 64
Annex Table 1.1.5. Middle East, North African Economies, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: Real GDP,
Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance, and Unemployment 65
Annex Table 1.1.6. Sub-Saharan African Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices,
Current Account Balance, and Unemployment 66
Annex Table 1.1.7. Summary of World Real per Capita Output 67
Table 2.1. Total Factor Productivity Deviations Account for Large Share of GDP per Worker Deviations 77
Table 2.2. Impact of Precrisis Conditions on 2011–13 GDP Deviations from Precrisis Trend 80
Table 2.3. Financial Sector Support and Discretionary Fiscal Stimulus in Group of Twenty Economies 83
Online Tables
Annex Table 1.SF.1.1. Contribution to Electrification, 1971–2015
Annex Table 1.SF.1.2. World Energy Usage, 2015 and 1971
Annex Table 1.SF.1.3. Total Demand Determinants, by Varying Specifications
Annex Table 1.SF.1.4. Primary Energy and Electricity Share Determinants
Annex Table 2.1.1. Data Sources
Annex Table 2.1.2. Country Coverage
Annex Table 2.2.1. Banking Crises, 2007–08
Annex Table 2.2.2. Tests of Equality of Distributions of 2015–17 Deviations
Annex Table 2.2.3. Probability of Banking Crisis and the Strength of Restrictions on Banking Activities
Annex Table 2.2.4. Banking Crisis and Regulations: Probit Regression
Annex Table 2.2.5. Impact on 2011–13 GDP Deviations from One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers
Annex Table 2.2.6. Impact on 2011–13 Investment Deviations from One Standard Deviation Increase in
Drivers
by Country Group
Annex Table 2.3.1. Sectors, Individual Industries, and Abbreviations Used in Chapter, ISIC Revision and IFR
Sector Classifications
Annex Table 2.3.2. Crisis Exposure and Robot Density, Test in Median
Annex Table 2.3.3. Cross-Section Difference-in-Differences Estimation of Impact of Crisis on Robot Density
Annex Table 2.3.4. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Impact of Robot Adoption on Employment Using
Output Loss
Annex Table 2.3.5. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Impact of Robot Adoption on Employment by
Medium Skills and High Output Loss
Annex Table 2.3.6. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Impact of Robot Adoption on Employment by
Labor Market Policies and Output Loss
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 v

Annex Table 3.1.1. Data Sources

Annex Table 3.1.2. Country Coverage
Annex Table 3.2.1. Hybrid Phillips Curve: Estimation Results
Annex Table 3.2.2. Hybrid Phillips Curve: Specification Augmented for External Factors
Annex Table 3.2.3. Hybrid Phillips Curve: Alternative Forecast Horizon
Annex Table 3.2.4. Hybrid Phillips Curve: Extensions
Annex Table 3.3.1. Correlation of Relative Ranking across Anchoring Metrics, 2004–18
Annex Table 3.6.1. Estimation of Monetary Policy Rules
Table B1. Advanced Economies: Unemployment, Employment, and Real GDP per Capita
Table B2. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Real GDP
Table B3. Advanced Economies: Hourly Earnings, Productivity, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing
Table B4. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Consumer Prices
Table B5. Summary of Fiscal and Financial Indicators
Table B6. Advanced Economies: General and Central Government Net Lending/Borrowing and General
Government Net Lending/Borrowing Excluding Social Security Schemes
Table B7. Advanced Economies: General Government Structural Balances
Table B8. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: General Government Net Lending/Borrowing and
Overall Fiscal Balance
Table B9. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: General Government Net Lending/Borrowing
Table B10. Selected Advanced Economies: Exchange Rates
Table B11. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Broad Money Aggregates
Table B12. Advanced Economies: Export Volumes, Import Volumes, and Terms of Trade in Goods and Services
Table B13. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region: Total Trade in Goods
Table B14. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Source of Export Earnings: Total Trade in Goods
Table B15. Summary of Current Account Transactions
Table B16. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Summary of External Debt and Debt Service
Table B17. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region: External Debt by Maturity
Table B18. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Analytical Criteria: External Debt by Maturity
Table B19. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Ratio of External Debt to GDP
Table B20. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Debt-Service Ratios
Table B21. Emerging Market and Developing Economies, Medium-Term Baseline Scenario: Selected
Economic Indicators
Figures
Figure 1. Real GDP Growth, by Country Group xiv
Figure 1.1. Global Activity Indicators 2
Figure 1.2. Commodity and Oil Prices 3
Figure 1.3. Global Inflation 4
Figure 1.4. Advanced Economies: Monetary and Financial Market Conditions 6
Figure 1.5. Real Effective Exchange Rate Changes, February–September 2018 6
Figure 1.6. Emerging Market Economies: Interest Rates and Spreads 7
Figure 1.7. Emerging Market Economies: Equity Markets and Credit 8
Figure 1.8. Emerging Market Economies: Capital Flows 8
Figure 1.9. Impact of Commodity Price Changes 10
Figure 1.10. Global Investment and Trade 10
Figure 1.11. Contributions to GDP Growth 11
Figure 1.12. Per Capita Real GDP Growth 12
Figure 1.13. Fiscal Indicators 13
Figure 1.14. Global Current Account Balance 17
Figure 1.15. Current Account Balances in Relation to Economic Fundamentals 18
Figure 1.16. Net International Investment Position 18
vi International Monetary Fund | October 2018

CONTENTS
Figure 1.17. Growth for Creditors and Debtors 19

Figure 1.18. Policy Uncertainty and Trade Tensions 22
Figure 1.19. Geopolitical Risk Index 23
Figure 1.20. Risks to the Global Outlook 23
Figure 1.21. Projected Change in Public Debt 25
Figure 1.22. Change in the Working-Age Population (15–64) Relative to 2015 Levels 30
Scenario Figure 1. Real GDP in Trade Tensions Scenario 35
Figure 1.1.1. Market Power over Time 36
Figure 1.1.2. Markup Increase, by Subsector 36
Figure 1.1.3. Advanced Economies: Distribution of Markups of All Firms 37
Figure 1.1.4. Advanced Economies: Distribution of Markups of Firms, by Industry 37
Figure 1.5.1. Ongoing Episodes of Large Declines in GDP per Capita 46
Figure 1.6.1. World Economic Outlook Data: Recessions, Actual and Forecast 48
Figure 1.6.2. Consensus Economics Data: Recessions, Actual and Forecast 49
Figure 1.6.3. Severe Slowdowns, Actual and Forecast 50
Figure 1.6.4. Forecast Errors during Severe Slowdowns 50
Figure 1.6.5. Forecast Performance 51
Figure 1.SF.1. Commodity Market Developments 52
Figure 1.SF.2. Primary Energy Consumption and Supply 54
Figure 1.SF.3. Energy Efficiency 56
Figure 1.SF.4. Energy Demand and GDP per Capita 57
Figure 1.SF.5. Biomass 57
Figure 1.SF.6. Primary Energy Source Shares 58
Figure 1.SF.7. Decomposition of Change in World Coal Intensity 58
Figure 1.SF.1.1. Renewables Capacity 60
Figure 2.1. Correlation of GDP Deviations between Periods 73
Figure 2.2. Postcrisis Change in Inequality 74
Figure 2.3. Postcrisis Output Deviations from Precrisis Trend, 2015–17 74
Figure 2.4. Postcrisis Output Deviations from Precrisis Trend by Country Group, 2015–17 75
Figure 2.5. Postcrisis Investment Deviations from Precrisis Trend: Mean Trajectory 76
Figure 2.6. Postcrisis Capital Stock Deviations from Precrisis Trend, 2015–17 76
Figure 2.7. Postcrisis Total Factor Productivity Deviations from Precrisis Trends, 2015–17 77
Figure 2.8. Changes in Research and Development Expenditure, by Output Losses and
Country Groups 78
Figure 2.9. Average Change in Robot Density, by Output Losses and Country Groups, 2010–14 78
Figure 2.10. Probability of Banking Crisis 81
Figure 2.11. Postcrisis Deviations of Euro Area and Other Advanced Economies 82
Figure 2.12. Impact on 2015–17 GDP Deviations from One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers 84
Figure 2.1.1. International Migration and the Global Financial Crisis 86
Figure 2.1.2. Impact of Emigration Rate from One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers at
Different Horizons 87
Figure 2.1.3. Total Fertility Rate 88
Figure 2.1.4. Impact of Crisis Exposure on Fertility Rate at Different Horizons 88
Figure 2.1.5. Impact on Fertility from One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers at
Different Horizons 89
Figure 2.2.1. Effect of Robot Diffusion on Employment Growth 90
Figure 2.2.2. Hollowing-Out Effect of Robot Diffusion on Employment Growth 91
Figure 2.2.3. Labor Market Policies and Effect of Robot Diffusion on Employment Growth 92
Figure 2.3.1. Containment and Resolution 93
Figure 2.3.2. Timing of Recapitalization 94
Figure 2.3.3. New Share Issuance by Banks 94
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 vii

Figure 2.3.4. Nonperforming Loan Ratio 95

Figure 2.3.5. Postcrisis Paths 96
Figure 3.1. Headline Consumer Price Index Inflation 102
Figure 3.2. Institutional and Policy Changes, Global Shocks, and Financial Conditions 102
Figure 3.3. Regional Differences and Dispersion in Headline Consumer Price Index Inflation in
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 104
Figure 3.4. Other Measures of Price Inflation in Emerging Markets 104
Figure 3.5. Inflation Dynamics 105
Figure 3.6. Coefficient Estimates from the Baseline Phillips Curve Specification 106
Figure 3.7. Contributions to Deviation of Core Inflation from Target 106
Figure 3.8. Time Fixed Effects and Common Drivers, by Subperiod 108
Figure 3.9. Evolution of the Degree of Anchoring of Inflation Expectations, 2000–17 109
Figure 3.10. Cross-Country Heterogeneity in Degree of Anchoring of Inflation Expectations,
2004–17 110
Figure 3.11. Anchoring of Inflation Expectations and Policy Frameworks, 2004–17 111
Figure 3.12. Gains from Anchoring Inflation Expectations 113
Figure 3.13. Response to the Taper Tantrum 114
Figure 3.14. Cumulative Exchange Rate Pass-Through 114
Figure 3.15. Correlation between Detrended Policy Rate and Output Gap, 2004:Q1–2018:Q1 115
Figure 3.16. Effects of Less-Anchored Inflation Expectations: Regression Results, 2004:Q1–2018:Q1 116
Figure 3.1.1. Comparison of Macro Characteristics across Country Groups 118
Figure 3.1.2. Inflation Dynamics 119
Figure 3.1.3. Inflation, Food Shares, and Commodity Prices 120
Figure 3.1.4. Central Bank Transparency 120
Figure 3.2.1. Frequency of Monetary Policy Surprises, 2010–13 versus 2014–18 121
Figure 3.2.2. Monetary Policy Predictability and Anchoring of Inflation Expectations 122
Figure 3.2.3. Central Bank Communication and Monetary Policy Predictability 122
Online Figures
Annex Figure 1.SF.1.1 Renewable Total Primary Energy Supply Growth, by Select Regions
Annex Figure 2.2.1. Estimates of Precrisis Trends for the United States
Annex Figure 2.2.2. Structural Break
Annex Figure 2.2.3. Postcrisis Output per Worker Deviations from Precrisis Trend, 2015–17
Annex Figure 2.2.4. Distributions of GDP Deviations after Recessions
Annex Figure 2.2.5. Change in Postcrisis and Precrisis Growth Rates in Sectoral Capital Stock
Annex Figure 2.3.1. Sales of Robots for Professional Services
Annex Figure 2.3.2. Sales of Robots for Domestic/Personal Services
Annex Figure 2.3.3. Average Change in Robot Density (2010–14) and Initial Robot Stock in 2010
Annex Figure 2.3.4. Effect of Crisis Exposure on Robot Diffusion
Annex Figure 3.2.1. Contribution of Domestic and Global Factors to Inflation Dynamics
Annex Figure 3.3.1. Degree of Anchoring, Rolling Windows
Annex Figure 3.5.1. Effect of May 2013 “Taper Tantrum”: Alternative Classification Based on Pre-2013 Data
Annex Figure 3.5.2. Effect of May 2013 “Taper Tantrum”: Alternative Classification Based on Median
Measures
Annex Figure 3.6.1. Net Capital Inflows to Emerging Markets, 2004–18
viii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

ASSUMPTIONS AND CONVENTIONS
A number of assumptions have been adopted for the projections presented in the World Economic Outlook (WEO). It has
been assumed that real effective exchange rates remained constant at their average levels during July 17 to August 14, 2018,
except for those for the currencies participating in the European exchange rate mechanism II (ERM II), which are assumed
to have remained constant in nominal terms relative to the euro; that established policies of national authorities will be
maintained (for specific assumptions about fiscal and monetary policies for selected economies, see Box A1 in the Statistical
Appendix); that the average price of oil will be $69.38 a barrel in 2018 and $68.76 a barrel in 2019 and will remain
unchanged in real terms over the medium term; that the six-month London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) on US dollar
deposits will average 2.5 percent in 2018 and 3.4 percent in 2019; that the three-month euro deposit rate will average –0.3
percent in 2018 and –0.2 percent in 2019; and that the six-month Japanese yen deposit rate will yield on average 0.0 percent
in 2018 and 0.1 percent in 2019. These are, of course, working hypotheses rather than forecasts, and the uncertainties
surrounding them add to the margin of error that would in any event be involved in the projections. The estimates and
projections are based on statistical information available through September 18, 2018.
The following conventions are used throughout the WEO:
. . . to indicate that data are not available or not applicable;
– between years or months (for example, 2017–18 or January–June) to indicate the years or months covered,
including the beginning and ending years or months; and
/ between years or months (for example, 2017/18) to indicate a fiscal or financial year.
“Billion” means a thousand million; “trillion” means a thousand billion.
“Basis points” refers to hundredths of 1 percentage point (for example, 25 basis points are equivalent to ¼ of 1 percentage point).
Data refer to calendar years, except in the case of a few countries that use fiscal years. Table F in the Statistical Appendix
lists the economies with exceptional reporting periods for national accounts and government finance data for each country.
For some countries, the figures for 2017 and earlier are based on estimates rather than actual outturns. Table G in the
Statistical Appendix lists the latest actual outturns for the indicators in the national accounts, prices, government finance, and
balance of payments indicators for each country.
What is new in this publication:
• Argentina’s consumer prices, which were previously excluded from the group composites because of data constraints, are
now included starting from 2017 onward.
• Data for Aruba are included in the data aggregated for the emerging market and developing economies.
• Egypt’s forecast data, from which the nominal exchange rate assumptions are calculated, were previously excluded because
the nominal exchange rate was a market sensitive issue; they are now made public.
• Swaziland is now called Eswatini.
• Venezuela redenominated its currency on August 20, 2018, by replacing 100,000 bolívares Fuertes (VEF) with 1 bolívar
Soberano (VES). Local currency data, including the historical data, for Venezuela are expressed in the new currency
beginning with the October 2018 WEO database.
In the tables and figures, the following conventions apply:
• If no source is listed on tables and figures, data are drawn from the WEO database.
• When countries are not listed alphabetically, they are ordered on the basis of economic size.
• Minor discrepancies between sums of constituent figures and totals shown reflect rounding.
As used in this report, the terms “country” and “economy” do not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as
understood by international law and practice. As used here, the term also covers some territorial entities that are not states
but for which statistical data are maintained on a separate and independent basis.
Composite data are provided for various groups of countries organized according to economic characteristics or region. Unless
noted otherwise, country group composites represent calculations based on 90 percent or more of the weighted group data.
The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on the maps do not imply, on the part of
the International Monetary Fund, any judgment on the legal status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of
such boundaries.
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 ix

WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: TENSIONS FROM THE TWO-SPEED RECOVERY
FURTHER INFORMATION
Corrections and Revisions

The data and analysis appearing in the World Economic Outlook (WEO) are compiled by the IMF staff at the
time of publication. Every effort is made to ensure their timeliness, accuracy, and completeness. When errors are
discovered, corrections and revisions are incorporated into the digital editions available from the IMF website and
on the IMF eLibrary (see below). All substantive changes are listed in the online tables of contents.
Print and Digital Editions

Print copies of this World Economic Outlook can be ordered at https://www.bookstore.imf.org/books/title/
world-economic-outlook-october-2018.
The WEO is featured on the IMF website at http://www.imf.org/publications/WEO. This site includes a PDF
of the report and data sets for each of the charts therein.
The IMF eLibrary hosts multiple digital editions of the World Economic Outlook, including ePub, enhanced
PDF, Mobi, and HTML: http://elibrary.imf.org/OCT18WEO.
Copyright and Reuse

Information on the terms and conditions for reusing the contents of this publication are at http://www.
imf.org/external/terms.htm.
x International Monetary Fund | October 2018

DATA
This version of the World Economic Outlook (WEO) is available in full through the IMF eLibrary (www.elibrary.
imf.org) and the IMF website (www.imf.org). Accompanying the publication on the IMF website is a larger compila-
tion of data from the WEO database than is included in the report itself, including files containing the series most
frequently requested by readers. These files may be downloaded for use in a variety of software packages.
The data appearing in the WEO are compiled by the IMF staff at the time of the WEO exercises. The histori-
cal data and projections are based on the information gathered by the IMF country desk officers in the context
of their missions to IMF member countries and through their ongoing analysis of the evolving situation in each
country. Historical data are updated on a continual basis as more information becomes available, and structural
breaks in data are often adjusted to produce smooth series with the use of splicing and other techniques. IMF
staff estimates continue to serve as proxies for historical series when complete information is unavailable. As a
result, WEO data can differ from those in other sources with official data, including the IMF’s International
Financial Statistics.
The WEO data and metadata provided are “as is” and “as available,” and every effort is made to ensure their
timeliness, accuracy, and completeness, but these cannot be guaranteed. When errors are discovered, there is a
concerted effort to correct them as appropriate and feasible. Corrections and revisions made after publication are
incorporated into the electronic editions available from the IMF eLibrary (www.elibrary.imf.org) and on the IMF
website (www.imf.org). All substantive changes are listed in detail in the online tables of contents.
For details on the terms and conditions for usage of the WEO database, please refer to the IMF Copyright and
Usage website (www.imf.org/external/terms.htm).
Inquiries about the content of the WEO and the WEO database should be sent by mail, fax, or online forum
(telephone inquiries cannot be accepted):
World Economic Studies Division
Research Department
International Monetary Fund
700 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20431, USA
Fax: (202) 623-6343
Online Forum: www.imf.org/weoforum
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xi

PREFACE
The analysis and projections contained in the World Economic Outlook are integral elements of the IMF’s
surveillance of economic developments and policies in its member countries, of developments in international
financial markets, and of the global economic system. The survey of prospects and policies is the product
of a comprehensive interdepartmental review of world economic developments, which draws primarily on
information the IMF staff gathers through its consultations with member countries. These consultations are
carried out in particular by the IMF’s area departments—namely, the African Department, Asia and Pacific
Department, European Department, Middle East and Central Asia Department, and Western Hemisphere
Department—together with the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department; the Monetary and Capital Markets
Department; and the Fiscal Affairs Department.
The analysis in this report was coordinated in the Research Department under the general direction of
Maurice Obstfeld, Economic Counsellor and Director of Research. The project was directed by Gian Maria
Milesi-Ferretti, Deputy Director, Research Department; and Oya Celasun, Division Chief, Research Department.
The primary contributors to this report were Rudolfs Bems, Christian Bogmans, Francesca Caselli, Wenjie Chen,
Francesco Grigoli, Bertrand Gruss, Zsóka Kóczán, Toh Kuan, Weicheng Lian, Akito Matsumoto, Mico Mrkaic, Malhar
Nabar, Natalija Novta, Andrea Pescatori, and Petia Topalova.
Other contributors include Michal Andrle, Gavin Asdorian, Luisa Calixto, Yan Carrière-Swallow, Federico Diez,
Angela Espiritu, Rachel Yuting Fan, Gregg Forte, Meron Haile, Mandy Hemmati, Benjamin Hilgenstock,
Ava Yeabin Hong, Benjamin Hunt, Deniz Igan, Christopher Johns, Lama Kiyasseh, Jungjin Lee, Daniel Leigh,
Daniela Muhaj, Susanna Mursula, Cynthia Nyanchama Nyakeri, Emory Oakes, Rafael Portillo, Evgenia Pugacheva,
Adrian Robles Villamil, Susie Xiaohui Sun, Suchanan Tambunlertchai, Nicholas Tong, Julia Xueliang Wang,
Shan Wang, Jilun Xing, Juan Yépez, Yuan Zeng, Qiaoqiao Zhang, Candice Huiyuan Zhao, Caroline Chenqi Zhou,
and Jillian Zirnhelt.
Joseph Procopio from the Communications Department led the editorial team for the report, with production
and editorial support from Christine Ebrahimzadeh and Linda Kean and editorial assistance from James Unwin,
Lucy Scott Morales, Sherrie Brown, and Vector Talent Resources.
The analysis has benefited from comments and suggestions by staff members from other IMF departments,
as well as by Executive Directors following their discussion of the report on September 20, 2018. However,
both projections and policy considerations are those of the IMF staff and should not be attributed to Executive
Directors or to their national authorities.
xii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

FOREWORD
A
typical foreword to the World Economic Figure 1. Real GDP Growth, by Country Group
Outlook (WEO) highlights how data (Year over year)
since the previous projection alter our
10
baseline growth assumptions. It pays World
Advanced economies
detailed attention to the most recent developments 8 Emerging/developing economies
and interprets the implications for policies going
forward. This WEO foreword—my last—will instead 6
situate the current conjuncture in a broader historical
context, the better to draw out lessons for the future. 4
The occasion justifies my unusual approach. This
WEO is appearing shortly after the 10th anniversary of 2
the Lehman Brothers collapse and, moreover, at a time
of mounting uncertainties—not only over economic 0
policies but also over the global framework of interna-
tional relations within which policies are made. –2
The decade since the global financial crisis of 2008–
09 has indeed brought dramatic economic and political –4
1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
developments, a trend that seems unlikely to recede any
time soon. How can policymakers guide their econo- Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2018.
mies through the troubled waters ahead? How can Note: Grey area denotes projections.
they strengthen and modernize the post–World War II
multilateral system, which supported an unparalleled market concentration. Notably, the longer-term future
70 years of peace and prosperity? To answer, we must growth rates that the WEO projects for advanced
consider not only the impact of the crisis itself but also economies are below current levels.
the years just before, when some key patterns that have Second, the start of the new millennium brought
defined the post-crisis period first emerged. a growth surge in emerging market and develop-
ing economies that decisively placed them ahead of
advanced economies’ growth. Rapid Chinese growth
The Precrisis Decade was responsible for some, but clearly not all, of this
It was in the period before the crisis when some of decoupling, because the pattern remains even after
our current economic vulnerabilities first came to be. subtracting China’s algebraic growth contribution (as
The chart tracks real global growth since 1980, along well as India’s, for that matter). The growth acceleration
with the contributions of advanced economies and of is a robust consequence of stronger policy frameworks
emerging market and developing economies. After the in many emerging market and developing economies,
Asian crisis (1997–98) and the collapse of the dot- including their embrace of more open trade. Because
com bubble (2000–01), the growth of emerging mar- it also derives from the greater weight of these fast-
ket and developing economies accelerated significantly growing economies in the world economy, their distinct
while advanced economies, even though recovering, growth advantage over advanced economies looks likely
grew at rates below prior levels. to continue unless advanced economies can meet their
Two things stand out. First, advanced economies’ structural economic challenges.
growth has generally trended downward since the The Asian crisis and the dot-com collapse—and
mid-2000s. This long-term decline stems from aging intervening events like the forced bailout of Long-Term
workforces and slower productivity growth, which Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998, which avoided
coincide with falling economic dynamism and rising a possible systemic financial meltdown—illustrate
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xiii

pointedly how balance-sheet weaknesses and asset-price and commodity prices fell further. The 2016 global
bubbles can bring down financial institutions and entire growth rate of 3.3 percent was the lowest since 2009.
economies. In his 1998 Henry L. Stimson Lecture at Economic optimism began to return midway
Yale University, Alexandre Lamfalussy wrote presciently through 2016, despite any effects from the surprise out-
of the US market turmoil that followed that year’s Rus- come of the UK Brexit referendum in June. Late that
sian default: “If such developments can take place in the year, manufacturing activity surged and growth picked
model market of the world, what is the practical value of up broadly around the world, leading to the most
recommending that emerging markets copy this model?” evenly balanced global upswing since 2010. Global
Many emerging market and developing economies trade, which had grown unusually slowly during 2012–
did draw and act on lessons from these crises, for 16, also rebounded as investment began to recover. As
example, by embracing inflation targeting, adopting of the April 2018 WEO, we projected global growth
more flexible exchange rate regimes, and implement- to rise to 3.9 percent in both 2018 and 2019, and for
ing macroprudential policies—lessons well worth the first time in a while, assessed short-term risks to our
remembering today. Advanced economies, however, growth forecast to be evenly balanced between potential
were more complacent, often viewing financial crises positive and negative surprises.
as problems to which only emerging market and Now, in October 2018, the outlook is one of less
developing economies were susceptible—notwith- balanced and more tentative expansion than we hoped
standing the contradictory evidence from several near- for last April. Growth in the United States remains
misses, including LTCM. The result was the global exceptionally robust for now, powered by a procyclical
financial crisis, which ended the mid-decade global fiscal expansion that may, however, weigh on US and
boom. As a group, emerging market and developing global growth later. But we have downgraded near-term
economies generally weathered that crisis well, given growth prospects for the euro area, Korea, and the
its severity, and they have continued to grow more United Kingdom. Our reassessment is more dramatic
quickly than during the 1980s and 1990s. for emerging markets as a group, where we see growth
easing in Latin America (notably Argentina, Brazil,
Mexico), the Middle East (notably Iran), and emerging
The Postcrisis Decade Europe (notably Turkey). Our 2019 growth projection
World growth took a rarely precedented tumble in for China is also lower than in April, given the latest
2009, but all regions of the world experienced a bounce round of US tariffs on Chinese imports, as are our pro-
back in 2010–11, supported by vigorous countercycli- jections for India. Owing to these changes, our inter-
cal responses throughout the Group of Twenty coun- national growth projections for both this year and next
tries. Many advanced economies reduced policy interest are downgraded to 3.7 percent, 0.2 percentage point
rates to the zero lower bound and began to experiment below our last assessments and the same rate achieved
with unconventional monetary policies. in 2017. At the global level, recent data show weaken-
After 2010–11, however, a succession of shocks— ing in trade, manufacturing, and investment. Overall,
the euro area crisis, reversals of fiscal stimulus in world economic growth is still solid compared with
major economies, wobbles in Chinese growth, and earlier this decade, but it appears to have plateaued.
falling commodity prices—all prevented continued These more moderate growth numbers and the
strong and synchronized growth. Relatively favorable weaker incoming data that underpin them owe, in
economic fundamentals in the United States made part, to a sharp rise in policy uncertainty over the past
it likely that the Federal Reserve would be the first year—a development yet to be reflected in advanced
among major central banks to normalize monetary economy financial markets but evident in news-based
policy, and the dollar strengthened starting in the uncertainty measures. Uncertainty over trade policy is
summer of 2014. Global markets were spooked a year prominent in the wake of US actions (or threatened
later when China, feeling the resulting pressure on actions) on several fronts, the responses by its trading
its heavily managed exchange rate, began to allow its partners, and a general weakening of multilateral
currency to fall against the dollar. The tensions did consultation on trade issues. The possible failure of
not recede quickly. Within a month of the Federal Brexit negotiations poses another risk. Amid the trade
Reserve’s first interest-rate hike in nearly 10 years at uncertainties, financial conditions are tightening for
the end of 2015, global financial markets swooned emerging market and developing economies as they
xiv International Monetary Fund | October 2018

FOREWORD
adjust to progressive interest rate hikes by the Federal when it comes and to reduce the long-term tax costs of
Reserve and an impending end of asset purchases servicing high public debts. Several emerging mar-
by the European Central Bank. Compared with 10 ket and developing economies must undertake fiscal
years ago, many of these economies have higher levels reforms to ensure the sustainability of public finances
of corporate and sovereign debt, leaving them more and improve market sentiment. Global and national
vulnerable. With geopolitical tensions also relevant actions have buttressed financial stability since the cri-
in several regions, we judge that, even for the near sis, but the work remains incomplete in several respects,
future, the possibility of unpleasant surprises out- including, for example, safeguarding the nonbank
weighs the likelihood of unforeseen good news. financial sector and resolution in insolvency, especially
for systemically important international banks, where a
cooperative global framework is urgently needed. Some
Policy Challenges
financial oversight measures that grew out of the crisis
Perhaps the biggest secular challenge for many could be simplified, but a wholesale rollback would risk
advanced economies centers on the slow growth of future instability. Even piecemeal deregulation must be
workers’ incomes, perceptions of lower social mobility, cautious and carefully considered, because a sequence
and, in some countries, inadequate policy responses to of smaller actions could eventually weaken the system
structural economic change. Not only has the trend in enough to leave it fragile. Indeed, precisely because
long-term advanced economy growth been downward; monetary policy will need to remain accommodative
in many countries, the more meager gains have gone where inflation is below target levels and will need
primarily to the relatively well-off. In the United to proceed cautiously elsewhere, effective macro- and
States, for example, median real household income microprudential levers must remain available.
was about the same in 2016 as in 1999. This pat- The growing weight of emerging market and
tern clearly predates the global financial crisis and the developing economies in the global economy means
euro area crisis. But the crises themselves, along with that advanced economies internalize fewer of the
aspects of the policy response, further soured the pub- global gains from their own support of multilateral
lic mood. Such discontent in turn helped give rise to cooperation. They perceive the leakage of benefits
current tensions over trade policy as well as a broader to other countries to be relatively larger now than
skepticism toward centrist policies and leaders, who in the past, compared with their own benefits. This
have traditionally supported global cooperation as the change may tempt some to retreat into an imagined
proper response to shared challenges. self-sufficiency. But economic interdependence is
Policymakers must take a long-term perspective to greater than ever—through trade, finance, knowledge
address this malaise. Inclusive fiscal policies, educational spillovers, migration, and environmental impacts, to
investments, and ensuring access to adequate health name a few channels—and that makes cooperation in
care can reduce inequality and are key priorities. So too areas of common concern more important than ever
are more secure social safety nets that can help work- too, including for advanced economies.
ers adjust to a range of structural shocks, whether from Multilateralism must evolve so that every country
globalization, technological change, or (in some coun- views it to be in its self-interest, even in a multipolar
tries) climate change. Policies to promote labor force world. But that will require domestic political support for
participation and the economic inclusion of women an internationally collaborative approach. Inclusive poli-
and youth are especially important. Structural reform cies that ensure a broad sharing of the gains from eco-
priorities differ by country, but in general, addressing nomic growth are not only desirable in their own right;
them will raise output and growth over the medium they can also help convince citizens that international
term. That said, due consideration must be given to cooperation works for them. I am proud that during
those who are already disadvantaged but might lose my tenure, the IMF has increasingly championed such
out further. Support for research and development and policies while supporting multilateral solutions to global
basic and applied scientific research offers the promise challenges. Without more inclusive policies, multilateral-
of raising growth rates, as many studies have shown. ism cannot survive. And without multilateralism, the
These policy priorities are also relevant to emerging world will be a poorer and more dangerous place.
market and developing economies.
Most countries also need to build fiscal buffers to Maurice Obstfeld
make room for policy responses to the next recession Economic Counsellor
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The steady expansion under way since mid-2016 risks highlighted in the April 2018 World Economic
continues, with global growth for 2018–19 projected Outlook (WEO)—such as rising trade barriers and a
to remain at its 2017 level. At the same time, however, reversal of capital flows to emerging market economies
the expansion has become less balanced and may have with weaker fundamentals and higher political risk—have
peaked in some major economies. Downside risks to become more pronounced or have partially materialized.
global growth have risen in the past six months and the While financial market conditions remain accommoda-
potential for upside surprises has receded. tive in advanced economies, they could tighten rapidly if,
Global growth is projected at 3.7 percent for 2018– for example, trade tensions and policy uncertainty were
19—0.2 percentage point lower for both years than to intensify. Monetary policy is another potential trigger.
forecast in April. In the United States, momentum is still The US economy is above full employment, yet the path of
strong as fiscal stimulus continues to increase, but the interest rate increases that markets anticipate is less steep
forecast for 2019 has been revised down due to recently than that projected by the Federal Reserve. Unexpectedly
announced trade measures, including the tariffs imposed high inflation readings in the United States could therefore
on $200 billion of US imports from China. Growth lead investors to abruptly reassess risks. Tighter financial
projections have been marked down for the euro area and conditions in advanced economies could cause disruptive
the United Kingdom, following surprises that suppressed portfolio adjustments, sharp exchange rate movements, and
activity in early 2018. Among emerging market and further reductions in capital inflows to emerging markets,
developing economies, the growth prospects of many energy particularly those with greater vulnerabilities.
exporters have been lifted by higher oil prices, but growth The recovery has helped lift employment and income,
was revised down for Argentina, Brazil, Iran, and Turkey, strengthened balance sheets, and provided an oppor-
among others, reflecting country-specific factors, tighter tunity to rebuild buffers. Yet, with risks shifting to the
financial conditions, geopolitical tensions, and higher oil downside, there is greater urgency for policies to enhance
import bills. China and a number of Asian economies are prospects for strong and inclusive growth. Avoiding
also projected to experience somewhat weaker growth in protectionist reactions to structural change and finding
2019 in the aftermath of the recently announced trade cooperative solutions that promote continued growth in
measures. Beyond the next couple of years, as output gaps goods and services trade remain essential to preserve and
close and monetary policy settings continue to normal- extend the global expansion. At a time of above-poten-
ize, growth in most advanced economies is expected to tial growth in many economies, policymakers should aim
decline to potential rates—well below the averages reached to enact reforms that raise medium-term incomes to the
before the global financial crisis of a decade ago. Slower benefit of all. With shrinking excess capacity and mount-
expansion in working-age populations and projected ing downside risks, many countries need to rebuild fiscal
lackluster productivity gains are the prime drivers of lower buffers and strengthen their resilience to an environment
medium-term growth rates. US growth will decline as in which financial conditions could tighten suddenly
fiscal stimulus begins to unwind in 2020, at a time when and sharply.
the monetary tightening cycle is expected to be at its peak. In advanced economies, economic activity lost
Growth in China will remain strong but is projected to some momentum in the first half of 2018 after peak-
decline gradually, and prospects remain subpar in some ing in the second half of 2017. Outcomes fell short of
emerging market and developing economies, especially for projections in the euro area and the United Kingdom;
per capita growth, including in commodity exporters that growth in world trade and industrial production
continue to face substantial fiscal consolidation needs or declined; and some high-frequency indicators mod-
are mired in war and conflict. erated. Core inflation remains very different across
Risks to global growth skew to the downside in a context advanced economies—well below objectives in the
of elevated policy uncertainty. Several of the downside euro area and Japan, but close to target in the United
xvi International Monetary Fund | October 2018

Executive Summary
Kingdom and the United States. Across emerging beyond. The potential for upside surprises has ebbed,
market and developing economies, activity continued given diminished growth momentum and tighter
to improve gradually in energy exporters but softened financial conditions in emerging market and developing
in some importers. Activity slowed more markedly in economies. At the same time, several of the downside
Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey, where country-specific risks highlighted in the April 2018 WEO—such as
factors and a souring of investor sentiment were also at rising trade barriers and a reversal of capital flows to
play. Inflation has generally increased in emerging mar- emerging market economies with weaker external posi-
ket and developing economies, in part reflecting the tions, such as Argentina and Turkey—have become
pass-through of currency depreciations. While financial more pronounced or have partially materialized.
conditions have tightened in many emerging market Escalating trade tensions and the potential shift away
and developing economies, they remain supportive in from a multilateral, rules-based trading system are key
advanced economies, despite continued federal funds threats to the global outlook. Since the April 2018
rate increases in the United States. WEO, protectionist rhetoric has increasingly turned
Global growth is forecast at 3.7 percent for 2018– into action, with the United States imposing tariffs on a
19, 0.2 percentage point below the April 2018 WEO variety of imports, including on $200 billion of imports
projection, and is set to soften over the medium term. from China, and trading partners undertaking or
Global financial conditions are expected to tighten promising retaliatory and other protective measures. An
as monetary policy normalizes; the trade measures intensification of trade tensions, and the associated rise
implemented since April will weigh on activity in 2019 in policy uncertainty, could dent business and financial
and beyond; US fiscal policy will subtract momentum market sentiment, trigger financial market volatility,
starting in 2020; and China will slow, reflecting weaker and slow investment and trade. Higher trade barriers
credit growth and rising trade barriers. In advanced would disrupt global supply chains and slow the spread
economies, marked slowdowns in working-age popula- of new technologies, ultimately lowering global produc-
tion growth and lackluster productivity advances will tivity and welfare. More import restrictions would also
hold back gains in medium-term potential output. make tradable consumer goods less affordable, harming
Across emerging market and developing economies, low-income households disproportionately.
medium-term prospects are mixed. Projections remain Still-easy global financial conditions could tighten
favorable for emerging Asia and emerging Europe, sharply, triggered by more aggressive monetary policy
excluding Turkey, but are tepid for Latin America, the tightening in advanced economies or the materializa-
Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa, where—despite tion of other risks that shift market sentiment. Such
the ongoing recovery—the medium-term outlook for developments would expose vulnerabilities that have
commodity exporters remains generally subdued, with accumulated over the years, dent confidence, and
a need for further economic diversification and fiscal undermine investment (a key driver of the baseline
adjustment. Prospects for 2018–19 were marked down growth forecast). In the medium term, risks stem from
sharply for Iran, reflecting the impact of the reinstate- a potential continued buildup of financial vulnerabili-
ment of US sanctions. For Turkey, market turmoil, ties, the implementation of unsustainable macroeco-
sharp currency depreciation, and elevated uncertainty nomic policies amid a subdued growth outlook, rising
will weigh on investment and consumer demand, inequality, and declining trust in mainstream economic
likewise justifying a sharp negative revision in growth policies. A range of other noneconomic risks are also
prospects. Growth for China and a number of Asian relevant. If any of these risks materializes, the likeli-
economies have also been revised down following the hood of other adverse developments will rise.
recently announced trade measures. Some 45 emerg- The environment of continued expansion offers a
ing market and developing economies—accounting for narrowing window of opportunity to advance policies
10 percent of world GDP in purchasing-power-parity and reforms—both multilaterally and at the country
terms—are projected to grow by less than advanced level—that extend the momentum and raise medium-
economies in per capita terms over 2018–23, and term growth for the benefit of all, while building buf-
hence to fall further behind in living standards. fers for the next downturn and strengthening resilience
The balance of risks to the global growth forecast to an environment where financial conditions could
is tilted to the downside, both in the short term and tighten suddenly and sharply.
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xvii

Foster cooperation. Countries need to work together Build resilience. Macro- and microprudential policies
to tackle challenges that extend beyond their own face the challenges of building financial buffers, curtail-
borders. To preserve and broaden the gains from ing rising leverage, limiting excessive risk taking, and
decades of rules-based global trade integration, coun- containing financial stability risks (including threats to
tries should cooperate to reduce trade costs further cybersecurity). In the euro area, balance sheet repair
and resolve disagreements without raising distortion- needs to continue. Emerging market economies should
ary barriers. Cooperative efforts are also essential for aim to keep contingent liabilities and balance sheet
completing the financial regulatory reform agenda, mismatches in check. Building on recent efforts, China
strengthening international taxation, enhancing should continue to rein in credit growth and address
cybersecurity, tackling corruption, and mitigating and financial risks, even if growth temporarily slows. Among
coping with climate change. the main findings of Chapter 2 is that countries with
Bring inflation to target, build buffers, curb excess stronger fiscal positions before the global financial crisis,
imbalances. Monetary accommodation needs to and those with more flexible exchange rate regimes,
continue where inflation is weak, but cautious, well- experienced smaller output losses. Underscoring the
communicated, data-dependent normalization should importance of macroprudential policies and effective
proceed where inflation is close to target. Fiscal policy supervision, countries with greater financial vulnerabili-
should aim to rebuild buffers for the next downturn, ties before the global financial crisis suffered larger output
and the composition of public spending and revenues losses. The analysis in Chapter 3 highlights important
should be designed to bolster potential output and ways in which emerging market and developing econo-
inclusiveness. In countries at or close to full employ- mies can reap the benefits from stronger institutions. In
ment, with an excess current account deficit and an the current juncture where global financial conditions are
unsustainable fiscal position (notably the United normalizing, more credible monetary policy frameworks
States), public debt needs to be stabilized and even- that effectively anchor inflation expectations can make
tually reduced, and procyclical stimulus, which is the economy more resilient to adverse external shocks by
contributing to rising global imbalances and height- improving the tradeoff between inflation and output.
ened risks to the US and global economies, should be Improve convergence prospects for low-income develop-
withdrawn. Countries with both excess current account ing countries. Continued progress toward the 2030
surpluses and fiscal space (for example, Germany) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is
should increase public investment to boost potential imperative to foster greater economic security and
growth and reduce external imbalances. better living standards for a rising share of the world’s
Strengthen the potential for higher and more inclusive population. Given their generally high levels of public
growth. All countries should grasp the opportunity to indebtedness, low-income developing countries need
adopt structural reforms and policies that raise pro- to make decisive progress to strengthen their fiscal
ductivity and ensure broad-based gains—for instance, positions while prioritizing well-targeted measures to
by encouraging technological innovation and diffu- reduce poverty. They must also boost the resilience of
sion, increasing labor force participation (especially their financial systems. Investing in human capital,
by women and youth), supporting those displaced improving access to credit, and reducing infrastruc-
by structural change, and investing in education and ture gaps can promote economic diversification and
training to enhance job opportunities. improve the capacity to cope with climate shocks.
xviii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

1
CHAPTER
GLOBAL PROSPECTS AND POLICIES
Global growth for 2018–19 is projected to remain in advanced economies could cause disruptive portfo-
steady at its 2017 level, but its pace is less vigorous lio adjustments, sharp exchange rate movements, and
than projected in April and it has become less balanced. further reductions in capital inflows to emerging mar-
Downside risks to global growth have risen in the past six kets, particularly those with greater vulnerabilities.
months and the potential for upside surprises has receded. The recovery has helped lift employment and income,
Global growth is projected at 3.7 percent for has strengthened balance sheets, and has provided an
2018–19—0.2 percentage point lower for both years opportunity to rebuild buffers. However, with risks
than forecast in April. The downward revision reflects shifting to the downside, there is greater urgency for
surprises that suppressed activity in early 2018 in some policies to enhance prospects for strong and inclusive
major advanced economies, the negative effects of the growth. Avoiding protectionist reactions to structural
trade measures implemented or approved between April change and finding cooperative solutions that promote
and mid-September, as well as a weaker outlook for some continued growth in goods and services trade remain
key emerging market and developing economies arising essential to preserving and extending the global expan-
from country-specific factors, tighter financial conditions, sion. At a time of above-potential growth in many
geopolitical tensions, and higher oil import bills. Beyond economies, policymakers should aim to enact reforms
the next couple of years, as output gaps close and mon- that raise medium-term incomes for the benefit of all.
etary policy settings begin to normalize, growth in most With shrinking excess capacity and mounting downside
advanced economies is expected to decline to potential risks, many countries need to rebuild fiscal buffers and
rates well below the averages reached before the global strengthen their resilience to an environment in which
financial crisis of a decade ago. Medium-term prospects financial conditions could tighten suddenly and sharply.
remain generally strong in emerging Asia but subpar
in some emerging market and developing economies,
especially for per capita growth, including in commodity Recent Developments and Prospects
exporters that continue to face substantial fiscal con-
solidation needs or are mired in war and conflict. Softer, More Uneven Momentum
The balance of risks to the global growth forecast has In the first half of 2018, global growth shed some
shifted to the downside in a context of elevated policy of the strong momentum registered in the second half
uncertainty. Several of the downside risks highlighted in of last year, and the expansion became less synchro-
the April 2018 World Economic Outlook (WEO)—such nized across countries. Activity moderated more than
as rising trade barriers and a reversal of capital flows to expected in some large advanced economies from its
emerging market economies with weaker fundamentals strong pace last year, while the emerging market and
and higher political risk—have become more pronounced developing economy group continued to expand at
or have partially materialized. Meanwhile, the potential broadly the same pace as in 2017 (Figure 1.1).
for upside surprises has receded, given the tightening of Among advanced economies, growth disappointed
financial conditions in some parts of the world, higher trade in the euro area and the United Kingdom. Slower
costs, slow implementation of reforms recommended in the export growth after a strong surge in the final quarter
past, and waning growth momentum. While financial of 2017 contributed notably to the euro area slow-
market conditions remain accommodative in advanced down. Higher energy prices helped dampen demand
economies, they could tighten rapidly if trade tensions and in energy importers, while some countries were also
policy uncertainty intensify, or unexpectedly high inflation affected by political uncertainty or industrial actions.
in the United States triggers a stronger-than-anticipated In the United Kingdom, growth moderated more
monetary policy response. Tighter financial conditions than anticipated, partly because of weather-related
International Monetary Fund | October 2018 1

WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: Challenges to Steady Growth
Figure 1.1. Global Activity Indicators disruptions in the first quarter. Set against these
developments, the US economy maintained robust
Global growth moderated in the first half of 2018, with negative surprises to growth, particularly in the second quarter, with
activity in several large advanced economies. After rapid growth in 2017, world
trade volumes and industrial production have slowed, and some high-frequency private sector activity buoyed further by sizable fis-
indicators have softened. cal stimulus.
Aggregate growth in the emerging market and
112 1. World Trade and Industrial Production
(Index, 2015 = 100) developing economy group stabilized in the first half
of 2018. Emerging Asia continued to register strong
108 Industrial production growth, supported by a domestic demand-led pickup
World trade volumes
in the Indian economy from a four-year-low pace of
104 expansion in 2017, even as activity in China moder-
ated in the second quarter in response to regulatory
100 tightening of the property sector and nonbank finan-
cial intermediation. Higher oil prices lifted growth
96 among fuel-exporting economies in sub-Saharan Africa
2015 16 17 Jul.
18 and the Middle East. The recovery in Latin America
14 2. Manufacturing PMI 3. Consumer Confidence 130 continued, though at a more subdued pace than antic-
(Three-month moving (Index, 2010 = 100)
12 average; deviations 125 ipated as tighter financial conditions and a drought
10 from 50) World Advanced economies1 120 weighed on growth in Argentina and a nationwide
8 Advanced economies1 Emerging market truckers’ strike disrupted production in Brazil.
Emerging market economies2 115
6
economies2 World 110
4
105
2 Trade Tensions
0 100
Since January, a sequence of US tariff actions on
–2 95
solar panels, washing machines, steel, aluminum, and a
–4 90
2012 13 14 15 16 17 Aug. 2012 13 14 15 16 17 Aug. range of Chinese products, plus retaliation by trading
18 18 partners has complicated global trade relations.1 While
GDP Growth the preliminary agreement between the United States
(Annualized semiannual percent change) and Mexico on some bilateral trade issues has been a
step forward, the future of the trilateral North Amer-
April 2018 WEO October 2018 WEO
ican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) remains uncer-
4 4. Advanced Economies 5. Emerging Market and 9
Developing Economies
tain as the United States and Canada work to resolve
8 remaining issues. Moreover, the potential for escalating
3
7
trade tensions looms.2
Although sentiment has generally remained strong
2 6 despite the intensification of trade disputes, and
5 headline high-frequency data point to continued
1 momentum, some of the more trade-sensitive data
4
0 3 1Following tariff increases in early 2018 on washing machines,

2011: 13: 15: 17: 19: 2011: 13: 15: 17: 19:
H1 H1 H1 H1 H2 H1 H1 H1 H1 H2 solar cells, steel, and aluminum, the United States on June 15
announced a 25 percent tariff on imports from China worth $50 bil-
lion; China announced retaliation on a similar scale. On September
Sources: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis; Haver Analytics;
17, the United States announced a 10 percent tariff—rising to
Markit Economics; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: CC = consumer confidence; PMI = purchasing managers’ index; 25 percent by year end—on an additional $200 billion in imports
WEO = World Economic Outlook. from China. In response, China, announced tariffs on a further
1
Australia, Canada (PMI only), Czech Republic, Denmark, euro area, Hong Kong $60 billion of US imports.
2The United States has also suggested that a further $267 bil-
SAR (CC only), Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand (PMI only), Norway (CC only),
Singapore (PMI only), Sweden (CC only), Switzerland, Taiwan Province of China, lion of Chinese goods—covering nearly all remaining Chinese
United Kingdom, United States. imports—may be hit with tariffs, and it has separately raised the
2
Argentina (CC only), Brazil, China, Colombia (CC only), Hungary, India (PMI only), possibility of tariffs on the automotive sector that would affect many
Indonesia, Latvia (CC only), Malaysia (PMI only), Mexico (PMI only), Philippines (CC other countries (see Scenario Box 1).
only), Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand (CC only), Turkey, Ukraine (CC only).
2 International Monetary Fund | October 2018

CHAPTER 1 GLOBAL PROSPECTS AND POLICIES
Figure 1.2. Commodity and Oil Prices Commodity Index Rising on Higher Energy Prices
(Deflated using US consumer price index; index, 2014 = 100)
The IMF’s Primary Commodities Price Index
The commodity price index has risen in the past six months, driven by higher rose 3.3 percent between February 2018 and August
energy prices. Food prices fell amid rising trade tensions, while the price of metals 2018—that is, between the reference periods for the
softened because of weaker demand from China.
April 2018 and the current WEO—driven by higher
180
energy prices (Figure 1.2). As discussed in the Com-
modities Special Feature, the energy subindex rose
160 Average petroleum spot price 11.1 percent. Food prices were down 6.4 percent, and
Food
Metals the metals subindex declined 11.7 percent.
140
All commodities Oil prices rose to more than $76 a barrel in June—
120 the highest level since November 2014—reflecting the
collapse in Venezuela’s production, unexpected outages
100
in Canada and Libya, and expectations of lower Ira-
80 nian exports following US sanctions. Prices dropped to
about $71 a barrel by August following a decision by
60
the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Coun-
40 tries (OPEC) and the non-OPEC oil exporters (includ-
ing Russia) to increase oil production. The coal price
20
index—an average of Australian and South African
0 prices—increased 9.8 percent from February 2018 to
2011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 August 2018, reflecting tight supply conditions. Strong
demand for liquefied natural gas in China and India as
Sources: IMF, Primary Commodity Price System; and IMF staff estimates.
well as higher oil prices kept the spot price for lique-
fied natural gas close to its highest level in three years.
The decline in the IMF’s agricultural price index
have weakened since the start of the year. Surveys of between the reference periods reflects, to a large extent,
purchasing managers in China, the euro area, Japan, trade tensions and concerns about global growth.
and the United States point to softer growth in export Moreover, weather-related supply shortfalls of cocoa,
orders. Sector-specific sentiment indicators for auto- cotton, and wheat are smaller than previously antici-
makers in Germany and Japan suggest more pessi- pated. Among commodities affected by trade tensions,
mism about the outlook than at the start of the year. soybean prices fell in June as China announced retalia-
Industrial production subindices for the United States, tory import tariffs on US soybeans.
Japan, and Germany indicate greater moderation in The softening of metals prices between February
capital-goods-producing sectors than for the rest of and August 2018 was largely due to weaker demand
manufacturing, which could signal weaker capital from China. Metals markets also experienced high
spending. German manufacturing orders fell by about volatility, reflecting, in part, implemented tariff actions,
4 percent on a monthly basis in June (contributing to US sanctions on aluminum giant Rusal, and higher
a 6½ percent drop in the second quarter on a quar- trade policy uncertainty. The price of iron ore, the
terly, annualized basis) followed by a close to 1 percent primary input in steel manufacture, dropped 12.4 per-
decline in July. Consistent with the evidence from the cent between the reference periods. Aluminum prices
production side, international trade in goods appears reached a seven-year high in May after the Rusal sanc-
to have slowed since early 2018 after very rapid growth tions, before declining more than 10 percent in June
late in 2017 (Figure 1.1). Growth in import volumes and July as tariff hikes were implemented.
in some of the main advanced economies (United
States, euro area, Japan) has declined. The trade
slowdown could reflect a combination of factors, such Rising Headline Inflation, but Core Remains Subdued
as some payback from the very strong trade growth Higher energy prices have lifted headline
in late 2017 and weaker capital spending in a more year-over-year inflation rates in advanced and emerging
uncertain global environment. market and developing economies over the past six

Figure 1.3. Global Inflation months. Core inflation—that is, excluding food and
(Three-month moving average; annualized percent change, unless noted
energy—remains below central banks’ targets in most
otherwise)
advanced economies. Among emerging market and
Higher fuel prices have lifted headline inflation over the past six months, and, in
developing economies, excluding Venezuela’s hyper-
emerging market and developing economies, core inflation has also inched up. Wage inflation, core inflation remains below the average
growth, however, remains muted despite continued declines in unemployment rates. of recent years but has inched up in recent months
(Figure 1.3).
Consumer price inflation Core consumer price inflation
Among advanced economies, core annual consumer
price inflation in the United States, where unemploy-
3 1. Advanced Economies 2. Emerging Market and 7
Developing Economies ment hovers around multidecade lows, has exceeded
2 6 2 percent since March. The Federal Reserve’s preferred
1 5
price index of personal consumption expenditure has
also risen close to the target 2 percent. Core inflation
0 4 in the United Kingdom averaged slightly more than
–1 3 2 percent in the first half of 2018, lower than last
year, as the effects of the large sterling depreciation
–2 2
2013 14 15 16 17 Jul. 2013 14 15 16 17 Jul. of 2016–17 on domestic prices have gradually faded.
18 18 In the euro area and Japan, core inflation remains
weak at about 1 percent in the euro area and 0.3 per-
20 3. Producer Price Inflation1 2.2 4. Consumer Price 3.8
Inflation Expectations
cent in Japan.3
15 World AEs 2.1
(Percent) Real wage growth in most advanced economies
EMDEs 2.0 3.6
10 1.9 remains muted, even as labor markets tighten and
5 1.8 3.4 output gaps close (and, in some cases, as the gap turns
0 1.7 positive with the economy operating above potential).
1.6 AEs2 3.2 In the United States and Japan, for example, where
–5 1.5 EMDEs (right scale)
unemployment rates are the lowest since 2000 and
–10 1.4 3.0
2013 14 15 16 17 Jul. 2016 17 Aug. 1993, respectively, wages have risen only moderately,
18 18 reflecting, in part, weak productivity growth and
possibly greater labor market slack than reflected in
5 5. Unemployment Rate and Wage Growth in AEs3 3 headline unemployment numbers.
(Percent)
4 In the emerging market and developing economy
4 Unemployment rate (inverted, right scale)
Wage rate (two-quarter moving average; 5 group, core inflation remains contained at about 2 per-
percent change from a year ago)
3 6 cent in China, where domestic demand has slowed in
7
response to financial regulatory tightening. In India,
2 core inflation (excluding all food and energy items)
8
has risen to about 6 percent as a result of a narrow-
1 9
2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 May. ing output gap and pass-through effects from higher
18 energy prices and exchange rate depreciation. Core
inflation has declined in Brazil and Mexico (to about
Sources: Consensus Economics; Haver Analytics; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development; US Bureau of Labor Statistics; and IMF staff
2½ percent and 3½ percent, respectively), reflecting
calculations. moderations in activity and improved anchoring of
Note: AEs = advanced economies (AUT, BEL, CAN, CHE, CZE, DEU, DNK, ESP, EST, expectations. In Russia, core inflation dropped this
FIN, FRA, GBR, GRC, HKG, IRL, ISR, ITA, JPN, KOR, LTU, LUX, LVA, NLD, NOR, PRT,
SGP, SVK, SVN, SWE, TWN, USA); EMDEs = emerging market and developing year (averaging less than 2 percent until May, and ris-
economies (BGR, BRA, CHL, CHN, COL, HUN, IDN, IND, MEX, MYS, PER, PHL, POL, ing slightly in June), consistent with moderately tight
ROU, RUS, THA, TUR, ZAF). Country list uses International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) country codes. monetary policy, declining inflation expectations, and
1
AEs exclude HKG, ISR, and TWN. EMDEs include UKR; exclude IDN, IND, PER, and low exchange rate pass-through.
PHL.
2
AEs include AUS; exclude LUX.
3
Blue line includes AUS and NZL; excludes BEL. Red line includes AUS and MLT;
excludes HKG, SGP, and TWN.
3For Japan, the core consumer price index excludes fresh
food and energy.

Financial Conditions Marginally Tighter, basis points to 0.45 percent and yields on UK gilts
Localized Pressures have remained at about 1.5 percent. Italian sovereign
As discussed in the October 2018 Global Financial spreads have widened considerably since late May,
Stability Report (GFSR), global financial conditions initially owing to difficulties in the formation of a
have marginally tightened over the past six months. government and, more recently, because of uncertainty
Although they remain accommodative and generally about the forthcoming budget. As of mid-September,
supportive of growth, significant differences have they stood at about 250 basis points. In contrast, other
emerged between advanced and emerging market euro area sovereign spreads have remained compressed.
economies. In advanced economies, after spiking in Corporate spreads have increased slightly since April,
the early months of the year, market volatility has particularly among non-investment-grade credits
subsided and risk appetite remains relatively strong. (Figure 1.4, panel 4). With advanced economies’
The widening growth differential between the United corporate profits remaining generally healthy, equity
States and other advanced economies, together with indices in the United States are slightly higher. Else-
associated divergences in monetary policy stances where, they are at broadly the same level (Figure 1.4,
and long-term yields, have contributed to US dollar panel 5). As noted in the October 2018 GFSR, US
appreciation since April. Against this backdrop, local- equity prices now appear modestly higher than their
ized pressure points have emerged in countries with model-based values, based on alternative measures of
weaker macroeconomic fundamentals and greater S&P 500 earnings expectations as well as proxies for
political uncertainty. The financial market impact of both the discount factor and the equity risk premium.
trade tensions has so far been contained to specific Price-to-earnings ratios are little changed relative to
sectors, such as automobiles and aluminum, and April (Figure 1.4, panel 6).
some trade-sensitive currencies. As of mid-September, the US dollar has strength-
As expected by markets, the Federal Reserve ened by about 6½ percent in real effective terms since
raised the target range of the federal funds rate to February (the reference period for the April 2018
1.75–2 percent in June. With economic expansion in WEO), consistent with the widening interest rate and
the United States gaining momentum, and a sizable expected growth differentials (Figure 1.5, panel 1). The
fiscal stimulus anticipated to amplify already-buoyant euro, the yen, and the pound sterling have weakened
private sector activity, the Federal Reserve signaled vis-à-vis the US dollar but remain broadly unchanged
two additional rate hikes in 2018 and three in 2019. in real effective terms, reflecting the depreciation of
Also, in June, the European Central Bank announced emerging market currencies discussed below.
an extension of its asset purchase program through Among emerging market economies, Argentina
the end of the year, while indicating it would reduce and Turkey have come under severe market pressure
monthly purchases from €30 billion to €15 billion in in recent weeks. In Argentina, tighter global finan-
October. The central bank also committed to main- cial conditions, together with a domestic corruption
taining rates at current levels at least through the scandal and persistent uncertainty over the success of
summer of 2019. In July the Bank of Japan modified the stabilization plan underlying the program with the
its yield curve control policy to allow a wider devi- IMF, have contributed to financial market volatility.
ation band for the benchmark 10-year yield around Despite a 2,000-basis-point hike in the short-term
an unchanged target of about zero percent. The Bank policy rate and several increases of reserve require-
of Japan also introduced forward guidance on main- ments, the Argentinean peso depreciated by over
taining ultralow policy rates for an extended period of 40 percent in real effective terms between February
time. Among other advanced economies, the Bank of and mid-September, equity valuations fell further,
Canada raised its policy rate by 25 basis points in July, and sovereign spreads rose to above 700 basis points.
as did the Bank of England in August (marking only In Turkey, concerns about underlying fundamentals
its second rate hike in a decade). and political tensions with the United States trig-
Long-term bond yields have diverged among gered a sharp depreciation of the currency (27 per-
advanced economies since February–March (Fig- cent between February and mid-September in real
ure 1.4). As of mid-September, the 10-year US effective terms), declining asset prices, and widening
Treasury yield has risen to about 3.0 percent, while spreads. In response, the authorities released some
yields on German 10-year bunds have dropped 25 foreign exchange liquidity by lowering reserve require-

Figure 1.4. Advanced Economies: Monetary and Financial Figure 1.5. Real Effective Exchange Rate Changes,
Market Conditions February–September 2018
(Percent, unless noted otherwise) (Percent)
Despite monetary policy tightening in the United States, financial conditions The US dollar has appreciated in real effective terms by about 6.5 percent since
remain generally supportive of growth in advanced economies. Since earlier this February on the back of widening interest rate and growth differentials. Emerging
year, long-term government bond yields have diverged: a steeper path of expected market currencies have generally weakened, with very large depreciations in
policy rates has modestly lifted US 10-year government bond yields, while yields Turkey and Argentina on growing concerns about macroeconomic imbalances and
on German and UK long-term bonds have fallen. a notable weakening of the South African rand—after its strong rally in previous
months—and of the Brazilian real.
3.0 1. US Policy Rate 2. Policy Rate Expectations1 8
Expectations1 (Percent; dashed lines are Latest relative to August 2018
from the April 2018 WEO) 7 August 2018 relative to February 2018
2.5
6
2.0 United States 5 8 1. Advanced Economies
Euro area 4
1.5 United Kingdom 6
3
1.0 2 4
Sep. 15, 2017
Mar. 21, 2018 1 2
0.5 Sep. 17, 2018 0 0
0.0 –1
2017 18 19 20 Sep. 2018 19 20 Sep. –2
21 21
–4
6 3. Ten-Year Government Bond 4. Credit Spreads2 1,000 –6
Yields2 (Basis points) USA EA JPN GBR SWE CHE KOR TWN SGP CAN NOR AUS NZL
5 (Percent) Japan
United States US high yield 800
4 United Kingdom 10 2. Emerging Market Economies
Germany
3 600
Italy 0
2 400
–10
1 Euro high yield
US high grade 200 –20
0
Euro high grade –30
–1 0
2013 14 15 16 17 Sep. 2013 14 15 16 17 Sep.
18 18 –40
200 5. Equity Markets 6. Price-to-Earnings Ratios2 35 –50

(Index, 2007 = 100) ZAF IND MYS THA POL TUR BRA COL PER
180 United States CHN IDN PHL HUN RUS ARG CHL MEX PAK
160 Japan 30
S&P 500 Germany
140
Italy Source: IMF staff calculations.
120 25 Note: EA = euro area. Data labels use International Organization for
100 Standardization (ISO) country codes. Latest data available are for September 14,
80 20 2018.
60
MSCI Emerging Market
40 15
Euro Stoxx
20 TOPIX ments and limited the capacity of banks to engage in
0 10
2013 14 15 16 17 Aug. 2013 14 15 16 17 Sep. cross-currency swap and forward transactions. The
18 18 effective rate was increased first by providing liquidity
to banks at the higher overnight lending rate rather
Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Thomson Reuters Datastream; and IMF staff than the weekly repo rate, and, in early September, by
calculations.
Note: MSCI = Morgan Stanley Capital International; S&P = Standard & Poor’s; a 625 basis point hike in the benchmark policy rate.
TOPIX = Tokyo Stock Price Index; WEO = World Economic Outlook. Several other central banks (India, Indonesia,
1
Expectations are based on the federal funds rate futures for the United States, the
sterling overnight interbank average rate for the United Kingdom, and the euro
Mexico, Philippines) have also raised policy rates in
interbank offered forward rate for the euro area; updated September 17, 2018. recent months as headline inflation has risen and,
2
Data are through September 17, 2018. in some cases, currencies have come under pressure
(Figure 1.6). In China, the central bank maintained
its policy rate while lowering banks’ required reserve

ratio in two separate moves (targeted to certain banks Figure 1.6. Emerging Market Economies: Interest Rates and
in April, followed by a more general cut in July) to Spreads
support lending. Long-term yields have generally Among emerging markets, policy rates have generally increased since the spring
increased and sovereign spreads have widened, reflect- (the sharp increase for emerging Europe reflects the policy rate hikes in Turkey).
Long-term government bond yields have also generally increased, and sovereign
ing a reduction in bond flows to emerging markets in spreads have widened over the past six months. Spreads have widened
recent months. However, markets appear to be dis- significantly more in countries with greater external financing needs.
criminating across countries, as spreads have widened Emerging Europe China
to a much larger extent for countries with greater Emerging Asia excluding China Latin America
external financing needs (Figure 1.6, panel 4). Equity 13 1. Policy Rate1
indices in emerging market and developing econo- 12 (Percent)
mies have generally declined, reflecting rising trade 11
10
tensions and tighter external financial conditions 9
(Figure 1.7). In some cases (for example, China), 8
domestic regulatory tightening has contributed to a 7
6
retreat in equity prices. 5
Currency movements for other emerging market and 4
2012 13 14 15 16 17 Sep.
developing economies have mostly reflected develop- 18
ments in underlying fundamentals and perceptions of 14 2. Ten-Year Government Bond Yields 1
(Percent)
future policy direction (Figure 1.5, panel 2). Between 12
February and mid-September, the Brazilian real declined 10
14 percent as domestic activity slowed and external
8
financial conditions became tighter, while the Chinese
6
renminbi depreciated by 3.5 percent as macro poli-
cies shifted to a more accommodative stance in recent 4
months, and as trade tensions with the United States 2

2013 14 15 16 17 Sep.
rose. The South African rand depreciated by some 14 18
percent on weaker-than-expected activity in the first half 600 3. EMBI Sovereign Spreads1
(Basis points)
of the year and slow reform progress, unwinding some 500
of the earlier gains associated with the change in the 400
leadership. In contrast, the Mexican peso has appreciated 300
by over 3½ percent since February after concerns about 200
postelection shifts in policy direction began to fade,
100
counteracting some of the negative sentiment stemming
0
from US tariff actions and uncertainty surrounding 2013 14 15 16 17 Sep.
NAFTA’s future prior to the August agreement. 18
Tracking indicators and early data releases suggest 300 4. Current Account Balance and Change in EMBI Spreads
(basis points, Apr. 16–Sep. 14)
ARG
that, after a buoyant start to the year, capital flows
Change in EMBI spread
200 MEX
to emerging markets weakened considerably in the IDN HUN
TUN TUR
second quarter and beyond (Figure 1.8). In particu- 100 ZAF BRA POL MYS
EGY
lar, evidence from investment fund flows and other ROU IND RUS
high-frequency data sources suggests that nonresident 0
y = –14.25x + 22.12 MAR COL CHL PHL CHN
portfolio flows, which were strong during 2017 and R 2 = 0.45 PER
–100
early 2018, turned negative in May–June of 2018, –12 –10 –8 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4
consistent with foreign exchange market pressures on Current account 2017 (percent of GDP)
several emerging market economies. While portfolio Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Haver Analytics; IMF, International Financial
flows appeared to have stabilized during July, along- Statistics; Thomson Reuters Datastream; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Emerging Asia excluding China comprises India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
side currency valuations, outflows have resumed in Philippines, and Thailand (except EMBI spread); emerging Europe comprises
August amid weakening investor sentiment following Poland, Romania, Russia, and Turkey; Latin America comprises Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. EMBI = J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index.
the depreciation of the Turkish lira and the Argen- Data labels use International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country codes.
tinean peso. 1
Data are through September 14, 2018.

Figure 1.7. Emerging Market Economies: Equity Markets and Figure 1.8. Emerging Market Economies: Capital Flows
Credit
Capital flows to emerging markets appear to have weakened considerably in the
Equity indices have declined amid rising trade tensions and somewhat tighter second quarter of 2018, with nonresident portfolio flows turning negative in
external financial conditions. May–June 2018.
220 1. Equity Markets 40 1. Net Flows in Emerging Market Funds

Emerging Asia Latin America Bond EM-VXY
(Index, 2007 = 100) 30 (Billions of US dollars)
200 excluding China Taper Equity
20 tantrum
180
10
160
0
140
–10 Greek
120 1st ECB
–20 crisis Irish
100 crisis LTROs China equity US presidential
–30 market sell-off election
80 –40
60 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Aug.
Emerging Europe China 18
40
2012 13 14 15 16 17 Aug.
15 2. Capital Inflows Emerging Europe
18
12 (Percent of GDP) Emerging Asia excluding China
Real Credit Growth1 Latin America
9
(Year-over-year percent change) 6
25 2. 3. 40 3
BRA CHN COL IDN
20 IND MEX MYS RUS 0
TUR 30 China Total
15 –3
Saudi Arabia
10 20 –6
2007 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18:
5 Q1
0 10
15 3. Capital Outflows Excluding Change in Reserves
–5 (Percent of GDP)
0 12
Emerging Europe
–10
9 Emerging Asia excluding China
–15 –10 6 Latin America
2012 13 14 15 16 17 Jun. 2012 13 14 15 16 17 Jun.
18 18 3
0
Credit-to-GDP Ratio1 China Total
–3
(Percent) Saudi Arabia
–6
85 4. 230 5. 30 2007 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18:
MEX (right scale) Q1
75 BRA COL 210 CHN 25
IDN IND MYS 15 4. Change in Reserves
65 190
RUS TUR 20 (Percent of GDP) Emerging Europe
12
55 170 Emerging Asia excluding China
15 9 Latin America
45 150
6
10
35 130 3
25 110 5 0
China Total
15 90 0 –3
Saudi Arabia
2006 08 10 12 14 16 18: 2006 08 10 12 14 16 18: –6
Q2 Q2 2007 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18:
Q1
Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Haver Analytics; IMF, International Financial Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; EPFR Global; Haver Analytics; IMF, International
Statistics (IFS); and IMF staff calculations. Financial Statistics; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Data labels use International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country Note: Capital inflows are net purchases of domestic assets by nonresidents.
codes. Capital outflows are net purchases of foreign assets by domestic residents.
1
Credit is other depository corporations’ claims on the private sector (from IFS), Emerging Asia excluding China comprises India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
except in the case of Brazil, for which private sector credit is from the Monetary Philippines, and Thailand; emerging Europe comprises Poland, Romania, Russia,
Policy and Financial System Credit Operations published by Banco Central do and Turkey; Latin America comprises Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru.
Brasil, and China, for which credit is total social financing after adjusting for local ECB = European Central Bank; EM-VXY = J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Volatility
government debt swaps. Index; LTROs = long-term refinancing operations.

Forces Shaping the Outlook exporters, given the implied magnitude of the changes
Diverging Cyclical Positions in disposable income (Figure 1.9). A comparison of
forecast revisions between the April 2018 WEO and
While the global expansion is projected to continue the current report shows an upward revision of about
in 2018 and 2019, it is becoming less synchronized. 0.1 and 0.3 percentage point for 2018 and 2019,
Compared with 2017, which saw the most widely respectively, for a group of fuel exporters, excluding
shared pickup in country annual growth rates since countries whose prospects are heavily conditioned
2010, a smaller share of countries, particularly among by domestic strife, geopolitical tensions, or outright
advanced economies, is expected to experience an macroeconomic collapse. In contrast, growth prospects
acceleration of activity for 2018 and beyond.4 In for the same period have been revised downward by
part, this reflects diverging cyclical positions, with about 0.1–0.3 percentage point for the rest of the
expansions peaking in some countries while others world, a group dominated by fuel importers (Fig-
continue to emerge from deep recession. Recent fuel ure 1.9, panel 3).
price increases also have varying impacts on short-term
prospects for fuel exporters and importers.
Following a stretch of above-trend growth in Investment, Trade, and the Global Expansion
advanced economies during 2015–17, output gaps A core element of the 2017 upsurge in global
have closed or are set to close in most cases. As remain- growth and trade was the pickup in investment in
ing slack diminishes and high capacity utilization advanced economies and an end to investment con-
begins to constrain supply, the growth rate of output tractions in some large, stressed commodity exporters.
is projected to start declining toward its potential, Overall, both global imports and investment growth,
particularly among some euro area countries and in at about 5 percent, were the highest since the 2010–11
Japan. The US economy is an important exception to rebound from the global financial crisis. This pace of
the pattern. It is expected to continue to grow above expansion in investment is projected to ease in 2018
potential until 2020, helped by sizable fiscal stimu- and 2019 compared with 2017, with a more notable
lus. The pace of expansion is expected to dip below decline in trade growth (Figure 1.10).
the economy’s potential growth rate thereafter as the Despite this easing, investment growth in emerg-
stimulus reverses and reinforces the effects of ongoing ing market and developing economies is projected to
monetary tightening. remain robust over the next five years at about 5½
percent, accounting for well over one-third of their
The Impact of Commodity Price Increases GDP growth rate during that period (Figure 1.11).
Medium-term prospects for investment growth are
Most nonfood commodities have registered price much weaker in advanced economies, with capital
increases since mid-2017. Most notable has been spending projected to slow considerably as growth
the increase in oil prices—about $30 a barrel, or declines toward its lower potential rate and the fiscal
70 percent, since June 2017. Some of this increase is stimulus in the United States begins to unwind.
expected to dissipate over the medium term because At the same time, rising trade tensions and policy
of higher US shale production and OPEC+ supply. uncertainty—discussed in more detail below—raise
Nonetheless, as shown in the Commodities Spe-
concerns about global economic prospects. These
cial Feature, oil futures curves are notably higher
factors could lead firms to postpone or forgo capital
than a year ago.
spending and hence slow down growth in investment
The improved outlook for oil prices contributes and demand. This slowdown would also weaken trade
to revisions to growth prospects for fuel exporters growth, as capital and intermediate goods account for
and importers—with a more notable impact on the an important share of global trade. As mentioned earlier,
4In high-frequency data point to a slowdown in global trade
2017, 58 percent of countries, accounting for 75 percent of
world GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms, experienced a pickup and industrial production, somewhat weaker manufactur-
in year-over-year growth rates. In 2018, 52 percent of economies, ing purchasing managers’ indices, and especially weaker
accounting for 47 percent of world GDP, are projected to register export orders, but the extent to which these factors
a pickup in annual growth rates. For 2019, the corresponding
numbers are 54 percent of economies, accounting for 32 percent have affected capital spending and trade are still unclear.
of global GDP. Consistent with signs of slower production of capital

Figure 1.9. Impact of Commodity Price Changes Figure 1.10. Global Investment and Trade
(Percent change)
Higher oil prices have led to a sizable increase in the projected terms-of-trade
windfall gains and losses in 2018–19. This is reflected in growth forecast The pace of expansion of global investment is projected to ease in 2018 and 2019
revisions relative to the April 2018 World Economic Outlook: Nonstressed fuel compared with 2017, with a more notable decline in trade growth.
exporters are expected to grow faster in 2018–19 than previously projected, while
growth prospects for oil importers were revised downward.
15 1. World
20 1. Terms-of-Trade Windfall Gains and Losses for Commodity
10
Exporters1
10 (Percent of GDP)
5
0 0
–10 –5
Real investment
–20 2015–16 (cumulative) Real GDP at market prices
–10
2017 Real imports
–30 2018–19 (average; Feb. 2018 commodity prices)
–15
2018–19 (average; Aug. 2018 commodity prices) 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19
–40
SAU KAZ RUS MYS AUS ARG IDN
DZA NGA COL CAN MEX BRA Commodity exporters Commodity importers
14 2. Terms-of-Trade Windfall Gains and Losses for Commodity 20 2. Real Investment, 3. Real Imports, 20
Importers1 Advanced Economies Advanced Economies
12 15 15
(Percent of GDP)
10 10 10
2015–16 (cumulative)
8 2017 5 5
6 2018–19 (average; Feb. 2018 commodity prices)
2018–19 (average; Aug. 2018 commodity prices) 0 0
4
–5 –5
2
–10 –10
0
–2 –15 –15
–4 –20 –20
USA TUR POL ITA ESP IND THA 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19
EGY FRA DEU CHN JPN PAK KOR
30 4. Real Investment, 5. Real Imports, Emerging 30
1.6 3. Growth Forecast Revisions from April 2018 to October 20182 25 Emerging Market and Market and Developing 25
(Percentage points) Developing Economies Economies
1.2 20 20
0.8 15 15
0.4 10 10
0.0 5 5
0 0
–0.4
–5 –5
–0.8
–10 –10
–1.2
–15 –15
–1.6 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19
2018 2019 2018 2019
Nonstressed fuel exporters Fuel importers
Source: IMF staff calculations.
Note: World and advanced economies exclude Ireland. Commodity exporters
Source: IMF staff estimates. include fuel and nonfuel primary products exporters listed in Table D of the
Note: Data labels in the figure use International Organization for Standardization Statistical Appendix, as well as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, New Zealand,
(ISO) country codes. Norway, and Peru.
1
Gains (losses) for 2018–19 are simple averages of annual incremental gains
(losses) for 2018 and 2019. The windfall is an estimate of the change in disposable
income arising from commodity price changes. The windfall gain in year t for a
country exporting x US dollars of commodity A and importing m US dollars of
commodity B in year t –1 is defined as (ΔptAxt – 1 – ΔptBmt – 1) / Yt – 1, in which
ΔptA and ΔptB are the percentage changes in the prices of A and B between year
t –1 and year t, and Y is GDP in year t – 1 in US dollars. See also Gruss (2014).
2
The yellow horizontal line inside each box represents the median; the upper and
lower edges of each box show the top and bottom quartiles; the red markers
denote the top and bottom deciles; and the gray square indicates the
purchasing-power-parity-weighted mean. Stressed fuel exporters include Iran,
Iraq, Libya, South Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

goods, the forecast for fixed investment growth in 2018 Figure 1.11. Contributions to GDP Growth
(Percent)
was revised downward in advanced economies by about
0.4 percentage point relative to the April 2018 WEO,
In the medium term, investment growth is projected to remain robust in emerging
particularly in advanced Asia and the United Kingdom. market and developing economies, accounting for well over one-third of their GDP
This downward revision was accompanied by downward growth. In advanced economies, investment growth is expected to weaken
significantly over the next five years.
revisions to export growth (by over 1 percentage point)
and especially import growth (by 1.4 percentage point). Inventories Net foreign balance
The forecast for investment and trade growth in 2019 Public consumption Private consumption
Fixed investment GDP
is also weaker. For emerging market and developing
economies, trade growth was revised down modestly for 6 1. Advanced Economies
2018 and more substantially for 2019. The forecast for
5
investment growth for 2018–19 is weaker than in April,
4
despite higher capital spending in India, on account of
contracting investment in economies under stress, such as 3
Argentina and Turkey, which is also reflected in a down- 2
ward revision for import growth, particularly for 2019. 1
0
Structural Headwinds –1
2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
The cyclical upsurge in global growth that began in
mid-2016—and is now extended by procyclical fiscal 6 2. Emerging Market and Developing Economies
stimulus in the United States and associated favorable 5
spillovers to trading partners—has helped overcome pow- 4
erful structural headwinds acting on potential growth.
3
After the cyclical boost in demand and the US stimulus
run their course, and as growth in China continues to 2
slow in line with the necessary rebalancing of the econ- 1

omy, global growth is set to moderate, weighed down by 0
structural drags. The increase in trade costs would also –1
depress medium-term prospects by hindering efficient 2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
resource allocation, investment, and productivity.
•• Among advanced economies, the subdued outlook Source: IMF staff calculations.
for potential growth reflects, to a large extent, slower

labor force growth due to population aging (as
discussed in Chapter 2 of the April 2018 WEO). and developing economies—accounting for 10
While labor productivity growth is expected to percent of world GDP in purchasing-power-parity
improve in the medium term, the slight acceleration terms—are projected to grow by less than advanced
will only partially offset the slower increases in labor economies in per capita terms over 2018–23, and
input. Box 1.1 discusses the rise in corporate market hence to fall further behind in living standards.
power in advanced economies, a trend that could be Commodity prices, despite their recent increase,
a further drag on business dynamism, investment, are projected to remain below the levels seen before
and productivity. Some policy measures that are sup- 2011–13. Commodity exporters face a difficult
porting short-term activity in some economies (such adjustment to structurally lower revenues than in
as larger US fiscal deficits) are not sustainable—and the past, requiring diversification of their economies
hence come at the cost of lower future growth away from commodity dependence and mobilization
because they will need to be reversed. of noncommodity sources of revenue to finance
•• Among emerging market and developing economies, pressing development needs. The adjustment costs
prospects for many economies to close income gaps associated with this transition will weigh on the
relative to advanced economies appear weaker than medium-term growth outlook for this group of
in the past (Figure 1.12). Some 45 emerging market economies.

Figure 1.12. Per Capita Real GDP Growth policy is expected to be contractionary in advanced
(Percent)
economies as the US fiscal stimulus begins to unwind.
The fiscal stance is assumed to be broadly neutral in
Prospects for emerging market and developing economies to narrow gaps in living
standards relative to advanced economies are uneven. emerging market and developing economies through
the forecast horizon.
1995–2005 2006–17 2018–23 Monetary policy stances are projected to diverge
among advanced economies. The US federal funds tar-
10 1. By Country Group
get is expected to increase to about 2.5 percent by the
8
end of 2018 and about 3.5 percent by the end of 2019
6
(the forecast assumes a total of eight rate hikes during
4
2018–19). The policy target rate is expected to decline
2
to 2.9 percent in 2022. Policy rates are projected to
0
remain negative in the euro area until mid-2019 and
–2 close to zero in Japan through the end of 2019. They
–4 are expected to rise gradually thereafter but to remain
–6 very low through the forecast horizon in both cases.
AEs EMDEs China Fuel exporters Nonfuel
exporters For emerging market economies, monetary policy
excluding China stances are assumed to vary, based on the economies’
cyclical positions.
8 2. Emerging Market and Developing Economies, by Region
The baseline forecast incorporates the impact of
6 tariffs that had been announced by the United States
as of mid-September, namely a 10 percent tariff
4 on all aluminum imports, a 25 percent tariff on all
steel imports, a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of
2
imports from China imposed in July and August, and
0 a 10 percent tariff on an additional $200 billion of
imports from China imposed in late September, rising
–2 to 25 percent by year end, as well as the retaliatory
LAC MENAP EMDE Asia EMDE SSA CIS
excluding Europe measures taken by trading partners.6 The forecast
China assumes that part of the negative effect of these trade
measures will be offset by policy stimulus from China
Source: IMF staff estimates.
Note: AEs = advanced economies; CIS = Commonwealth of Independent States;
(and possibly other economies as well). The forecast
EMDE = emerging market and developing economy; LAC = Latin America and the does not incorporate the impact of further tariffs on
Caribbean; MENAP = Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; PPP = Chinese and other imports threatened by the United
purchasing power parity; SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. Bars denote PPP
GDP-weighted averages, red markers indicate the medians, and black markers States, but not yet implemented, due to uncertainty
denote the top and bottom deciles of per capita GDP growth in the country groups. about their exact magnitude, timing, and potential
The fuel and nonfuel exporter subgroups are defined in Table D of the Statistical
Appendix and cover EMDEs only. retaliatory response. Scenario Box 1 discusses the
potential economic consequences of further escalation
in trade tensions and rising trade barriers.
The Forecast
Policy Assumptions Assumptions about Financial Conditions and
The WEO baseline forecast assumes an expansionary Commodity Prices
fiscal policy stance for advanced economies in 2018, The baseline forecast assumes that global financial
owing largely to US fiscal stimulus, turning neutral conditions will tighten gradually as the expansion
in 2019 (Figure 1.13).5 From 2020 onward, fiscal
more expansionary-than-previously projected stance of Germany,
5The
revision to the expected fiscal policy stance for advanced Greece, and Italy.
economies in 2019 relative to the April 2018 WEO reflects smaller- 6In particular, the Chinese authorities have announced tariffs
than-previously anticipated declines in the structural primary ranging from 5–10 percent on $60 billion of imports from the
balances of the United States and France, which outweigh the United States in response to the US tariffs imposed in September.

continues in 2018–19, but remain generally support- Figure 1.13. Fiscal Indicators
ive of growth. A well-communicated, data-dependent (Percent of GDP, unless noted otherwise)
normalization of monetary policy in the United States
The fiscal policy stance in advanced economies is assumed to be expansionary in
and the United Kingdom is expected to continue, 2018, before turning neutral in 2019. In emerging market and developing
leading to a steady increase in long-term interest rates. economies, the fiscal policy stance is assumed to be broadly neutral.
Financial market volatility is assumed to remain low.
The increase in advanced economy long-term sovereign 1.0 1. Change in the Structural Primary Fiscal Balance
(Percentage points)
bond yields is expected to generate some rebalancing 0.5
of global portfolios. Nonetheless, barring some cases
0.0
in which macroeconomic and financial imbalances
have increased in recent years, sovereign bond spreads –0.5
2014 2015 2016
for most emerging market economies are assumed to –1.0 2017 2018 2019
remain contained. April 2018 WEO
–1.5
The IMF’s Primary Commodity Price Index is Advanced Emerging market and
projected to increase about 18 percent in 2018 from economies developing economies
its 2017 average (a cumulative increase from 2016 of
2.5 2. Change in the Structural Primary Fiscal Balance
about 36 percent) and then to fall marginally in 2019. (Percentage points)
2.0 2014 2015 2016
Oil prices are expected to average $69.38 a barrel 1.5 2017 2018 2019
in 2018 (higher than the April 2018 WEO projection 1.0 April 2018 WEO
of $62.30 and the 2017 price of $52.80 a barrel). 0.5
Global oil supply is expected to gradually increase over 0.0
the forecast horizon, lowering oil prices to $68.76 a –0.5
–1.0
barrel in 2019, and further to about $60 a barrel in
–1.5
2023. Metal prices are expected to increase by about United States Japan1 France, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
United Kingdom Italy, Portugal,
5.3 percent in 2018, before declining by 3.6 percent Spain
in 2019 as the effects of recent tariff actions take hold
2 3. Fiscal Balance
and trade policy uncertainty weighs on metals demand.
0
–2
Global Growth Outlook –4
Global growth is projected at 3.7 percent in 2018 –6 World
Advanced Emerging market and
and 2019, 0.2 percentage point below the April –8 economies developing economies
2018 WEO, even though well above its level during –10
2012–16. Differences in the outlook across countries 2001 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
and regions are notable (Table 1.1, Annex Tables
180 4. Gross Public Debt
1.1.1–1.1.7, and Boxes 1.2 and 1.3 provide details World Advanced economies2
160
of country projections). Global growth is expected to 140 Major advanced Emerging and Latin America and
remain steady at 3.7 percent in 2020, as the decline in economies2,3 developing Asia the Caribbean
120
Other emerging market and
advanced economy growth with the unwinding of the 100 developing economies
US fiscal stimulus and the fading of the favorable spill- 80
overs from US demand to trading partners is offset by 60
40
a pickup in emerging market and developing economy
20
growth. Thereafter, global growth is projected to slow 1950 60 70 80 90 2000 10 20 23
to 3.6 percent by 2022–23, largely reflecting a modera-
tion in advanced economy growth toward the potential Source: IMF staff estimates.
Note: WEO = World Economic Outlook.
of that group. 1
Japan’s latest figures reflect comprehensive methodological revisions adopted in
Growth in advanced economies will remain well December 2016.
2
Data through 2000 exclude the United States.
above trend at 2.4 percent in 2018, before softening 3
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States.
to 2.1 percent in 2019. The forecast for both years is
0.1 percentage point weaker than in the April 2018

Table 1.1. Overview of the World Economic Outlook Projections

(Percent change, unless noted otherwise)
Difference from July Difference from April
Projections 2018 WEO Update1 2018 WEO1
2017 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
World Output 3.7 3.7 3.7 –0.2 –0.2 –0.2 –0.2
Advanced Economies 2.3 2.4 2.1 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1
United States 2.2 2.9 2.5 0.0 –0.2 0.0 –0.2
Euro Area 2.4 2.0 1.9 –0.2 0.0 –0.4 –0.1
Germany 2.5 1.9 1.9 –0.3 –0.2 –0.6 –0.1
France 2.3 1.6 1.6 –0.2 –0.1 –0.5 –0.4
Italy 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 –0.3 –0.1
Spain 3.0 2.7 2.2 –0.1 0.0 –0.1 0.0
Japan 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 –0.1 0.0
United Kingdom 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 –0.2 0.0
Canada 3.0 2.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Advanced Economies2 2.8 2.8 2.5 0.0 –0.2 0.1 –0.1
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 4.7 4.7 4.7 –0.2 –0.4 –0.2 –0.4
Commonwealth of Independent States 2.1 2.3 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3
Russia 1.5 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Excluding Russia 3.6 3.9 3.6 0.3 –0.1 0.4 0.0
Emerging and Developing Asia 6.5 6.5 6.3 0.0 –0.2 0.0 –0.3
China 6.9 6.6 6.2 0.0 –0.2 0.0 –0.2
India3 6.7 7.3 7.4 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.4
ASEAN-54 5.3 5.3 5.2 0.0 –0.1 0.0 –0.2
Emerging and Developing Europe 6.0 3.8 2.0 –0.5 –1.6 –0.5 –1.7
Latin America and the Caribbean 1.3 1.2 2.2 –0.4 –0.4 –0.8 –0.6
Brazil 1.0 1.4 2.4 –0.4 –0.1 –0.9 –0.1
Mexico 2.0 2.2 2.5 –0.1 –0.2 –0.1 –0.5
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 2.2 2.4 2.7 –1.1 –1.2 –1.0 –1.0
Saudi Arabia –0.9 2.2 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 2.7 3.1 3.8 –0.3 0.0 –0.3 0.1
Nigeria 0.8 1.9 2.3 –0.2 0.0 –0.2 0.4
South Africa 1.3 0.8 1.4 –0.7 –0.3 –0.7 –0.3
Memorandum
European Union 2.7 2.2 2.0 –0.2 –0.1 –0.3 –0.1
Low-Income Developing Countries 4.7 4.7 5.2 –0.3 –0.1 –0.3 –0.1
Middle East and North Africa 1.8 2.0 2.5 –1.2 –1.3 –1.2 –1.1
World Growth Based on Market Exchange Rates 3.2 3.2 3.1 –0.1 –0.2 –0.2 –0.2
World Trade Volume (goods and services) 5.2 4.2 4.0 –0.6 –0.5 –0.9 –0.7
Imports
Advanced Economies 4.2 3.7 4.0 –0.8 –0.4 –1.4 –0.5
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 7.0 6.0 4.8 0.0 –0.9 0.0 –0.8
Exports
Advanced Economies 4.4 3.4 3.1 –0.8 –0.6 –1.1 –0.8
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 6.9 4.7 4.8 –0.6 –0.3 –0.4 –0.5
Commodity Prices (US dollars)
Oil5 23.3 31.4 –0.9 –1.6 0.9 13.4 5.6
Nonfuel (average based on world commodity export
weights) 6.8 2.7 –0.7 –3.3 –1.2 –2.9 –1.2
Consumer Prices
Advanced Economies 1.7 2.0 1.9 –0.2 –0.3 0.0 0.0
Emerging Market and Developing Economies6 4.3 5.0 5.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7
London Interbank Offered Rate (percent)
On US Dollar Deposits (six month) 1.5 2.5 3.4 –0.1 –0.1 0.1 0.0
On Euro Deposits (three month) –0.3 –0.3 –0.2 0.0 –0.1 0.0 –0.2
On Japanese Yen Deposits (six month) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Note: Real effective exchange rates are assumed to remain constant at the levels prevailing during July 17–August 14, 2018. Economies are listed on the basis of
economic size. The aggregated quarterly data are seasonally adjusted. WEO = World Economic Outlook.
1Difference based on rounded figures for the current, July 2018 World Economic Outlook Update, and April 2018 World Economic Outlook forecasts. The differ-
ences are also adjusted to include Argentina’s consumer prices since the July 2018 Update.
2Excludes the Group of Seven (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) and euro area countries.
3For India, data and forecasts are presented on a fiscal year basis and GDP from 2011 onward is based on GDP at market prices with fiscal year 2011/12 as a
base year.
4Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam.

Table 1.1 (continued)
Year over Year Q4 over Q47
Projections Projections
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019
World Output 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.2 4.0 3.5 3.8
Advanced Economies 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.3 1.9
United States 1.6 2.2 2.9 2.5 1.9 2.5 3.1 2.3
Euro Area 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.7 1.9
Germany 2.2 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.8 1.9 1.6
France 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.2 2.8 1.3 1.7
Italy 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.3
Spain 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.1
Japan 1.0 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.0 –0.3
United Kingdom 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.4
Canada 1.4 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.1 1.9
Other Advanced Economies2 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.4
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.4 5.2 4.6 5.3
Commonwealth of Independent States 0.4 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.7 2.2 2.3
Russia –0.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 0.8 1.2 2.1 1.9
Excluding Russia 2.0 3.6 3.9 3.6 ... ... ... ...
Emerging and Developing Asia 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.2 6.5
China 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.2 6.8 6.8 6.4 6.2
India3 7.1 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.1 7.7 6.5 7.9
ASEAN-54 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.1 5.6
Emerging and Developing Europe 3.3 6.0 3.8 2.0 3.8 6.1 0.9 4.0
Latin America and the Caribbean –0.6 1.3 1.2 2.2 –0.8 1.7 0.5 2.8
Brazil –3.5 1.0 1.4 2.4 –2.4 2.2 1.7 2.5
Mexico 2.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.3 1.6 2.2 3.0
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 5.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 ... ... ... ...
Saudi Arabia 1.7 –0.9 2.2 2.4 2.1 –1.4 3.5 2.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 1.4 2.7 3.1 3.8 ... ... ... ...
Nigeria –1.6 0.8 1.9 2.3 ... ... ... ...
South Africa 0.6 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.9 0.5 0.9
Memorandum
European Union 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.8 1.9 2.1
Low-Income Developing Countries 3.6 4.7 4.7 5.2 ... ... ... ...
Middle East and North Africa 5.2 1.8 2.0 2.5 ... ... ... ...
World Growth Based on Market Exchange Rates 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.0
World Trade Volume (goods and services) 2.2 5.2 4.2 4.0 ... ... ... ...
Imports
Advanced Economies 2.4 4.2 3.7 4.0 ... ... ... ...
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 1.8 7.0 6.0 4.8 ... ... ... ...
Exports
Advanced Economies 1.8 4.4 3.4 3.1 ... ... ... ...
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 3.0 6.9 4.7 4.8 ... ... ... ...
Commodity Prices (US dollars)
Oil5 –15.7 23.3 31.4 –0.9 16.2 19.6 19.6 –3.6
Nonfuel (average based on world commodity export
weights) –1.5 6.8 2.7 –0.7 10.3 1.9 1.3 1.9
Consumer Prices
Emerging Market and Developing Economies6 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.2 4.2 3.7 4.6 4.1
London Interbank Offered Rate (percent)
On US Dollar Deposits (six month) 1.1 1.5 2.5 3.4 ... ... ... ...
On Euro Deposits (three month) –0.3 –0.3 –0.3 –0.2 ... ... ... ...
On Japanese Yen Deposits (six month) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ... ... ... ...
5Simple average of prices of UK Brent, Dubai Fateh, and West Texas Intermediate crude oil. The average price of oil in US dollars a barrel was $52.81 in
2017; the assumed price, based on futures markets, is $69.38 in 2018 and $68.76 in 2019.
6Excludes Venezuela but includes Argentina starting from 2017 onward. See country-specific notes for Argentina and Venezuela in the “Country Notes”
section of the Statistical Appendix.

7For World Output, the quarterly estimates and projections account for approximately 90 percent of annual world output at purchasing-power-parity weights.
For Emerging Market and Developing Economies, the quarterly estimates and projections account for approximately 80 percent of annual emerging market
and developing economies’ output at purchasing-power-parity weights.

WEO. In 2018, weaker-than-expected outturns in the both advanced and emerging market and developing
first half of the year have led to downward revisions for economies. In advanced economies, it is projected
the euro area and the United Kingdom. In 2019, recent to pick up to 2 percent in 2018, from 1.7 percent
trade measures are expected to weigh on economic in 2017. Inflation in emerging market and developing
activity, especially in the United States, where the 2019 economies excluding Venezuela is expected to increase
growth forecast was revised down by 0.2 percentage to 5.0 percent this year from 4.3 percent in 2017
point. Growth is expected to decline to 1.8 percent in (Box 1.4 provides details of the inflation outlook for
2020 as the US fiscal stimulus begins to unwind and individual countries).
euro area growth moderates toward its medium-term Among advanced economies, core inflation will rise
potential. Growth is projected to fall to 1.4 percent over the forecast horizon, with differentiation across
later on as working-age population growth continues to countries mostly based on cyclical positions. In the
slow and productivity growth remains moderate. United States, for example, core personal consump-
With emerging Asia continuing to expand at a tion expenditure price inflation, the Federal Reserve’s
strong pace—despite a 0.3 percentage point downward preferred measure, is expected to rise to 2.1 percent
revision to the 2019 growth forecast mostly driven by in 2018 and 2.3 percent in 2019 (from 1.6 percent
recently announced trade measures—and activity in in 2017), as the sizable, procyclical fiscal stimulus lifts
commodity exporters firming, growth in the emerging output above potential. Core inflation is assumed to
market and developing economy group is set to remain gradually decline to 2 percent thereafter, with a mon-
steady at 4.7 percent in 2018–19. Over the medium etary policy response that ensures expectations remain
term, growth is projected to rise to slightly less than well anchored. In the euro area, core harmonized index
5 percent. Beyond 2019, the aggregate growth rate for of consumer prices inflation is projected to increase
the group reflects offsetting developments as growth slowly to 2 percent by 2022, reflecting the influence of
moderates to a sustainable pace in China, while it backward-looking elements in the inflation processes.
improves in India (owing to structural reforms and Within the group of emerging market and develop-
a still-favorable demographic dividend), commodity ing economies, core inflation rates are expected to be
exporters (though to rates below the average of recent more dispersed than among advanced economies. To a
decades), and some economies experiencing macroeco- large extent, the dispersion reflects variation in cyclical
nomic stress in 2018–19. In comparison with the April positions, anchoring of inflation expectations, and
2018 WEO, the growth forecast for emerging market inflation targets.
and developing economies was marked down for 2018
and 2019 by 0.2 percentage point and 0.4 percentage
External Sector Outlook
point, respectively, and for 2020–23 by about 0.2 per-
centage point. For 2018–19, the main sources of the Current Account Positions
downward revision are the negative expected impact of After remaining broadly stable in 2017, current
the trade measures implemented since the April 2018 account deficits and surpluses in 2018 are, on the whole,
WEO on activity in China and other economies in forecast to widen slightly from 2017 (Figure 1.14).
emerging Asia, much weaker activity in Iran following The most notable drivers of predicted current account
the reimposition of US sanctions, a sharp projected changes for 2018 are the increase in oil prices, which
slowdown in Turkey following the ongoing market tur- is expected to result in an improvement in the current
moil, and a more subdued outlook for large economies account balance of oil exporters of about 3 percent of
in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico). Over their GDP, and strong growth in the United States,
2020–23, the revisions primarily reflect a downward which is projected to lead to a modest widening of the
reassessment of the still-strong growth prospects for US current account deficit for this year. Given that most
India and a lower growth forecast for Pakistan and Tur- fuel exporters were already running surpluses in 2017,
key, in addition to continued weaker growth in Iran. both factors will lead to some widening of global current
account imbalances.
Forecasts for 2019 and beyond indicate a gradual
Inflation Outlook decline in the current account balances of oil export-
Largely reflecting recent increases in commodity ers (because average oil prices are projected to decline
prices, inflation is expected to rise this year across compared with their current levels), as well as an initial

further widening of the US current account deficit, Figure 1.14. Global Current Account Balance
(Percent of world GDP)
driven by expansionary fiscal policy. Over the medium
term, current account balances should narrow again,
After a slight widening in 2018, current account balances are expected to narrow
with a stabilization in the US current account deficit as marginally over the medium term as the surpluses of oil exporters decline and the
the expansionary effects of fiscal policy wane, coupled US current account deficit stabilizes with the fading of the expansionary effects of
fiscal policy.
with some narrowing of surpluses in China and, to a
lesser extent, in Europe. The recently imposed trade 4
measures by the United States and retaliatory actions Afr. and ME Japan China
Eur. creditors Adv. Asia Oil exporters
by trading partners are expected to have a limited 3
impact on external imbalances (see 2018 External Sec-
tor Report for a discussion of the relation between trade 2
costs and external imbalances).
1
As highlighted in the IMF’s 2018 External Sector
Report, many countries’ current account imbalances 0
in 2017 were too large in relation to country-specific
norms consistent with underlying fundamentals and –1
desirable policies. It is therefore interesting to doc-
ument how current account balances are projected –2
to evolve in coming years. As shown in panel 1 of

–3 United States Other adv. Em. Asia Discrepancy
Figure 1.15, current account balances in 2018 are Eur. debtors Lat. Am. CEE
projected to move in a direction consistent with some –4
reduction in those excess imbalances (despite a larger 2002 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 23
deficit in the United States and a larger surplus in Ger-

many). Medium-term projections suggest, on average, Note: Adv. Asia = advanced Asia (Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan
further movement of current account balances in the Province of China); Afr. and ME = Africa and the Middle East (Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, South
same direction, but also feature a widening of the US Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia); CEE = central and eastern Europe (Belarus,
current account deficit and persistent large surpluses Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic,
in many advanced European and Asian economies Turkey, Ukraine); Em. Asia = emerging Asia (India, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam); Eur. creditors = European creditors (Austria,
(Figure 1.15, panel 2).7 At the same time, given that Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
changes in macroeconomic fundamentals relative to Sweden, Switzerland); Eur. debtors = European debtors (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia); Lat. Am. = Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
2017 affect not only current account balances but Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay); Oil exporters = Algeria, Azerbaijan, Iran,
also their equilibrium values, the path of future excess Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela; Other adv. = other advanced economies (Australia, Canada,
imbalances cannot be precisely inferred from this France, Iceland, New Zealand, United Kingdom).
exercise.8
International Investment Positions

rowing and lending (in line with the current account
Changes in international investment positions reflect
balance), with their ratios to domestic and world GDP
both net financial flows and valuation changes arising
affected by projected growth rates for individual coun-
from fluctuations in exchange rates and asset prices.
tries and for the world economy as a whole.9,10
Given that WEO projections assume broadly stable
real effective exchange rates and limited variation 9WEO forecasts include projections of 10-year government bond
in asset prices, changes in international investment yields, which would affect bond prices going forward, but the impact
positions are driven by projections for net external bor- of those changes in bond prices on the valuation of external assets
and liabilities is typically not included in international investment
position forecasts.
7The change in the current account balance over 2018 would 10Exchange rate changes can affect the evolution of international
offset, on average, about one-fifth of the 2017 current account gap, investment positions. For instance, according to estimates by the
while the change between 2017 and 2023 would offset about half of United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 7 percent deprecia-
the 2017 gap. tion of the US dollar in nominal effective terms between the end of
8For instance, an improvement in the terms of trade is typically 2016 and the end of 2017 improved the US net international invest-
associated with a larger equilibrium current account balance and a ment position by about 6 percent of GDP by increasing the domes-
more appreciated equilibrium exchange rate. tic currency value of foreign currency assets held by US residents.

Figure 1.15. Current Account Balances in Relation to Figure 1.16. Net International Investment Position
Economic Fundamentals
Creditor and debtor net international investment positions are projected to widen
Current account balances in 2018 are projected to move in a direction consistent slightly over the medium term.
with some reduction in excess imbalances. Medium-term projections suggest
further modest movement of current account balances in the same direction. 1. Global International Investment Position
(Percent of world GDP)
40
1. 2017 Current Account Gaps and Change in Current Afr. and ME Japan China
30 Eur. creditors Adv. Asia Oil exporters
7 Account Balances, 2017–18
6 SAU 20
Change in current-account-to-
IDN
5 RUS JPN 10
GDP ratio, 2017–18
4 CHE
MEX 0
3 CAN
USA –10
2 ARG AUS KOR
1 HKG SWE DEU –20
GBR MYS United States Other adv. Em. Asia
0 –30
SGP NLD Eur. debtors Lat. Am. CEE
–1 BEL TUR CHN –40
ZAF
–2 FRA POL THA 2005 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
ESP ITA BRA IND
–3
–4 –2 0 2 4 6 8 2. Net IIP, 2017, and Projected Changes, 2017–23
Current account gap, 2017 40 (Percent of GDP)
Projected change in IIP, 2017–23
30
2. 2017 Current Account Gaps and Change in Current Eur. debtors
Eur. creditors
4 Account Balances, 2017–23 20
Japan
2 ARG TUR RUS Adv. Asia
Change in current-account-to-
HKG MEX SWE 10 CEE

GBR Oil exporters
Lat. Am.
GDP ratio, 2017–23
0
BEL AUS KOR MYS 0
–2 SAU FRA DEU Afr. and ME Em. Asia
CHN SGP NLD China
ZAF BRA –10 Other
–4 United States
ESP IND POL adv.
–20
–6 USA ITA –100 –75 –50 –25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
THA
–8 Net IIP, 2017
–10
–4 –2 0 2 4 6 8 Source: IMF staff estimates.
Current account gap, 2017 Note: Adv. Asia = advanced Asia (Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan
Province of China); Afr. and ME = Africa and the Middle East (Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, South
Source: IMF staff calculations. Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia); CEE = central and eastern Europe (Belarus,
Note: Data labels use International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic,
codes. Turkey, Ukraine); Em. Asia = emerging Asia (India, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam); Eur. creditors = European creditors (Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland); Eur. debtors = European debtors (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland,
As panel 1 of Figure 1.16 shows, over the next five Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia); IIP = international investment position;
Lat. Am. = Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru,
years, creditor and debtor positions as a share of world Uruguay); Oil exporters = Algeria, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Nigeria,
GDP are projected to widen slightly. On the creditor Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela; Other
adv. = Other advanced economies (Australia, Canada, France, Iceland, New
side, this is explained primarily by the growing creditor Zealand, United Kingdom).
positions of a group of European advanced economies,
a result of large projected current account surpluses.
On the debtor side, this reflects some increase in GDP across countries and regions between 2017 and
the debtor position of the United States and other 2023, the last year of the WEO projection horizon. The
advanced economies (a group including Canada, net creditor position of advanced European economies
France, and the United Kingdom, among others), is projected to exceed 85 percent of GDP and of Japan
partially offset by a further sizable improvement in the to exceed 75 percent of GDP, while the net debtor
position of euro area debtor countries. position of the United States is projected to approach
Similar trends are highlighted in panel 2 of Fig- 50 percent of GDP, some 9 percentage points above the
ure 1.16, which shows projected changes in net interna- 2017 estimate. In contrast, the net international invest-
tional investment positions as a percentage of domestic ment position of a group of euro area debtor countries,

including Italy and Spain, is expected to improve by Figure 1.17. Growth for Creditors and Debtors
(Percent)
more than 20 percentage points of their collective GDP,
and by 2023, net foreign liabilities would be about half
In 2017 and 2018, domestic demand growth was faster in creditor countries than
their level a decade earlier. in debtor countries.
Domestic and External Contributions

Net external contribution to growth
to GDP Growth Domestic demand contribution to growth
Total
Another way to look at the prospects for global
rebalancing is to examine the domestic and external
8 1. Growth for Creditors
contributions to GDP growth in creditor and debtor
countries. Growth in domestic demand was faster in 6
creditor countries than in debtor countries in 2017, as 4
in previous years, primarily reflecting high growth in
2
China (Figure 1.17). At the same time, the net external
contribution to growth was again positive for credi- 0
tors, driven this time by positive contributions from –2
China, creditor Europe, and Japan. For 2018, the net
external contribution to growth is slightly negative for –4
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
creditors, with a positive contribution from creditor
All creditors Eur. China Japan Adv. Asia Oil exporters
Europe, Japan, and other advanced Asian economies creditors
broadly offset by negative contributions from China
and oil exporters. Among debtor countries, the net 8 2. Growth for Debtors
external contribution to growth is forecast to be posi-
tive for Latin American debtor countries and to remain 6
negative for the United States because of expansionary
4
fiscal policy.
2
Implications of Imbalances
Sustained excess external imbalances in the world’s 0
key economies and policy actions that threaten to
–2
widen such imbalances pose risks to global stability.
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2018
The fiscal easing under way in the United States is
All United Eur. Other adv. Latin Em. Asia CEE
leading to a tightening of monetary conditions, a debtors States debtors America
stronger US dollar, and a larger US current account
deficit. These trends risk aggravating trade tensions and Source: IMF staff calculations.
may result in a faster tightening of global financing Note: Adv. Asia = advanced Asia (Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan
Province of China); CEE = central and eastern Europe (Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia,
conditions, with negative implications for emerging Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine);
market economies, especially those with weak external Em. Asia = emerging Asia (India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam); Eur. creditors = European creditors (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
positions. Over the medium term, widening debtor Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland);
positions in key economies could constrain global Eur. debtors = European debtors (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain,
Slovenia); Latin America = Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru,
growth and possibly result in sharp and disruptive Uruguay; Other adv. = other advanced economies (Australia, Canada, France,
currency and asset price adjustments. Iceland, New Zealand, United Kingdom); Oil exporters = Algeria, Azerbaijan, Iran,
As discussed in the section titled “Policy Priorities,” Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela.
the US economy, which is already operating beyond
full employment, should implement a medium-term
plan to reverse the rising ratio of public debt, accom-
panied by fiscal measures to gradually boost domestic
capacity. This would help ensure more sustainable
growth dynamics as well as contain external imbal-
ances. Stronger reliance on demand growth in some

creditor countries, especially those with policy space Trade Tensions and Policy Uncertainty
to support it, such as Germany, would help facilitate Escalating trade tensions and the potential shift
domestic and global rebalancing while sustaining world away from a multilateral, rules-based trading system
growth over the medium term. are key threats to the global outlook. Discontent with
trade practices and the rules-based trading system
has led to a range of trade actions since January, as
Risks
noted in the section titled “Recent Developments.” A
The balance of risks to the short-term global growth cooperative approach to reduce trade costs and resolve
forecast has now shifted to the downside. The potential disagreements without raising tariff and nontariff bar-
for upside surprises has receded, given the tightening of riers has so far proved elusive, with the United States
financial conditions in some parts of the world, the rise imposing tariffs on a variety of imports and trading
in trade costs, slow implementation of reforms recom- partners undertaking retaliatory measures. As discussed
mended in the past, and waning growth momentum, in the 2018 External Sector Report, widening exter-
reflected in worse-than-anticipated outturns in several nal imbalances in some large economies, such as the
large economies, weakening growth of industrial produc- United States—where the fiscal expansion will likely
tion, and a softening of some high-frequency indicators. increase the country’s current account deficit—could
At the same time, several of the downside risks high- further fuel protectionist sentiments. The prolifer-
lighted in the April 2018 WEO have become more pro- ation of trade actions and threats, and the ongoing
nounced or have partially materialized—such as rising renegotiations of major free trade agreements, such as
trade barriers and a reversal of capital flows to emerging NAFTA and the economic arrangements between the
market economies with weaker fundamentals and higher United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union,
political risk. With protectionist rhetoric increasingly have created pervasive uncertainty about future trade
turned into action with the United States imposing costs.11 An intensification of trade tensions and the
tariffs on a wide range of imports and retaliatory actions associated further rise in policy uncertainty could dent
by trading partners, escalation of trade tensions to an business and financial market sentiment, trigger finan-
intensity that carries systemic risk is a distinct possibility cial market volatility, and slow investment and trade.
without policy cooperation. And global financial con- An increase in trade barriers would disrupt global
ditions, while still generally easy, could tighten sharply, supply chains, which have become an integral part of
triggered by faster-than-anticipated monetary policy production processes in the past decades, and slow the
tightening in advanced economies or the emergence spread of new technologies, ultimately lowering global
of other risks that would cause market sentiment to productivity and welfare. It would also make tradable
deteriorate suddenly. With public and corporate debt consumer goods less affordable, harming low-income
near record levels in many countries, such developments households disproportionately. In addition to their
would expose vulnerabilities that have built up over the negative effects on domestic and global growth, protec-
years, dent confidence, and undermine investment—a tionist policies would likely have very limited effect on
key driver of the baseline growth forecast. external imbalances, as discussed in the 2018 External
In the medium term, risks to the growth outlook Sector Report.
remain skewed to the downside as they were in April. Scenario Box 1 discusses the potential economic
These risks stem from a continued buildup of financial consequences of further escalation in trade tensions
vulnerabilities, the implementation of unsustainable and rising trade barriers. Illustrative simulations
macroeconomic policies in the face of a subdued suggest that a combination of higher import tariffs by
growth outlook, rising inequality, and declining trust the United States (along the lines threatened by the
in mainstream policies. A range of other noneconomic US administration so far) and retaliatory measures
factors continue to cloud the outlook. If any of these
risks materializes, the likelihood of other destabiliz- 11As discussed in the 2016 United Kingdom IMF Article IV
ing developments could increase, amplifying negative Selected Issues paper and the 2018 Euro Area IMF Article IV
growth consequences. The limited policy space to Selected Issues paper, the rise in trade barriers between the United
counteract downturns in advanced and emerging mar- Kingdom and the European Union would imply sizable losses for the
UK economy and, to a lesser extent, for its trading partners, with
ket economies further exacerbates concerns about these negative impacts concentrated in countries with the largest trade
undesirable possibilities. links with the United Kingdom.

by its trading partners could inflict significant costs suggests that 2019 and 2020 growth forecast revisions
on the global economy, especially through its impact compared with the April 2018 WEO are slightly more
on confidence and financial conditions. According to negative for countries that trade extensively with the
model simulations, global GDP would fall by more United States—which could serve as a proxy for the
than 0.8 percent in 2020 and remain roughly 0.4 per- global repercussions of the uncertain direction of US
cent lower in the long term compared with a baseline trade policy (Figure 1.18, panel 2).
without trade tensions. The disruption caused by an
escalation of trade restrictions could be particularly
large in the United States and China, with GDP losses Financial Tensions
of more than 0.9 percent in the United States and After years of an extremely supportive financial
over 1.6 percent in China in 2019, and in the NAFTA environment, the global economy remains vulner-
trading partners, where GDP is simulated to be more able to a sudden tightening of financial conditions.
than 1.6 percent lower in 2020 than in the absence of As discussed in the April and October 2018 GFSRs,
tariff measures. measures of equity valuations appear stretched in some
As discussed in the July 2018 Group of Twenty markets, investors have moved into riskier asset classes
Surveillance Note and the October 2016 WEO, such in search of yield, and the share of firms with low
illustrative scenarios likely understate the negative investment-grade ratings in advanced economy bond
repercussions of rising trade tensions on the global indices has increased significantly. Across many econ-
economy. Inward-looking trade policies could come omies, government and corporate debt is substantially
together with tighter restrictions on the cross-border higher than before the global financial crisis (April
flows of factors of production. Curbs to migration 2018 Fiscal Monitor). In some emerging markets, there
would prevent aging economies from taking advantage are concerns about rising contingent liabilities and
of demographic trends in other parts of the world to increasing balance sheet mismatches. A surprise tight-
ease labor supply pressures (Chapter 2 of the April ening of global financial conditions could expose these
2018 WEO). The disruption to international economic vulnerabilities and derail the expansion.
links would also make it harder for countries to tackle As discussed in previous WEOs, various factors
cooperatively, and in a coordinated manner, the other could trigger a sudden change in global financial
multilateral challenges they face, now or in the future. conditions. Signs of firmer-than-expected inflation in
Beyond trade, recent and forthcoming elections the United States (for example, as capacity constraints
have raised the prospect of realigned policy agendas. become more binding) could lead to a shift in market
Political and policy uncertainty could deter private expectations of US interest rate hikes, which are cur-
investment and weaken economic activity in several rently well below those assumed in the WEO baseline
countries by raising the possibility of slower reform or forecast. A negative shock could trigger a sudden
of significant change to policy objectives. For exam- deterioration of risk appetite, which in turn could
ple, the recent difficulties with forming a government lead to disruptive portfolio adjustments, accelerate
in Italy and the possibility of reversal of reforms or and broaden the reversal of capital flows from emerg-
the implementation of policies that would harm debt ing markets, and lead to further US dollar appreci-
sustainability triggered a sharp widening in spreads. In ation, straining economies with high leverage, fixed
Turkey, growing concerns about the credibility of the exchange rates, or balance sheet mismatches. Rising
policy agenda, underlying fundamentals, and political trade tensions and political and policy uncertainty
tensions with the US were the main factors behind the could also make market participants abruptly reassess
sharp depreciation of the Turkish lira, the decline in fundamentals and risks. The recent turmoil in Turkey,
asset prices, and widening spreads in August. In China, exacerbated by political tensions with the United States
the recent shift to a more accommodative macro policy against the backdrop of deteriorating fundamentals,
stance, while fine-tuning the pace of deleveraging, has including a belated monetary policy response to
brought renewed attention to the difficult trade-off increasing inflation, exemplifies the increased salience
between growth and stability that policymakers face. of this risk for other vulnerable emerging markets. In
These developments are consistent with an overall an environment of gradually tightening global interest
increase in global economic policy uncertainty since rates and rising uncertainty, the likelihood of conta-
the start of this year (Figure 1.18). IMF staff analysis gion from such episodes to other economies has also

Figure 1.18. Policy Uncertainty and Trade Tensions lead to stronger-than-forecast negative effects on activity.
More broadly, an indiscriminate rollback of postcrisis
Global economic policy uncertainty has increased sharply since the beginning of regulatory reform and oversight—both domestically and
the year. Growth forecast revisions for 2019 and 2020 are slightly more negative
for countries with larger trade exposure to the United States. internationally—could encourage excessive risk taking,
leading to a further buildup of financial vulnerabilities.
400 1. Economic Policy Uncertainty1 600 Cybersecurity breaches and cyberattacks on critical
(Index)
350
Global economic policy uncertainty (PPP weight)
500
financial infrastructure represent an additional source
US trade policy uncertainty (right scale)
of risk because they could undermine cross-border pay-
300 400 ment systems and disrupt the flow of goods and services.
250 300 Continued rapid growth of crypto assets could create
new vulnerabilities in the international financial system.
200 200
150 100 Other Factors

100 0 A range of other factors continues to influence the
Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Aug.
2016 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 medium-term outlook in various regions. Geopolitical
risks (Figure 1.19) and domestic strife are weighing on
Exports to the United States (share of GDP)
0.40 2. Growth Forecast Revisions and Exports to the United States the outlook in several economies, especially in the Mid-
2019 growth forecast revision
0.30 2020 growth forecast revision
dle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Box 1.5 documents
the depth of macroeconomic distress in several countries
0.20
(such as Libya, Venezuela, and Yemen) and compares it
0.10 to other cases of large GDP collapses in recent history.
0.00
While the baseline forecast assumes a gradual easing
of existing strains, an intensification of conflicts in
–0.10 y = –0.010x + 0.028 y = –0.007x + 0.028
R 2 = 0.011 R 2 = 0.018
the Middle East and Africa not only would have large
–0.20 negative domestic repercussions (Box 1.1 of the April
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2
2017 WEO), but could trigger a rise in migrant flows
Growth revision from April 2018 to October 2018 (percentage points)
into Europe, potentially deepening political divisions.
In several systemically important economies, declin-
Sources: Baker, Bloom, and Davis (2016); United Nations COMTRADE database;
and IMF staff calculations. ing trust in national and regional institutions may
Note: PPP = purchasing power parity. Baker-Bloom-Davis index of Global increase the appeal of politically popular but unsustain-
Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) is a GDP-weighted average of national EPU
indices for 20 countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, able policy measures, which could harm confidence,
Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, threaten medium-term sustainability, and, in the case
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
1
Mean of global economic policy uncertainty index from 1997 to 2015 = 100; of Europe, undermine regional cohesion. Furthermore,
mean of US trade policy uncertainty index from 1985 to 2010 = 100. many countries remain vulnerable to the economic and
humanitarian costs of extreme weather events and other
natural disasters, with potentially significant cross-border
ramifications through migration flows.
risen. The increase in Italian sovereign yields since May
is another case in point. A significant further decline in
sovereign bond prices, with possible contagion effects, Fan Chart Analysis
would impose valuation losses on investors, worsen A fan chart analysis—based on equity and commod-
public debt dynamics, and weaken bank balance ity market data as well as the dispersion of inflation
sheets, reigniting concerns about sovereign-bank feed- and term spread projections of private forecasters—
back loops in the euro area. shows a downward shift in the balance of risks relative
Financial tensions could also arise from regulatory to the October 2017 WEO, as shown in Figure 1.20.
actions. In China, where the authorities are taking The shift is broad based—with all indicators showing
welcome steps to slow credit growth, uncoordinated a decline in the current year extending into 2019. The
financial and local government regulatory action could worsening of the risk profile mostly reflects anticipated
have unintended consequences that trigger disorderly exacerbation of global trade tensions, which will weigh
repricing of financial assets, increase rollover risks, and on investment and growth. These measures already

Figure 1.19. Geopolitical Risk Index Figure 1.20. Risks to the Global Outlook
(Index)
The risks around the central global growth forecast for 2018 and 2019 have tilted
Geopolitical risks continue to trend upward. to the downside.
300 6 1. Prospects for World GDP Growth1

Arab Spring: Russian ISIS (Percent change)
Syrian and actions escalation 5
Libyan wars in Crimea
250 4
WEO baseline
Syrian
civil war 3
200 escalation 50 percent confidence interval
2 70 percent confidence interval
90 percent confidence interval
1 90 percent confidence interval from October 2017 WEO
150
0
2015 16 17 18 19
100
2
1.5 2. Balance of Risks Associated with Selected Risk Factors
Paris (Coefficient of skewness expressed in units of the underlying
50 attacks 1.0 variables)
0.5
0 0.0
2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Aug.
18
–0.5 Balance of risks for
Current year
Source: Caldara and Iacoviello (2018). –1.0 Next year
Note: ISIS = Islamic State.
–1.5
Term spread S&P 500 Inflation risk Oil market risks
appear, at least in part, to be priced into US equities, Dispersion of Forecasts and Implied Volatility3
80 3. 1.4 125 4. 0.6
whose risk profile has worsened. A greater likelihood GDP (right scale) Term spread
of higher energy prices adds to downside risks. Box 1.6 70 VIX (left scale) 1.2 (right scale)
100 Oil (left scale)
discusses the challenges of predicting recessions. 60 0.5
1.0
As discussed in the October 2018 GFSR, 50 75
0.8
growth-at-risk analysis suggests a slight increase in 40 0.3
0.6 50
short-term downside risks to global financial stability 30
0.4
compared with the April 2018 GFSR, and contin- 20
25
0.2
ued risks to medium-term growth that are well above 10 0.2
historical norms. 0 0.0 0 0.0
2006 08 10 12 14 16 Jul. 2006 08 10 12 14 16 Jul.
18 18
Policy Priorities Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE);
Consensus Economics; Haver Analytics; and IMF staff estimates.
With risks shifting to the downside, domestic and 1
The fan chart shows the uncertainty around the October 2018 World Economic
multilateral policies have a vital role to play in sustain- Outlook (WEO) central forecast with 50, 70, and 90 percent confidence intervals.
As shown, the 70 percent confidence interval includes the 50 percent interval, and
ing the global expansion and enhancing prospects for the 90 percent confidence interval includes the 50 and 70 percent intervals. See
strong and inclusive growth. Global growth remains Appendix 1.2 of the April 2009 WEO for details. The 90 percent intervals for the
current-year and one-year-ahead forecasts from the October 2017 WEO are shown.
above trend but, with momentum appearing to peak, 2
The bars depict the coefficient of skewness expressed in units of the underlying
strengthening resilience and tackling long-standing variables. The values for inflation risks and oil market risks enter with the opposite
sign since they represent downside risks to growth.
challenges become more urgent. 3
GDP measures the purchasing-power-parity-weighted average dispersion of GDP
growth forecasts for the Group of Seven economies (Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States), Brazil, China, India, and Mexico. VIX
Policies—Advanced Economies is the CBOE Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Implied Volatility Index. Term spread
measures the average dispersion of term spreads implicit in interest rate forecasts
In advanced economies, the macroeconomic pol- for Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Oil is the CBOE
crude oil volatility index. Forecasts are from Consensus Economics surveys.
icy stance should be tailored to the maturing cyclical Dashed lines represent the average values from 2000 to the present.

position. While rising oil prices are largely responsible its commitment to reflate the economy by introducing
for higher headline inflation, core inflation has also forward guidance on policy interest rates and increas-
been firming in the context of narrowing or closing ing flexibility of market operations to make the accom-
output gaps. Where inflation is close to or above target, modative monetary stance more sustainable.
data-dependent and well-communicated monetary
normalization is appropriate. In cases where inflation is Fiscal Policy: Rebuild Buffers, Enhance Inclusiveness,
still significantly below target, continued accommodative and Boost Medium-Term Potential
monetary policy remains appropriate. As much as possi- Above-trend growth in many advanced economies
ble, countries should use this period of sustained growth offers a chance to build fiscal buffers and prepare for
to rebuild fiscal buffers. Structural reforms aimed at the next downturn. Figure 1.21 highlights that, while
increasing labor productivity, labor force participation, public debt is projected to decline in many of the
and flexibility of the labor market would be welcome. largest advanced economies over the next five years,
Investments in physical and digital infrastructure, as well projected changes in public debt are uncorrelated with
as reduced barriers to entry in services markets, could initial debt levels.12 Procyclical fiscal stimulus should
boost growth potential in the medium term. be avoided and rolled back (for example, in the United
States), while further steps should be taken by coun-
Monetary Policy: Data Dependent, Well tries with fiscal space and excess external surpluses to
Communicated, Country Specific boost domestic growth potential and address global
In the United States, the monetary policy stance imbalances (for example, in Germany). In cases where
should be gradually tightened as inflation pressures fiscal consolidation is appropriate, the pace of fiscal
emerge amid solid growth and historically low unem- tightening should depend on economic conditions
ployment. The large and procyclical fiscal stimulus and avoid exerting sharp drags on demand, and efforts
places an additional burden on the Federal Reserve should be made to reorient the composition of spend-
to raise policy rates to keep inflation expectations ing and revenues to enhance inclusiveness and protect
anchored around the target and prevent the economy vulnerable people. Fiscal spending should prioritize
from overheating. In this context, the Federal Reserve’s areas that can support growth, such as investing in
continued adherence to data-dependent policymaking physical and digital infrastructure, boosting labor force
and clear communication will be vital to ensuring a participation where aging threatens future labor supply,
smooth adjustment—both domestically and abroad. and enhancing workforce skills.
In the United Kingdom, where the output gap is In the United States, the tax overhaul and higher
closed and unemployment is low, a modest tighten- spending will widen the fiscal deficit, which was
ing of monetary policy may be warranted, although already set to deteriorate over the long term because
at a time of heightened uncertainty, monetary policy of aging-related spending. Against the backdrop of
should remain flexible in response to changing condi- record low unemployment rates, the deficit expansion is
tions associated with the Brexit negotiations. providing a short-term boost to activity in the United
In the euro area and Japan, accommodative mone- States and many of its trading partners, but at the cost
tary policies remain appropriate. In the euro area, pos- of elevated risks to the US and global economies. The
itive output gaps and tightening labor markets should larger deficit not only will leave fewer budget resources
eventually lift inflation, but the increase is projected to to invest in supply-side reforms, but will add to an
happen slowly over the forecast horizon, given a strong already-unsustainable public debt and contribute to a
backward-looking element in the inflation process. rise in global imbalances. With the US economy already
The European Central Bank’s expectation that policy operating above potential, expansionary fiscal policy
rates will remain low through the summer of 2019, could lead to an inflation surprise, which may trigger
and beyond, if necessary, together with the net asset a faster-than-currently anticipated rise in US interest
purchases until the end of the year (and the sizable rates, a tightening of global financial conditions, and
stock of acquired assets and the associated reinvest- further US dollar appreciation, with potentially negative
ments), are therefore vital. In Japan, where inflation
is not expected to reach the target over the next five 12The October 2018 Fiscal Monitor discusses the evolution of
years, a sustained accommodative monetary stance is public sector balance sheets, which provide a more comprehensive
also a necessity. The Bank of Japan recently reinforced view of the state of public finances.

spillovers for the global economy. The preferred policy Figure 1.21. Projected Change in Public Debt
course would be to increase the revenue-to-GDP ratio
through greater reliance on indirect taxes. Public debt in most major advanced economies is projected to decline over
2017–23, while it is projected to increase in some of the largest emerging market
In the United Kingdom, the fiscal targets—which and developing economies. But there is no clear relationship between the
envisage the cyclically adjusted public sector deficit projected change in debt ratios and the level of debt prevailing in 2017.
falling below 2 percent of GDP and public debt begin-
15 1. G20 AEs: Projected Change in Public Debt (2017–23) and
Projected change (percentage points)

ning to decline by 2020–21—provide an anchor for 2017 Public Debt
10 USA
medium-term objectives while allowing for flexibility KOR
5
in the short term. The pace of fiscal consolidation can 0
be eased if risks materialize and growth slows sharply. GBR FRA
–5 AUS JPN
In Japan, the debt trajectory needs to be anchored –10 ITA
CAN
by a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, –15
–20 DEU
which should be based on gradual increases in the
–25
consumption tax rate beyond the 2 percentage-point 0 50 100 150 200 250
increase envisaged for October 2019. However, in Public debt, 2017 (percent of GDP)
the short term, premature fiscal tightening should be
Projected change (percentage points)

avoided to support growth momentum and reflation. 25 2. G20 EMDEs: Projected Change in Public Debt (2017–23) and
20 2017 Public Debt
In the euro area, countries with currently limited fis- CHN
15 TUR
cal space (for example, France, Italy, Spain) should use ZAF BRA
10 SAU
this period of above-potential growth and accommo- 5
RUS
dative monetary policy to rebuild fiscal buffers, which 0
would help alleviate bank-sovereign strains. France’s –5 IDN MEX
ARG IND
plan to restrain spending is a welcome step. Countries –10
with fiscal space, such as Germany, should fund mea- –15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
sures that would raise potential output and facilitate Public debt, 2017 (percent of GDP)
external rebalancing, for example, by increasing public
investment in physical and human capital. 20 3. G20 AEs: Projected Public Debt Change, 2017–22
15 (Percentage points)
October 2018 WEO
Structural Policies: Boost Potential Growth 10 October 2017 WEO
5
Low productivity and an aging workforce weigh
0
heavily on the medium-term growth prospects of –5
advanced economies. Reforms of product and labor –10
markets could boost medium-term productivity, labor –15
supply, and growth potential and are especially import- –20
JPN ITA USA FRA CAN GBR DEU AUS KOR
ant when fiscal and monetary policy are constrained.
Reforms that strengthen education and health care 25 4. G20 EMDEs: Projected Public Debt Change, 2017–22
would help tackle poverty and inequality and prepare 20 (Percentage points)
workers for challenges arising from rapid progress in 15
labor-saving technologies and globalization. 10
5
In the euro area, structural reforms have attracted
0
much discussion in individual countries, but progress –5 October 2018 WEO
has been mixed. France has made welcome strides in –10 October 2017 WEO
improving labor market flexibility, and, more recently, –15
BRA IND ARG MEX ZAF CHN IDN TUR SAU RUS
in legislating measures to better align workforce skills
with business needs to boost employment. Contin-
ued progress with planned reforms that aim to ease Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMDEs = emerging market and developing
corporate administrative burdens would also benefit economies; G20 = Group of Twenty; WEO = World Economic Outlook.
long-term growth. In Germany, policies to increase
labor supply and investment, as well as to support
entrepreneurship and advance digital transformation,

would all be beneficial, and should be supported with ity. Continued progress with balance sheet cleanup is
available fiscal space—particularly in contexts such as essential to strengthen credit intermediation in several
the current year in which the budget is in surplus. In economies. There is also a general need to improve
Italy, past pension and labor market reforms should euro area banks’ cost efficiency and profitability
be preserved, and further measures should be pursued, through proactive supervision, greater use of digiti-
such as decentralizing wage bargaining to align wages zation, and revamped business models. In Japan, the
with labor productivity at the firm level. In Spain, drag on bank profitability from low interest rates and
the structural reform agenda, which aims to raise the demographic headwinds could be remedied by increas-
effectiveness of active labor market policies and reduce ing fee-based income and diversifying revenue sources,
labor market segmentation, needs new impetus. together with consolidation. In the United States,
In Japan, the foremost priority should be labor mar- rising leverage, a weakening of underwriting standards
ket reform that could help lift productivity and wage for corporate credit, the growth of passively managed
inflation. For example, the government’s Work Style investment products, and cyber risks bear close moni-
Reform appropriately focuses on reducing labor market toring. Changes to financial oversight should continue
duality via the “equal pay for equal work” pillar. Boost- to ensure that the current risk-based approach to reg-
ing labor force participation rates among women and ulation, supervision, and resolution is preserved (and
older workers, and allowing more use of foreign labor, strengthened in the case of nonbanks).
would help support an aging population, but might
add to deflationary pressures in the short term and
should be tackled after the Work Style Reform. Policies—Emerging Market Economies
In the United States, labor supply could be incentiv- With advanced economy interest rates expected
ized among lower-income households by increasing the to increase from current still-accommodative lev-
generosity of the Earned Income Tax Credit and raising els and with trade tensions rising, emerging market
the federal minimum wage. Education reforms could and developing economies need to be prepared for
focus on expanding apprenticeships and vocational an environment of higher volatility. Many need to
programs to offer attractive noncollege career paths, enhance resilience through an appropriate mix of fiscal,
designing new federal financing options for tertiary monetary, exchange rate, and prudential policies to
education, reducing funding differences across districts, lessen their vulnerability to tightening global financial
and offering more support to low-income areas. conditions, sharp currency movements, and reversals in
In the United Kingdom, where goods and labor mar- capital flows. Given subdued medium-term prospects
kets are already flexible, reforms should focus on easing for per capita incomes in many countries and mount-
planning restrictions to boost housing supply, improving downside risks to growth, reforms need to be
ing the quality of transport infrastructure, and raising enacted to bolster growth potential and ensure that all
human capital among the lower skilled (such as by segments of society have access to opportunities.
raising the basic skills of high school graduates). Active
labor market policies should facilitate the relocation of Managing Trade-Offs and Enhancing Resilience
workers in industries that are likely to be more affected Although global financial conditions remain gener-
by higher trade barriers after Brexit. ally supportive from a historical perspective, continued
monetary policy normalization in the United States and
Financial Sector Policies: Complete Balance Sheet a stronger US dollar, coinciding with country-specific
Cleanup, Increase Resilience to Shocks factors, have put pressure on the exchange rates and
The potential for greater financial market volatil- funding costs of some emerging market economies (for
ity requires fortifying financial systems and avoiding example, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa,
a rollback of the postcrisis regulatory reforms. As and especially Argentina and Turkey), and have led to
discussed in the October 2018 GFSR, macroprudential further reductions in capital inflows. Policy reactions
tools need to be developed and deployed, and macro- have been varied. In addition to allowing the exchange
prudential policy buffers need to be rebuilt, including rate to adjust, albeit to varying degrees, countries
by raising capital buffers, to provide insurance against resorted to interest rate hikes (such as in Argentina, Indo-
a future tightening of financial conditions. In the euro nesia, Mexico, Turkey), the activation of official financing
area, completing the banking union remains a prior- (for example, in Argentina), and intervention in the

foreign exchange market (Argentina and Brazil). The Long-standing advice on the importance of rein-
challenges that Turkey faces will require a comprehensive ing in excess credit growth where needed, supporting
policy package comprising monetary, fiscal, quasi-fiscal, healthy bank balance sheets, containing maturity and
and financial sector policies. currency mismatches, and maintaining orderly market
Monetary policy in emerging market economies conditions has become even more relevant in the face of
will need to manage the trade-off between supporting renewed market volatility. In China, it will be import-
activity should external financial conditions tighten ant, despite growth headwinds from slower credit
further, and keeping inflation expectations anchored. As growth and trade barriers, to maintain the focus on
Chapter 3 demonstrates, firmer anchoring of inflation deleveraging and continue regulatory and supervisory
expectations—fostered, for example, by credible fiscal tightening, greater recognition of bad assets, and more
and monetary policy frameworks—reduces inflation market-based credit allocation to improve resilience and
persistence and limits the pass-through of currency boost medium-term growth prospects. In India, reform
depreciations to domestic prices, allowing greater leeway priorities include reviving bank credit and enhancing
for monetary policy to support output. the efficiency of credit provision by accelerating the
Turning to individual countries, monetary policy cleanup of bank and corporate balance sheets and
should be tightened to reanchor expectations where improving the governance of public sector banks.
inflation continues to be high (as recently done in Considerable progress was made in Russia in recent
Argentina), where it is increasing further in the wake years to shore up financial stability, including by clos-
of a sharp currency depreciation (Turkey), or where ing weak banks, introducing reforms to the resolution
it is expected to pick up (India). Monetary policy framework, enacting measures to reduce dollarization,
should instead remain accommodative in Brazil, where and increasing the risk weights of unsecured consumer
unemployment remains high and inflation is gradually and mortgage loans. However, efficiency, competition,
increasing toward the inflation target. In Mexico, con- and governance in the banking system should still be
ditional on expectations remaining anchored, monetary improved. In Turkey, where significant stress is emerg-
policy may become accommodative to support activity ing in bank and corporate balance sheets, further prog-
once inflation is firmly on a downward path. Given ress should be made in strengthening bank supervision
the inflation outlook, monetary policy could also be and enhancing the crisis management framework.
adjusted from its moderately tight stance toward a In Brazil, the financial sector has proved resilient,
neutral stance in Russia. Recent tightening in Indone- despite the severity of the 2015–16 recession, yet bank
sia was broadly appropriate to tackle risks to inflation credit is lagging, especially for nonfinancial firms. Key
from exchange rate depreciation and rising inflation reforms have strengthened supervision and regulation
expectations. Given external uncertainty, monetary but remaining vulnerabilities, including related-party
policy may stay on hold in the immediate future, while exposures and transactions, large exposures, country
the impact of recent actions is assessed. In South Africa, and transfer risk, and restructured loans, still need to
possible exchange rate pressures amid US monetary be addressed and the safety net strengthened. Mexico
policy tightening, rising risk aversion, and higher oil remains exposed to bouts of financial volatility in
prices pose upside risks to inflation. global markets, given its open capital account and deep
Exchange rate flexibility can help economies absorb financial integration with the rest of the world. The
external shocks, although the effects of exchange rate exchange rate should remain the main shock absorber,
depreciations on private and public sector balance and foreign exchange intervention should only be used
sheets and on domestic inflation expectations require to guard against disorderly market conditions. The
close monitoring. Under floating exchange rate Flexible Credit Line provides additional insurance in
regimes, foreign exchange interventions should be lim- case of tail events.
ited to addressing disorderly market conditions while South Africa has a range of buffers, including a float-
protecting reserve buffers (for example, in Argentina, ing exchange rate, deep financial markets, contained
Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey). foreign currency exposures, and long debt maturities.
As highlighted in Chapter 2, countries with flexible However, significant vulnerabilities arise from large
exchange rate regimes and those with lower financial gross external financing needs. Deepening reforms to
vulnerabilities experienced less damage to output in the improve governance and the business environment
aftermath of the global financial crisis. would help reduce such vulnerabilities.

In Saudi Arabia, further financial development necessary to continue restraining the government wage
and inclusion should be pursued while maintain- bill, harmonizing the federal and state tax regimes,
ing financial stability. Increased finance for small and improving subnational government finances, while
and medium-sized enterprises; more developed debt protecting effective social programs. A more ambitious
markets; and improved financial access, especially for medium-term fiscal target in Mexico would help ensure
women; will support growth and equality. Reforms continued market confidence, rebuild fiscal space,
should focus on removing structural impediments and prepare the country to better deal with long-term
that may dissuade financial institutions from entering demographics-related spending pressures. Significant
these markets. In Egypt, while healthy foreign reserves upfront fiscal adjustment is needed in Argentina to
and a flexible exchange rate leave the economy well lessen the federal financing burden and put public debt
positioned to manage any acceleration in outflows, on a firm downward trajectory.
maintenance of sound macroeconomic frameworks and Further fiscal consolidation is needed over the
consistent policy implementation, which have led to a medium term in Russia, and should continue in line
successful macroeconomic stabilization, is important. with the fiscal rule, to rebuild fiscal buffers in the
short term; the recent relaxation of the fiscal rule
Rebuilding Fiscal Buffers could weaken the hard-won credibility of the authori-
Public debt has increased in emerging markets over ties’ macroeconomic framework. To finance increased
the past decade, and is projected to increase further in spending on health, education, and infrastructure,
many of the largest economies over the next five years other spending could be reduced, alongside raising the
(Figure 1.21). This highlights the need to preserve main value-added tax rate, strengthening tax compli-
and rebuild buffers. The composition of spending and ance, and broadening the tax base. Parametric pension
revenues should be growth friendly and protect the reform could provide some fiscal space as well. Fiscal
most vulnerable. As shown in Chapter 2, strong fiscal and quasi-fiscal consolidation is also needed as part of
positions before the global financial crisis helped lessen Turkey’s policy package. Specific measures are needed
damage to GDP in its aftermath. to secure Turkey’s stated medium-term program targets,
A gradual fiscal consolidation is needed in China and, on the quasi-fiscal side, public-private partnership
to preserve policy space and ensure broader macro- activity needs to be managed carefully, and state loan
economic sustainability. The composition of fiscal guarantees should be gradually reduced and limited to
policy should support the needed rebalancing from cases of clear market failures. In South Africa, a gradual
investment to private consumption, and reverting to and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation will be needed
infrastructure stimulus to boost slowing growth should to strengthen public finances, focusing on wage savings
be avoided. In India, a high interest burden and risks and complemented by measures to boost efficiency
from rising yields also require continued focus on of other current spending, including through better
debt reduction to establish policy credibility and build targeting of education subsidies and the rationalization
buffers. These efforts should be supported by further of transfers to public entities.
reductions in subsidies and enhanced compliance with
the Goods and Services Tax. Fiscal policy is appropri- Structural Reforms to Boost Growth
ately geared toward rebuilding fiscal buffers in Indo- Structural reforms remain essential to raising growth
nesia, but untargeted subsidies should continue to be potential and spreading its benefits more widely, includ-
reduced, and a medium-term strategy should be put in ing through streamlining regulations and enhancing
place to increase the tax ratio, which is low by interna- competitiveness, investing in infrastructure and human
tional standards. capital, and increasing labor market efficiencies.
Fiscal consolidation is a key priority in Brazil as Despite a growing emphasis in China on the quality
well. Pension reform is essential for securing fiscal rather than the speed of growth, tensions persist
sustainability and ensuring fairness, given that pen- between stated development goals and intentions
sion expenditures are high and rising and pensions are to reduce leverage and allow market forces to play a
unduly generous for some segments of the population. larger role in the economy. An overarching priority
While recent measures to increase transparency are wel- is to continue with reforms, even if the economy
come, the fiscal framework needs to be strengthened, slows down, and to avoid a return to credit- and
including by increasing budget flexibility. It will also be investment-driven stimulus. Key elements of the

reform agenda should include strengthening financial in the labor market, improve basic education, and align
regulation and tightening macroprudential settings to training with business needs.
rein in the rapid increase in household debt; deep-
ening fiscal structural reforms to foster rebalancing
(making the personal income tax more progressive and Policies—Low-Income Developing Countries
increasing spending on health, education, and social Despite an uptick in growth in 2017–18, many
transfers); tackling income inequality by removing low-income countries continue to face substantial risks,
barriers to labor mobility and strengthening fiscal including from a tightening of global financial condi-
transfers across regions; more decisively reforming tions, heightened trade tensions, and domestic policy
state-owned enterprises; and fostering further market slippages. Many continue to grapple with noneco-
liberalization, particularly in services. Addressing the nomic challenges, such as rising temperatures, natural
distortions that affect trade and cross-border flows is disasters, and internal conflict. Low-income countries
also needed. therefore need to take advantage of the growth recov-
In India, important reforms have been implemented ery to enact reforms that help build resilience, raise
in recent years, including the Goods and Services potential growth and its inclusiveness, and move closer
Tax, the inflation-targeting framework, the Insolvency toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
and Bankruptcy Code, and steps to liberalize foreign
investment and make it easier to do business. Looking Rebuilding Fiscal Buffers and Enhancing
ahead, renewed impetus to reform labor and land mar- Financial Resilience
kets, along with further improvements to the business Despite recent narrowing of fiscal deficits as a
climate, are also crucial. In Indonesia, the priorities result of stronger fuel revenues and some fiscal con-
are to enhance infrastructure, streamline regulations solidation efforts, public debt burdens have risen
to boost competition and competitiveness, improve in many low-income countries in the past sev-
education quality, and ease labor market regulation to eral years. For oil exporters in sub-Saharan Africa,
support employment. foreign-currency-denominated public debt has increased
In Brazil, recent advances in trade facilitation and by as much as 80 percent from 2010–13 to 2017,
reforms of the labor and subsidized credit markets are while for non-resource-intensive countries the increase
welcome, but more reforms are needed to boost produc- is about 18 percent over the same period (April 2018
tivity, including by improving financial intermediation, Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa). Many
investing in infrastructure, and effectively implementing low-income countries are increasingly shifting away
anti–money laundering and anticorruption measures. In from traditional multilateral and bilateral sources of debt
Argentina, reforms will need to ensure that the benefits toward bond issuances and non–Paris Club bilateral
from stronger, sustained growth extend to all parts of creditors, resulting in higher debt-service costs.
society by strengthening the social safety net, including Strengthening of fiscal positions is necessary to
through a redesign of assistance programs. reduce debt vulnerabilities. Fuel exporters should guard
Priority areas in Russia include improving property against the temptation to let higher oil prices delay
rights and governance, enhancing the institutional reforms. Despite their recent recovery, oil prices are
infrastructure, reforming labor markets, and investing projected to remain below the 2013 peak. Boosting
in innovation and infrastructure. Structural reforms in non-oil revenues and continuing fiscal consolidation
Turkey should focus on increasing labor market flexibil- plans remain key goals for oil exporters. The focus
ity to help lower unemployment and the output costs should be on growth-friendly fiscal adjustment, with a
of disinflation, and strengthening the business climate shift in spending toward productive and social outlays
to help improve the composition of external inflows accompanied by frontloaded domestic revenue mobili-
and enhance resilience. zation, through, for example, broadening the tax base
Recent reforms in South Africa, such as measures and strengthening revenue administration. Moreover,
adopted to tackle corruption, to strengthen procure- enhancing financial resilience through proactive bank-
ment, and in the intention to eliminate wasteful ing supervision, ensuring adequate provisioning for
expenditure, are welcome. However, further reforms losses by banks, and improving resolution frameworks
are needed to increase policy certainty, improve the to keep expensive public bailouts at bay can help foster
efficiency of state-owned enterprises, enhance flexibility a financial system supportive of growth.

Figure 1.22. Change in the Working-Age Population (15–64) Improving education standards will be essential to
Relative to 2015 Levels ensure that the growing pool of workers has the neces-
(Millions)
sary skills.
Achieving robust growth will also require enhancing
By 2035 the number of people in low-income countries reaching working age
(15–64) will exceed that of the rest of the world combined. the macroeconomic resilience of low-income countries,
including against climate change. Stronger buffers and
1,000
Advanced economies sound macroeconomic policy frameworks, alongside
Low-income developing countries policies and institutions that make it easier for labor and
800 Rest of the world
China
capital to move across economic sectors and geographic
regions, are essential to that end. To reduce adverse
600 consequences from climate change, countries could
also invest in specific adaptation strategies that reduce
400 exposure and vulnerability to weather shocks, such as
climate-smart infrastructure, the adoption of appropri-
200 ate technologies and regulations, and putting in place
well-targeted social safety nets that can promptly deliver
0 support (Chapter 3 of the October 2017 WEO).
–200 Fostering Inclusive Growth

Although inequality has declined since 2000
–400 across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
2015 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
low-income countries continue to experience signifi-
Sources: UN (2017); and IMF staff calculations. cant inequality (October 2017 Fiscal Monitor). Policies
to address inequality include ensuring macroeconomic
stability to improve the sustainability of growth;
Building More Robust and Diverse Economies investing in physical infrastructure, especially in poor
Under current policies in many low-income coun- regions; and creating an enabling environment for
tries, per capita income growth is projected to remain competition and trade, for instance through product
sluggish and below past averages. Many low-income market reforms that treat all market entrants equally.
countries are also facing pressure to accommodate Other policies entail enabling access to financial
a rapid increase in the working-age population. It services for low-income households and small and
is estimated that by 2035, the number of people in medium-sized enterprises, for example by leveraging
low-income countries reaching working age (15–64) recent developments in fintech. Finally, investments in
will exceed that of the rest of the world combined accessible and good-quality education, including early
(Figure 1.22). Creating enough jobs to absorb the new childhood development, and broad-based health care
entrants will be vital for welfare and social and political are essential.
stability. In this regard, economic diversification into
labor-intensive activities outside agriculture, and
away from excessive dependence on commodities for Multilateral Policies
resource-intensive exporters, is critical. While the man- Avoiding protectionist reactions to structural change
ufacturing sector has traditionally served as a source of and finding cooperative solutions that promote contin-
well-paying jobs for low- to middle-skilled workers in ued growth in goods and services trade will be essential
developing economies, market services sectors such as to preserve and extend the global expansion. Global
retail, transport, telecommunications, and financial and cooperation remains vital to dealing with challenges
business services can be viable alternatives (Chapter 3 that transcend countries’ borders and resolving dis-
of the April 2018 WEO). Facilitating private sector agreements that threaten the gains from international
development—including by strengthening investor economic integration. To preserve and broaden these
rights and the rule of law, reducing the cost of doing gains, countries need to work together in several areas.
business, and enhancing infrastructure and openness to •• Trade: Trade openness under a rules-based, mul-
trade—would help strengthen investment and growth. tilateral trading system has helped diffuse innova-

tion, lift productivity, and expand the variety of are under pressure. These relationships play a crucial
goods and services available globally. Policymakers role because they ensure that these countries have
should aim to reduce trade costs further and resolve access to vital international payments. To preserve
disagreements without raising tariff and nontariff them, domestic regulators will need to, among other
barriers while facilitating the adjustment of those things, address gaps in anti–money laundering and
displaced by trade and technology. Such efforts combating the financing of terrorism where needed.
could significantly raise global welfare, as docu- The rapid development of financial technology
mented in Chapter 2 of the October 2016 WEO. offers opportunities, including for enhanced finan-
To best support a strong, stable global economy, cial inclusion, but risks should also be carefully
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and com- monitored. In addition, an adequately financed
mitments should be strengthened to address areas of global safety net remains critical so that countries
growing relevance, such as services and e-commerce. have quick and predictable access to international
Quickly resolving the impasse over the WTO’s financing in times of need.
Appellate Body will help ensure that existing rules •• Migration: Immigration can relieve the strain of
are applied and enforced. While agreements at the aging and contribute to productivity. However,
global level are especially important, well-designed although migrant skills typically complement those
and ambitious regional arrangements—such as of the native population, immigration can provoke
the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement a political backlash. For source countries, emigra-
for Trans-Pacific Partnership—can also help. The tion can weigh on long-term growth, including
signing of the African Continental Free Trade Area, through lost human capital, though remittances and
and of the new Economic Partnership Agreement diaspora networks have mitigating effects. Coop-
between the euro area and Japan, and recent steps to eration between source and destination countries
reinvigorate negotiations of the EU–China Compre- should facilitate prompt integration of migrants
hensive Agreement on Investment are encouraging. and support remittance flows. Recurrent surges in
•• Global financial stability: Cooperative global efforts international migration, prompted by conflicts or
on regulatory reform have been crucial in enhancing climate-related events, cannot be avoided without
the safety of the financial system in the decade since cooperative action to improve international security,
the global financial crisis, as discussed in Chapter 2 support low-income countries’ efforts in achieving
of the October 2018 GFSR, and pressures to roll the Sustainable Development Goals, and resist and
back portions of the reform should be resisted. adapt to climate change.
Key areas for more action include completing the •• Excess imbalances: As discussed in the section titled
implementation of the reform agenda—such as fully “External Sector Outlook” and the 2018 External
implementing the leverage ratio and net stable fund- Sector Report, both deficit and surplus economies
ing ratio, devising effective resolution frameworks, must implement measures that help rebalance the
and enhancing supervisory intensity for globally composition of global demand and prevent a further
important financial institutions (especially across buildup of excess global imbalances.
borders); bolstering tools and policymaking capa- •• Taxation: Various features of the current international
bilities of macroprudential entities; and mitigating tax system are conducive to tax avoidance. The many
systemic risk from nonbank financial institutions via possibilities that multinational enterprises have for
continued vigilance on the regulatory perimeter and shifting profits to jurisdictions with low tax rates
filling data gaps. Continued close cooperation is also reduce tax revenues and put downward pressure
needed to confront emerging risks, such as those on corporate income tax rates. The complex treaty
arising from the growing systemic importance of network can be exploited through “treaty shopping,”
central counterparties and the potential for cyber- which allows corporations to avoid or reduce any
security breaches, as well as to combat cross-border withholding taxes on dividends or interest. Further
money laundering and the financing of terrorism. As multilateral cooperation on taxation is therefore
global banks withdraw from high-risk lending, cor- needed to continue efforts aimed at fighting profit
respondent banking relationships—through which shifting, such as through the Organisation for Eco-
global banks provide deposit‑taking and remittance nomic Co-operation and Development–Group of
services to smaller banks in low-income countries— Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiative. In

the longer term, conceptual and practical problems, low-income countries that have contributed the least
which are intensifying as a result of globalization, may to emissions and have low capacity to cope with
require more fundamental reforms. their effects (see Chapter 3 of the October 2017
•• Other issues: A range of noneconomic factors WEO). By adding to migrant flows, climate-related
imperils the sustainability and inclusiveness of global events compound an already-complex situation of
growth. Cross-border cooperation remains vital refugees fleeing conflict areas, often to countries
for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and for already under severe strain. Finally, a truly global
containing the associated adverse consequences of effort is also needed to curb corruption, which is
rising global temperatures and devastating climate undermining faith in government and institutions in
events. These developments disproportionately hurt many countries.

Scenario Box 1. Global Trade Tensions

The Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model tariffs apply to and the tariff rates such that all
(GIMF) is used to simulate the economic impact of goods imports from the United States also face a
the tariffs that have recently been imposed between 25 percent tariff (roughly $130 billion in imports
the United States and several of its trading partners as from the United States). These tariffs fall on a mix
well as some trade measures that have been announced of intermediate and final goods, are assumed to be
or considered, but not yet imposed. The simulations permanent, and take effect in 2019.
capture several channels through which the rise in •• The third layer estimates the impact of the United
trade tensions can affect global economic activity. In States following through on the proposal to impose
addition to the direct impact of higher trade costs, the a 25 percent tariff on all imported cars and car
analysis includes estimates of how the trade tensions parts (worth about $350 billion). Again, affected
could affect confidence and thus firms’ investment US trading partners are assumed to respond with
plans as well as how financial markets could react and similar tariffs on US exports of cars and car parts
the resulting implications for firms’ cost of capital. The as well as other goods such that they are imposing
scenario, which builds on the one presented in the July tariffs on an equivalent amount of US exports.
2018 Group of Twenty (G20) Surveillance Note, has These tariffs are assumed to be permanent and take
been constructed with five distinct layers. effect in 2019.
•• The first layer corresponds to measures that have •• The fourth layer estimates the potential impact that
already been implemented and thus are included in rising trade tensions could have on confidence and
the World Economic Outlook baseline projections. It thus firms’ investment plans. To calibrate how large
estimates the impact of the United States impos- this effect might be, it uses the Baker-Bloom-Davis
ing a 10 percent tariff on all aluminum imports, a overall Economic Policy Uncertainty measure and
25 percent tariff on all steel imports, a 25 percent its estimated impact on investment in the United
tariff on $50 billion of imports from China, and a States.1 A one standard deviation increase in the
10 percent tariff on an additional $200 billion of uncertainty measure (which is roughly one-sixth of
imports from China that subsequently increases to the change that occurred during the global financial
25 percent. All US trading partners are assumed to crisis) leads to an estimated 1 percent drop in the
respond and levy tariffs on an equivalent amount level of investment in the United States in one year.
of US exports, except in the case of the 10 percent Half of this decline in US investment is assumed to
tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports. In this occur in 2018, with the remainder coming in 2019.
case, China is assumed to respond with an average The impact of the decline in investment in other
tariff of 7 percent on $60 billion of US imports countries is then scaled by their trade openness
that rises to 17 percent when the US tariff increases relative to the United States—hence, countries more
to 25 percent. The steel and aluminum tariffs dependent on trade see a larger fall in investment
imposed by the United States are assumed to fall than does the United States.
exclusively on intermediate goods, while the tariff •• The final layer estimates the impact of a potential
responses by China and other US trading partners tightening of financial conditions for corporates.
fall on a mix of final and intermediate goods. These The magnitude of this tightening is based on
tariffs are assumed to be permanent and take effect estimates by several financial market participants of
in the second half of 2018, except for the 10 per- the impact on US corporate earnings of a worst-case
cent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports and United States-versus-China trade war.2 Based on
the associated retaliation, which is assumed to take historical relationships, this estimated 15 percent
place in the fourth quarter of 2018. The increase decline in earnings is then mapped into an increase
in the tariff from 10 to 25 percent on the $200 bil- in US corporate spreads. This rise in US spreads
lion of imports from China and China’s associated
retaliation are assumed to occur in 2019.
1For details on the Economic Policy Uncertainty measure, see
•• The second layer estimates the impact of the
http://www.policyuncertainty.com.
United States imposing a 25 percent tariff on a 2The worst-case scenario is the United States imposing tariffs
further $267 billion of imports from China and of 25 percent on all Chinese imports and China responding in a
China responding by raising both the base that reciprocal fashion.

Scenario Box 1 (continued)

is then mapped into corporate spreads in other of both the confidence effects on investment and the
countries, based on their credit rating relative to US tightening of corporate spreads. These effects could
corporates. This increase in spreads is assumed to turn out to be milder or more severe than assumed
occur in 2019, with half of the increase remaining here and, in part, this motivates providing them as
in corporate spreads in 2020. separate layers. Regarding the layer that contains the
With regard to the room for a policy response to the tightening of corporate spreads, one aspect that is not
macroeconomic implications of these trade measures, included in the analysis is the potential for safe-haven
all layers assume that the euro area and Japan are flows to mitigate the impact of the financial tighten-
unable to ease (conventional) monetary policy further ing in such countries as the United States, Ger-
in response to macroeconomic developments owing many, and Japan.
to the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates. Turning to the simulated macroeconomic effects
Should additional unconventional monetary policy illustrated in Scenario Figure 1, the first point to
measures be implemented, the decline in GDP in note is that the impact of the tariffs that have been
Japan and the euro area would be about half as large imposed to date (blue line) is small, but material, with
in the short and medium terms than estimated here. the United States and China bearing the brunt of the
In all other countries/regions, conventional monetary costs. These costs would roughly double if the United
policy responds according to a Taylor-type reaction States imposes a 25 percent tariff on an additional
function. In addition, to better capture the poten- $267 billion of imports from China and if China
tially disruptive impact of tariffs on extended global responds with 25 percent tariffs on all US exports
value chains, the scenario assumes that, in the short (red line). Some countries, however, do benefit in the
term, firms have limited ability to substitute between short term, as households and firms in China and the
imported intermediate inputs, whether from different United States substitute away from the higher-priced
countries or domestic sources. Over the long term, the imports, now subject to tariffs, to imports from other
substitutability between intermediate inputs is notably countries. Over time, as Chinese and US households
higher, on par with the substitutability between and firms are able to source domestically more of the
final goods. goods that were previously imported, the benefits to
Before turning to the results, it is important to other countries disappear. If the United States were
note that these model simulations are illustrative of to follow through with the imposition of tariffs on
the disruptions that an escalation in trade restrictions imported cars and car parts, and trading partners
could impose on the global economy, but are of respond as assumed, the negative impact on the US
course subject to limitations. Global macroeconomic economy is estimated to increase sharply (yellow line).
models, such as GIMF, provide important insights This is due to the large volume of imports to which
into the cross-border transmission of shocks and the the tariffs apply and the fact that almost half are car
dynamic behavior of macroeconomic variables in parts (intermediate inputs that, it is assumed, are
response to policy changes, but cannot capture some difficult, in the short term, to substitute away from).
of the sectoral distortions that the proposed trade For similar reasons, other countries tightly linked to
restrictions are likely to generate. Given the struc- the US car market, such as its partners in the North
ture of the model, the impact of higher tariffs on a American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Japan,
specific sector of the economy—cars, for example—is would also see notable declines in output. As in the
derived by assuming a (much more modest) gen- previous layer, some regions temporarily benefit (in
eral increase in tariffs: for instance, if cars represent this case China and the euro area), but once house-
20 percent of US imports, the impact of a 20 percent holds and firms in the most affected countries have
tariff on cars would be calculated as the impact of sufficient time to make the desired substitutions, the
a 4 percent tariff on all US imports (and similarly impact is negative everywhere. It is worth noting that
for steel and aluminum). As a result, the sectoral these short-term benefits could be overstated. This
distortions imposed by tariffs are not fully captured arises because, as noted above, this car tariff layer
in the simulations. In addition, there is a high degree is implemented as a much smaller but broad-based
of uncertainty about the magnitude and persistence change in tariffs, which could result in overestimating

Scenario Box 1 (continued)

Scenario Figure 1. Real GDP in Trade the short-term substitutability between imports from
Tensions Scenario China and the euro area and those now higher-priced
(Percent deviation from control) tariffed goods.
Not surprisingly, if firms curtail investment, given
Tariffs in baseline
Add China (25 percent on $267 billion) with retaliation their concerns about the impact of a deteriorating
Add cars, trucks, and parts with retaliation global trading environment, output suffers every-
Add confidence effect where, with the impact more pronounced where
Add market reaction
there are constraints on conventional monetary policy
0.4 1. United States 2. China 0.4 (green line). Also, if financial markets respond to the
0.0 0.0 deterioration in the global trading environment by
–0.4 –0.4 tightening financial conditions for firms, the output
–0.8 –0.8 declines would be even sharper, with emerging markets
–1.2 –1.2 potentially suffering even more (gray line).
–1.6 –1.6 In the long term, once all adjustment has occurred
–2.0 –2.0 (colored bars), output in the United States is almost
2017 20 23 Long 2017 20 23 Long 1 percent below a baseline with no tariffs, and output
term term
in China is just over ½ percent below baseline. The
0.4 3. Japan 4. Euro Area 0.4 bulk of the negative impact outside of the United
0.0 0.0 States and China is driven by the tariffs on cars and
–0.4 –0.4 car parts. US NAFTA partners suffer the most, with
–0.8 –0.8 output almost 1½ percent below baseline. In Japan,
–1.2 –1.2 the long-term decline in GDP is just under 0.2 per-
–1.6 –1.6 cent, and it is less than 0.1 percent in the euro area.
–2.0 –2.0 Global GDP is down by roughly 0.4 percent in the
2017 20 23 Long 2017 20 23 Long
term term long term, with advanced G20 economies bearing a
5. US NAFTA 6. World slightly higher burden.
0.4 Trading Partners 0.4
0.0 0.0
–0.4 –0.4
–0.8 –0.8
–1.2 –1.2
–1.6 –1.6
–2.0 –2.0
2017 20 23 Long 2017 20 23 Long
term term
0.4 7. G20 Advanced 8. G20 Emerging 0.4
Economies Economies
0.0 0.0
–0.4 –0.4
–0.8 –0.8
–1.2 –1.2
–1.6 –1.6
–2.0 –2.0
2017 20 23 Long 2017 20 23 Long
term term

Note: G20 = Group of Twenty; NAFTA = North American Free
Trade Agreement.

Box 1.1. Increasing Market Power

Concern over and the public policy debate about Herfindahl index or market concentration ratios, can
corporate market power are both growing. Concerns be misleading. Beyond the United States and select
arise for at least two reasons. First, rising corporate advanced economies, evidence of how corporate mar-
market power may help account for several puzzling, ket power has evolved is also scarce.
and often worrisome, macroeconomic trends in This box presents new evidence, based on data from
advanced economies over the past two decades—low a large number of publicly traded firms, on trends
investment despite rising corporate profits, declin- in corporate market power across 74 advanced and
ing business dynamism, slow productivity growth, emerging market and developing economies.1 Market
and falling labor income shares (Autor and others power, measured as firms’ markups—the ratio of the
2017; De Loecker and Eeckhout 2017; Gutiérrez and price at which firms sell their output to the marginal
Philippon 2017). Second, the rise of tech giants has cost of production—has generally increased, especially
raised fresh questions about whether this trend might in advanced economies (Figure 1.1.1).
continue and, if so, whether some rethinking of policy
is needed to maintain fair and strong competition in
the digital age. However, corporate market power is 1The evidence presented in the box draws on Díez, Leigh,
hard to measure, and common indicators, such as the and Tambunlertchai (2018), who calculate firm-level markups
using the approach of De Loecker and Warzynski (2012) and De
Loecker and Eeckhout (2017), and investigate the relationship
The authors of this box are Federico Díez, Daniel Leigh, and between markups, investment, innovation, and the labor share of
Suchanan Tambunlertchai. income at the firm level.
Figure 1.1.1. Market Power over Time Figure 1.1.2. Markup Increase, by Subsector
(Estimated markups)
Basic materials Consumer goods
1.6 1. Advanced Economies Consumer services Financials
Health care Industrials
United States Oil and gas Technology
1.4 Canada Telecommunications Utilities
Japan
1.2 5.0
4.5
1.0 United Kingdom
Advanced Europe 4.0
Interquartile range
0.8
1980 85 90 95 2000 05 10 16 3.5
Markup in 2016
3.0
1.6 2. Emerging Market and Developing Economies
2.5
1.4
2.0
1.2 1.5
1.0
1.0 Latin America
Emerging and developing Asia 0.5
Interquartile range 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.8 Markup in 1980
1989 95 2000 05 10 16
Sources: Thomson Reuters Worldscope; and IMF staff

Sources: Thomson Reuters Worldscope; and IMF staff calculations.
calculations. Note: Dashed line indicates 45-degree line along which
Note: Average markups of listed firms weighted by sales. markups are equal over time.

Box 1.1 (continued)

Figure 1.1.1 unveils two clear facts. First, mark- and software subsectors. In contrast, subsectors, such
ups among advanced economies have significantly as auto parts, computer hardware, and electrical
increased since the 1980s, by 43 percent on average, components and equipment, saw markups decline. So,
and this trend has accelerated during the current while markups have generally increased since 1980,
decade. Second, emerging market and developing much cross-sector heterogeneity is observed.
economies show less evidence of a rise in markups.2
The pattern of rising markups in advanced econ- Figure 1.1.4. Advanced Economies:
omies is found across all broad economic sectors. Distribution of Markups of Firms, by Industry
Figure 1.1.2 presents, for each narrowly defined eco- (Kernel density)
nomic subsector, the markup in 2016 compared with
2016 1980
that in 1980, where the color refers to the correspond-
ing 10 broad FTSE Russell Industry Classification 4 1. Oil and Gas 2. Basic Materials 4
Benchmark economic sectors. In the figure, a colored
3 3
marker located above the 45-degree line indicates an
increase in markups. Markups increased across almost 2 2
all narrow sectors, but there is significant heterogene- 1 1
ity in the magnitudes of the increases. Markups more
0 0
than doubled in the biotechnology, retail real estate 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
investment trusts (retail REITs), consumer finance, 4 3. Industrials 4. Consumer Goods 4
3 3
2This increase, documented by Díez, Leigh, and Tambunlert- 2 2
chai (2018), is also consistent with the findings by De Loecker
and Eeckhout (2018). Furthermore, the increase in markups is 1 1
accompanied by an increase in profits, strengthening the notion 0 0
of increased corporate market power. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
4 5. Health Care 6. Consumer 4
Services
Figure 1.1.3. Advanced Economies: 3 3
Distribution of Markups of All Firms 2 2
(Kernel density)
1 1
2.5 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
4 7. Telecommunica- 8. Utilities 4
2016 1980 tions
2.0 3 3
2 2
1.5 1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
1.0 4 9. Financials 10. Technology 4
3 3
2 2
0.5
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sources: Thomson Reuters Worldscope; and IMF staff
estimates.
Sources: Thomson Reuters Worldscope; and IMF staff Note: Results for 10 “industries” of the FTSE Russell
calculations. Industrial Classification Benchmark from Thomson Reuters
Note: X-axis truncated at 5 for graphical clarity. Worldscope. X-axis truncated at 5 for graphical clarity.

Box 1.1 (continued)

More in-depth analysis shows that the increase in Aghion and others (2005) and suggests that, at low
market power in advanced economies is mostly driven levels of market power, firms invest to escape compe-
by a fraction of “superstar” firms that have managed tition, whereas, at high levels of market power, firms
to extract especially large markups, while the market have weaker incentives to invest because of the lack of
power of other firms has increased little since 1980. competitive pressure. Furthermore, higher corporate
This fact implies that the rise in markups has been market power also seems to be associated with lower
accompanied by an increasingly skewed distribution, labor shares: the fraction of firms’ revenue going to
not only at the aggregate level, but also within broad workers decreases, while the share of revenue going to
economic sectors (Figures 1.1.3 and 1.1.4). profits increases.
This increase in corporate market power has import- The ultimate policy implications will depend on
ant macroeconomic effects. Most strikingly, starting the drivers of this increase in global market power,
from low levels, higher markups are initially associated which are still being debated. The potential causes
with increasing investment and innovation, but this include, among others, the rise of intangible assets (for
relationship becomes negative when market power example, patents), network effects in the digital econ-
becomes too strong. The inverted U-shape relationship omy (see April 2018 Fiscal Monitor), and outdated or
between competition on one hand and investment and weaker enforcement of antitrust laws. More research is
innovation on the other is consistent with findings by needed to disentangle the various factors at play.

Box 1.2. Growth Outlook: Advanced Economies

Advanced economies are projected to expand by in 2019, because of the underlying deterioration
2.4 percent in 2018 (a marginally faster pace than in in external and domestic demand and uncertainty
2017) and 2.1 percent in 2019. Growth in advanced about the new government’s policy agenda. In
economies is expected to decline to 1.7 percent in Spain, growth is expected to be 2.7 percent in 2018
2020 as the US tax cuts are partially reversed, and to and 2.2 percent in 2019, which is a 0.1 percentage
1.5 percent in the medium term as working-age popu- point decline relative to the April forecast for 2018,
lation growth continues to slow. and no change for 2019. Medium-term growth
•• Growth in the United States is expected to peak in the euro area, projected at about 1.4 percent, is
at 2.9 percent in 2018, supported by the procy- expected to be constrained by slow productivity
clical fiscal stimulus after eight consecutive years growth and unfavorable demographics.
of expansion and still-loose financial conditions •• In the United Kingdom, growth is projected to slow
(despite expected monetary tightening). Growth is to 1.4 percent in 2018 and 1.5 percent in 2019
expected to soften to 2.5 percent in 2019 (a down- (from 1.7 percent in 2017). This forecast represents
ward revision of 0.2 percentage point relative to the a downward revision of 0.2 percentage point for
April 2018 World Economic Outlook (WEO) due to 2018 relative to the April 2018 WEO, driven by
the recently introduced trade measures) and to drop weak growth in the first quarter of the year, partly
to 1.8 percent in 2020 as the fiscal stimulus begins due to weather-related factors. The medium-term
to unwind. Strong domestic demand is projected growth forecast remains at 1.6 percent, weighed
to push the economy above full employment and down by the anticipated higher barriers to trade
increase imports and the current account deficit. following Brexit. (Assumptions regarding the Brexit
Medium-term growth is forecast to temporarily outcome remain broadly unchanged relative to
decline below potential at 1.4 percent as the posi- the April 2018 and October 2017 WEOs. Tariffs
tive output gap is gradually closed. on trade with the European Union are expected
•• Growth is projected to remain strong in the euro to remain at zero, and nontariff costs will likely
area, but has been revised down by 0.4 percent- increase moderately.)
age point to 2.0 percent for 2018, reflecting •• Japan’s growth is projected to moderate to 1.1 per-
weaker-than-expected performance in the first half cent in 2018 (from a strong, above‑trend outturn of
of the year. Growth is forecast to gradually slow 1.7 percent in 2017), before softening to 0.9 per-
further to 1.9 percent in 2019, 0.1 percentage point cent in 2019. The downward revision of 0.1 per-
lower than the April forecast. Healthy consumer centage point for 2018 relative to the April 2018
spending and job creation amid supportive mon- WEO is largely due to the contraction observed in
etary policy are expected to continue to provide the first quarter of 2018, and given the uptick in
strong aggregate demand, though at a moderat- growth and domestic demand in the second quarter
ing pace. Short-term profiles of country-specific of 2018, this is likely to represent a temporary dip
growth rates vary. In France, growth is expected to rather than the beginning of a turn in the cycle.
moderate to 1.6 percent in 2018 and 2019, 0.5 Japan’s medium-term prospects are impeded by
(0.4) percentage point weaker than in the April unfavorable demographics and a trend decline in
2018 WEO for 2018 (2019), reflecting softer the labor force.
external demand as well as lower outturns and •• Among other advanced economies, growth is
high-frequency indicators in 2018. In Germany, projected to moderate in Canada to 2.1 percent
growth was revised down to 1.9 percent in 2018 in 2018 and 2.0 percent in 2019, and to exceed
and 2019 (by 0.6 percentage point and 0.1 per- 3 percent in Australia in 2018, before declining to
centage point, respectively) because of a slowdown 2.8 percent in 2019. In Korea, growth is projected
in exports and industrial production. Italy’s growth at 2.8 percent in 2018 and 2.6 percent in 2019.
forecast is also lower than in the April 2018 WEO, The downward revisions to the 2019 growth
estimated at 1.2 percent for 2018 and 1 percent forecast for Australia and Korea relative to the April
2018 WEO partially reflect the negative effect of
The author of this box is Natalija Novta. the recently introduced trade measures.

Box 1.3. Growth Outlook: Emerging Market and Developing Economies

Growth in emerging market and developing econ- lower than expected in the April 2018 WEO,
omies is expected to remain steady at 4.7 percent in reflecting the impact on investment and
2018–19, and to rise modestly over the medium term. domestic demand of prolonged uncertainty
•• In China, growth is projected to moderate from related to trade.
6.9 percent in 2017 to 6.6 percent in 2018 and oo Brazil’s economy is expected to grow at 1.4 per-
6.2 percent in 2019, reflecting slowing external cent and 2.4 percent in 2018 and 2019, respec-
demand growth and necessary financial regulatory tively, up from 1 percent growth in 2017, driven
tightening. The 0.2 percentage point downgrade by a recovery of private demand as the output
to the 2019 growth forecast is attributable to the gap gradually closes. The growth forecast for
negative effect of recent tariff actions, assumed to be 2018 is lower than in the April 2018 WEO by
partially offset by policy stimulus. Over the medium 0.9 percentage point on account of disruptions
term, growth is expected to gradually slow to 5.6 per- caused by the nationwide truck drivers’ strike and
cent as the economy continues to make the transition tighter external financial conditions, which are a
to a more sustainable growth path with continued source of risk to the outlook. Growth is expected
financial de-risking and environmental controls. at 2.2 percent in the medium term.
•• Growth is projected to remain strong elsewhere oo After growing by 2.9 percent in 2017, Argentina
in emerging and developing Asia. India’s growth is expected to contract by 2.6 percent in 2018,
is expected to increase to 7.3 percent in 2018 and a large downward revision relative to the April
7.4 percent in 2019 (slightly lower than in the 2018 WEO forecast, reflecting recent financial
April 2018 World Economic Outlook [WEO] for market disruptions, high real interest rates, and
2019, given the recent increase in oil prices and the faster fiscal consolidation under the excep-
the tightening of global financial conditions), up tional access Stand-By Arrangement approved in
from 6.7 percent in 2017. This acceleration reflects June. The economy is expected to contract by a
a rebound from transitory shocks (the currency further 1.6 percent in 2019. Growth of 3.2 per-
exchange initiative and implementation of the cent is expected over the medium term under the
national Goods and Services Tax), with strength- steady implementation of reforms and return-
ening investment and robust private consumption. ing confidence.
India’s medium-term growth prospects remain oo Venezuela’s economy continues to decline for the
strong at 7¾ percent, benefiting from ongoing fifth consecutive year, following a 14 percent
structural reform, but have been marked down drop in 2017. Real GDP is projected to shrink
by just under ½ percentage point relative to the by 18 percent in 2018 and a further 5 percent in
April 2018 WEO. In the ASEAN-5 (Indonesia, 2019, driven by plummeting oil production, and
Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam), growth political and social instability.
is expected to be 5.3 percent in 2018, before •• The outlook for the Commonwealth of Independent
softening to 5.2 percent in 2019. The 0.2 percent- States is more favorable than in the April 2018
age point downward revision to the 2019 growth WEO, with growth for the region expected at
forecast reflects largely the economic costs of recent 2.3 percent in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2019 (up
trade measures. from 2.1 percent in 2017), moderating to 2.1 per-
•• Growth in Latin America and the Caribbean is cent in the medium term. Growth in Russia is
projected to decrease from 1.3 percent in 2017 to projected at 1.7 percent in 2018, up from 1.5 per-
1.2 percent in 2018 and to rise to 2.2 percent in cent in 2017, supported by higher oil prices and
2019, a more subdued recovery than envisaged in recovering domestic demand. Medium-term growth
the April 2018 WEO. is expected to remain muted at about 1.2 percent,
oo Mexico’s growth is projected to increase from absent structural reforms. Growth projections for
2.0 percent in 2017 to 2.2 percent in 2018 Kazakhstan have been revised upward to 3.7 percent
and 2.5 percent in 2019, supported by higher in 2018 and 3.1 percent in 2019, reflecting higher
US growth. The growth forecast is, however, non-oil growth and increased oil production.
•• Growth in emerging and developing Europe is
The authors of this box are Wenjie Chen and Zsóka Kóczán. projected to moderate from 6.0 percent in 2017

Box 1.3 (continued)

to 3.8 percent in 2018 and decline further to availability of foreign currency due to higher oil
2.0 percent in 2019 (well below the April 2018 prices. Meanwhile, in South Africa, prospects remain
WEO forecasts). Poland is in a strong cyclical modest amid uncertainty in the run-up to the 2019
upswing, with growth projected at 4.4 percent in general elections, with growth projected to fall to
2018 (revised up by 0.3 percentage point since the 0.8 percent in 2018 from 1.3 percent in 2017,
April 2018 WEO, reflecting stronger-than-expected before recovering to 1.8 percent in the medium
investment growth), though it is expected to mod- term. The pace of structural reform implementation
erate to 3.5 percent in 2019 and 2.8 percent in the and the level of policy credibility will determine the
medium term, held back by adverse demographics extent of economic recovery.
and structural bottlenecks. Romania’s economy grew •• In the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and
at a robust 6.9 percent in 2017 on fiscal stimulus Pakistan region, growth is projected to increase from
and strong external demand. Growth is expected to 2.2 percent in 2017 to 2.4 percent in 2018 and to
decline to 4 percent in 2018 and further to 3.4 per- 2.7 percent in 2019, stabilizing at about 3 percent
cent in 2019 (1.1 and 0.1 percentage points lower in the medium term—a sizable downward revision
than in the April 2018 WEO) as the stimulus mod- compared with the April 2018 WEO forecast. The
erates. Growth in Turkey was very strong in 2017 downward revisions reflect to an important extent
and early 2018, but is expected to slow sharply. Real the worsening of growth prospects for Iran, follow-
GDP growth is projected at 3.5 percent in 2018 ing the reimposition of US sanctions. The economy
but to drop to 0.4 percent in 2019 (some 3.6 per- is now forecast to contract in 2018 (−1.5 percent)
centage points lower for 2019 than in the April and especially in 2019 (−3.6 percent) on account
2018 WEO) as the weaker lira, higher borrowing of reduced oil production, before returning to
costs, and elevated uncertainty weigh on investment modest positive growth in 2020–23. Elsewhere, in
and consumer demand. Turkey’s economy remains Saudi Arabia, following a 0.9 percent contraction in
highly vulnerable to sudden shifts in capital flows 2017, output is projected to expand by 2.2 percent
and geopolitical risks. in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2019 (0.5 percentage
•• Growth is on the mend for sub-Saharan Africa, point higher for both years than in the April 2018
with the region’s average growth projected to rise WEO), driven by a pickup in non-oil economic
to 3.1 percent in 2018 (from 2.7 percent in 2017) activity and a projected increase in crude oil pro-
and 3.8 percent in 2019. The growth forecast for duction in line with the revised Organization of
2018 is 0.3 percentage point lower than the April the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus agreement.
2018 WEO forecast. The acceleration relative Growth in Egypt is projected to rise to 5.3 percent
to 2016–17 reflects a more supportive external in 2018 and 5.5 percent in 2019, up from 4.2 per-
environment, including stronger global growth, cent in 2017, reflecting a recovery in tourism, rising
higher commodity prices, and improved capital natural gas production, and continued improve-
market access, following efforts to improve fiscal ments in confidence due to implementation of an
balances in the aftermath of the commodity price ambitious reform program supported by the IMF’s
slump. Growth performance varies, however, across Extended Fund Facility. Growth in Pakistan is
countries. About half of the expected pickup in expected to strengthen from 5.4 percent in 2017 to
growth between 2017 and 2018 reflects the growth 5.8 percent in 2018 (0.2 percentage point higher
rebound in Nigeria. Nigeria’s growth is projected to than in the April 2018 WEO), underpinned by
increase from 0.8 percent in 2017 to 1.9 percent in improved energy supply, investment related to the
2018 and 2.3 percent in 2019 (0.4 percentage point China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and strong
higher than in the April 2018 WEO for 2019), credit growth. However, macroeconomic stability
buoyed by the impact of recovering oil production gains have been eroding, putting the outlook at risk.
and prices. In Angola, the region’s second largest oil Growth is expected to moderate to 4.0 percent in
exporter, real GDP is expected to shrink by 0.1 per- 2019, and slow to about 3.0 percent in the medium
cent in 2018, following a 2.5 percent contraction in term. The medium-term growth revisions for
2017, but is projected to increase by 3.1 percent in Pakistan, together with those for Iran and a sizable
2019, with the recovery driven by a more efficient markdown in prospects for Sudan, explain the lower
foreign currency allocation system and additional projected growth for the region beyond 2019.

Box 1.4. Inflation Outlook: Regions and Countries

Inflation in advanced economies is projected at in 2018, from 2.7 percent in 2017, with a gradual
2.0 percent in 2018, up from 1.7 percent in 2017. convergence to 2 percent projected in 2020.
Inflation in emerging market and developing economies
excluding Venezuela is expected to increase to 5.0 percent Emerging Market and Developing Economies
this year, up from 4.3 percent in 2017. These weighted •• Headline inflation in China is expected to pick up to
averages mask significant heterogeneity across countries 2.2 percent this year, up from 1.6 percent in 2017, and
depending on their cyclical positions as well as the impact to about 3 percent over the medium term, driven by
of currency depreciations and rising energy prices. higher food and energy prices. Inflation in India is on
the rise, estimated at 3.6 percent in fiscal year 2017/18
Advanced Economies and projected at 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2018/19,
•• In the United States, headline consumer price inflation compared with 4.5 percent in fiscal year 2016/17, amid
is projected to increase to 2.4 percent in 2018 and accelerating demand and rising fuel prices.
2.1 in 2019, from 2.1 percent in 2017. Core personal •• In Mexico, inflation is projected to continue to fall—to
consumption expenditure price inflation, the Federal 4.8 percent in 2018—and to converge toward the cen-
Reserve’s preferred measure, is expected to be 2.1 per- tral bank’s 3 percent target in 2020, as monetary policy
cent in 2018 and 2.3 percent in 2019 compared with remains tight. In contrast, inflation is projected to
1.6 percent in 2017, as output climbs above potential accelerate in Brazil to 3.7 percent in 2018 and 4.2 per-
following the sizable fiscal expansion. This projection cent in 2019, as monetary policy remains supportive
slightly exceeds current Federal Reserve projections and food price inflation rebounds after a notable drop
and suggests earlier-than-anticipated overshooting of caused by an exceptional harvest in 2017. In Argentina,
the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate. Toward the inflation is expected to reach 31.8 percent in 2018,
end of the projection horizon (2022–23), inflation is driven by the significant currency depreciation, and
assumed to decline to the target, thanks to a mone- to remain at broadly the same level (31.7 percent) in
tary policy response that will keep expectations and 2019. Venezuela’s hyperinflation is expected to worsen
actual inflation well anchored. rapidly, fueled by monetary financing of large fiscal
•• Headline inflation in the euro area is expected to be deficits and loss of confidence in the currency.
1.7 percent in 2018 and 2019. With the recovery •• Russia’s inflation, expected to average 2.8 percent
boosting growth above potential for 2018–19, core in 2018, is below the target of 4 percent, driven by
inflation is expected to increase to 1.2 percent in moderately tight monetary policy. However, it is
2018 and 1.6 percent in 2019, up from 1.1 percent projected to rise to 5.1 percent in 2019, supported by
in 2017. The core harmonized index of consumer an ongoing recovery in domestic demand, higher fuel
prices is projected to increase slowly to 2 percent by prices, and pass-through from the recent depreciation.
2022, given a strong backward-looking element in Turkey’s inflation is projected at 15 percent in 2018
the euro area inflation process. and 16.7 percent in 2019, reflecting pass-through from
•• In Japan, headline inflation is expected to increase to the lira’s depreciation, higher energy prices, high wage
1.2 percent in 2018, up from 0.5 percent in 2017, growth, and unanchored inflation expectations.
again mainly due to rising global energy prices. Infla- •• Inflation pressures in sub-Saharan Africa have
tion excluding fresh food and energy prices is expected broadly softened, with annual inflation projected
to rise to 0.5 percent in 2018 and further to 0.8 per- to drop to 8.6 percent in 2018 and 8.5 percent in
cent in 2019, up from 0.1 percent in 2017. Inflation 2019, from 11 percent in 2017. In South Africa,
is still expected to remain below the Bank of Japan’s inflation has moderated to 4.8 percent in 2018 from
target over the five-year forecast horizon, given tepid 5.3 percent in 2017 with the easing of drought con-
wage growth and stickiness in inflation expectations. ditions, but is expected to edge back to 5.3 percent
•• In the United Kingdom, as the pass-through effects in 2019 as temporary disinflationary effects subside.
of the pound depreciation fade, core inflation is In Nigeria and Angola, tighter monetary policy and
expected to decline to 2.1 percent in 2018, down from moderation in food price increases contributed to
2.4 percent in 2017, and is expected to stabilize at its tapering inflation. In Nigeria, inflation is projected
medium-term level of 2.0 percent in early 2020. Head- to fall to 12.4 percent in 2018, from 16.5 percent
line inflation is expected to edge down to 2.5 percent in 2017, and to rise to 13.5 percent in 2019. In
Angola, inflation is projected to fall to 20.5 percent
The authors of this box are Wenjie Chen, Zsóka Kóczán, and in 2018 from 29.8 percent in 2017 and to decline
Natalija Novta. further to 15.8 percent in 2019.

Box 1.5. Sharp GDP Declines: Some Stylized Facts

A number of countries, including Greece, have early 19th century) for advanced economies and a few
suffered very large declines in GDP per capita in the emerging markets.2
aftermath of the global financial crisis. In some coun- There are four main causes, often intertwined, of
tries affected by conflict, such as Libya, South Sudan, GDP declines in the sample under consideration.
Syria, and Yemen, ongoing declines in GDP per capita These include strife (war, civil war, armed rebellion),
have been staggering.1 In Venezuela, GDP per capita commodity shocks,3 crises (including banking crises,
is estimated to have declined by more than 35 percent external crises, and so on), and the transition from a
over 2013–17 and is projected to decline by close to centrally planned to a market economy. Misguided
60 percent between 2013 and 2023. Are these episodes macroeconomic policies during the episodes play a role
rare occurrences? To address this question, this box in a number of cases as well, often interacting with
documents the frequency and characteristics of large other factors. Prime examples are cases of hyperin-
declines in GDP per capita over the past 50 years. It flation, including the ongoing case of Venezuela.
shows that such episodes are unfortunately not rare. Declines attributable to other causes (for example,
They tend to be protracted and originate from a vari- natural disasters) are much less frequent—the one
ety of sources, and the post-trough recovery, in many example in the sample is the 2015 Ebola epidemic in
cases, is insufficient to even restore the starting level of Sierra Leone.
GDP per capita.
The chosen threshold (a decline in GDP per capita Stylized Facts on Sharp GDP Declines
of at least 20 percent from peak to trough) is designed The 133 episodes of large GDP per capita declines
to isolate extreme episodes, typically occurring over identified in the period 1960–2017 are listed in
several years, rather than more frequent cases of Table 1.5.1.4
macroeconomic distress (caused, for example, by a They affect 92 countries (a number of them repeat-
financial or exchange rate crisis). edly).5 Figure 1.5.1 depicts the number of ongoing
There is a vast literature on the macroeconomic episodes of sharp declines in GDP per capita by year,
implications of different types of crises (financial, as well as the share of countries affected (in relation
external, currency, banking, fiscal). While these crises to the total number with available data). The figure
are typically associated with severe macroeconomic indicates that the lion’s share of episodes took place
distress, such distress rarely causes a decline in the level during the 1980s, following the global economic
of GDP exceeding 20 percent. The literature on large
GDP declines is relatively small. An important study
2Applying the same definition of output declines to the Barro
in this respect is by Becker and Mauro (2006), who
and Ursua (2008) data set yields episodes concentrated around
examine output drops in a large panel of countries the two World Wars and the Great Depression.
and systematically relate them to a variety of shocks 3The “shock” can be a decline in a country’s export prices
(terms-of-trade declines, financial shocks, wars, and (such as oil price declines affecting fuel exporters), or a decline
so on). A related literature looks at large declines in in domestic production (for instance, declining oil production in
GDP and consumption (“disasters”) with the objec- Timor-Leste in recent years or dwindling phosphate deposits in
Kiribati in the 1970s).
tive of calibrating the impact of these rare events on 4It should be kept in mind that data availability is spotty for
financial market variables such as equity premiums the earlier part of the sample and that data limitations are severe,
(see, for instance, Barro and Ursua 2008; Barro and particularly for low-income countries. These limitations can
Jin 2011; Nakamura and others 2013). These studies become even more severe during periods of distress, such as those
typically rely on long time series data (stretching to the studied in this box.
5The length of an episode is measured as the number of years
between a peak in GDP per capita and its subsequent trough,

as long as the peak-to-trough decline in GDP per capita is at
least 20 percent. If GDP per capita falls substantially below a
The author of this box is Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti. previous trough within a few years of that trough the episode
1Data for Syria since the start of the conflict are not available, is deemed a continuation of the preceding one. Otherwise, the
but estimates presented in Gobat and Kostial (2016) and episode is potentially considered a distinct one (as long as GDP
WB (2017) point to a dramatic collapse in GDP exceeding per capita falls by at least 20 percent between the new peak and
50 percent. the new trough).

Box 1.5 (continued)

Table 1.5.1. Episodes of Declines in GDP per Capita Exceeding 20 Percent
GDP per Percent GDP per Percent
capita change in GDP capita change in GDP
Peak Trough at peak per capita Peak Trough at peak per capita
Albania 1989 1992 2,193 –41 Guinea-Bissau 1997 1999 732 –30
Algeria 1960 1962 2,466 –34 Guyana 1976 1984 2,156 –28
Andorra 1974 1994 44,648 –27 Haiti 1980 1994 1,106 –38
Andorra 2006 2012 49,708 –23 Iran 1976 1981 10,266 –57
Angola 1974 1982 3,029 –31 Iran 1983 1988 5,557 –34
Angola 1988 1994 2,248 –41 Iraq 1980 1985 3,346 –22
Antigua and Barbuda 2007 2011 15,467 –24 Iraq 1990 1991 4,079 –65
Argentina 1980 1990 8,053 –26 Iraq 1999 2003 4,379 –42
Argentina 1998 2002 8,729 –22 Jamaica 1972 1980 5,368 –32
Armenia 1990 1993 1,797 –51 Jordan 1986 1991 3,270 –28
Azerbaijan 1990 1995 3,119 –61 Kazakhstan 1990 1995 5,890 –37
The Bahamas 1969 1975 27,539 –39 Kiribati 1975 1981 4,521 –54
Bahrain 1978 1986 21,788 –24 Kiribati 1984 1995 2,225 –27
Bangladesh 1970 1972 406 –22 Kuwait 1971 1975 84,352 –26
Belarus 1990 1995 3,102 –35 Kuwait 1979 1982 64,424 –50
Bolivia 1977 1986 1,745 –26 Kuwait 1989 1991 32,605 –33
Brunei Darussalam 1979 1993 66,002 –44 Kuwait 1993 2001 49,737 –30
Burundi 1991 2005 338 –35 Kuwait 2007 2017 49,589 –32
Cameroon 1986 1994 1,834 –42 Kyrgyz Republic 1990 1995 1,096 –51
Central African 1977 1983 625 –22 Lebanon 1973 1976 10,752 –71
Republic Lebanon 1981 1982 5,653 –37
Central African 1986 1996 530 –24 Lebanon 1987 1989 8,287 –59
Republic Liberia 1979 1995 1,575 –93
Central African 2012 2013 476 –37 Liberia 2002 2003 395 –31
Republic Libya 1979 1988 24,382 –61
Chad 1962 1973 715 –25 Libya 1991 2002 12,012 –30
Chad 1977 1981 593 –32 Libya 2010 2011 12,121 –62
Chile 1971 1975 5,001 –22 Libya 2012 2016 10,209 –43
China 1960 1962 192 –31 Macao SAR 2013 2016 72,184 –28
Comoros 1984 1999 938 –20 Madagascar 1971 2002 755 –50
Congo, Democratic 1974 1983 1,134 –29 Malawi 1979 1994 417 –24
Republic of the Maldives 1972 1978 2,645 –26
Congo, Democratic 1986 2002 832 –67 Marshall Islands 1995 1999 3,176 –22
Republic of the Mauritania 1970 1994 1,296 –25
Congo, Republic of 1984 1999 3,292 –31 Moldova 1992 1999 1,611 –41
Côte d’Ivoire 1978 1994 2,392 –47 Mongolia 1989 1993 1,856 –27
Cuba 1985 1993 4,480 –38 Mozambique 1981 1986 195 –33
Cyprus 1973 1975 11,321 –33 Myanmar 1985 1988 240 –20
Djibouti 1990 2001 1,932 –37 Nicaragua 1977 1979 2,565 –36
El Salvador 1978 1986 3,157 –35 Nicaragua 1981 1993 1,704 –38
Equatorial Guinea 1980 1991 646 –25 Niger 1965 1976 716 –37
Equatorial Guinea 2008 2017 20,334 –44 Niger 1979 1984 545 –31
Eritrea 1997 2008 622 –24 Niger 1988 2000 408 –21
Ethiopia 1987 1992 223 –27 Nigeria 1965 1968 1,459 –25
Gabon 1976 1982 19,493 –40 Nigeria 1977 1987 2,040 –44
Gabon 1984 1987 12,666 –26 Papua New Guinea 1973 1990 1,943 –23
Gabon 1998 2009 11,926 –29 Papua New Guinea 1994 2003 2,105 –23
Georgia 1990 1994 3,525 –73 Peru 1987 1992 3,791 –31
Ghana 1971 1976 1,121 –20 Qatar 1973 1991 115,147 –67
Ghana 1978 1983 960 –27 Russian Federation 1990 1998 9,534 –42
Greece 2007 2013 30,055 –26 Rwanda 1962 1964 340 –24
(continued)

Box 1.5 (continued)
Table 1.5.1. (continued)
GDP per Percent GDP per Percent
capita change in GDP capita change in GDP
Peak Trough at peak per capita Peak Trough at peak per capita
Rwanda 1992 1994 401 –49 Togo 1980 1983 683 –21
San Marino 2008 2015 84,794 –38 Togo 1989 1993 561 –27
São Tomé and 1980 1993 1,352 –36 Trinidad and Tobago 1982 1989 9,856 –34
Príncipe Turkmenistan 1990 1997 3,713 –49
Saudi Arabia 1974 1987 39,125 –60 Uganda 1970 1980 407 –30
Senegal 1961 1994 1,083 –27 Ukraine 1990 1998 3,965 –57
Sierra Leone 1982 2001 502 –45 United Arab Emirates 1970 1978 126,104 –26
Sierra Leone 2014 2015 563 –22 United Arab Emirates 1980 1988 113,682 –50
Solomon Islands 1979 1986 1,643 –24 United Arab Emirates 1997 2010 64,176 –45
Solomon Islands 1995 2002 1,655 –36 Uruguay 1981 1984 7,420 –21
South Sudan 2011 2012 3,111 –54 Uzbekistan 1990 1996 997 –27
South Sudan 2013 2017 1,789 –26 Venezuela 1977 1985 15,557 –24
St. Vincent and the 1972 1975 2,319 –28 Venezuela 1997 2003 12,787 –24
Grenadines Venezuela 2012 2017 14,474 –37
Sudan 1962 1973 900 –22 West Bank and Gaza 1999 2002 2,683 –23
Sudan 1977 1985 984 –28 Yemen 2010 2017 1,309 –70
Suriname 1978 1987 8,724 –38 Zambia 1972 1994 1,613 –44
Tajikistan 1990 1996 1,278 –71 Zimbabwe 1974 1978 1,347 –21
Timor-Leste 2012 2014 4,058 –37 Zimbabwe 1998 2008 1,348 –56
Source: IMF staff calculations based on data from the World Economic Outlook and World Bank World Development Indicators databases.
Note: Peak indicates the year before the decline in GDP per capita begins, and trough the year in which GDP per capita is at the lowest level in the
episode. GDP per capita at peak indicates GDP per capita in constant 2010 US dollars the year before the decline starts (source: World Bank). “Percent
change in GDP per capita” indicates the percent change in per capita GDP from peak to trough.
downturn and the 1982 debt crisis. The number of increase in GDP per capita after the crisis is larger
episodes declined in the late 1980s but rose again in (some 15 percent). Transition episodes feature the
the early 1990s because of the GDP declines asso- largest median decline in GDP per capita (45 percent),
ciated with the transition to a market economy in a relatively short duration (five years), and an increase
countries of the former Soviet Union and in central in GDP per capita after the crisis of about 14 percent.
and eastern Europe. The number of ongoing episodes The median crises and commodity shock episodes last
has since declined sharply, despite some increase longer and have weaker postdecline rebounds in GDP
associated with the global financial crisis and its per capita.
aftermath. Episodes associated with war are the most
frequent, followed by commodity shocks, crises, and The Aftermath of GDP Declines
transition. The focus now turns to the speed at which GDP
Table 1.5.2 provides some stylized facts on these per capita rebounds after these sharp declines. For
downturn episodes. It shows mean and median that purpose, the analysis considers both the growth
declines in GDP per capita of more than one-third. rate in the five years following a trough as well as the
These episodes are typically protracted, lasting over five length of time it takes for countries to return to their
years, and the growth rate in the five years after the predecline levels of GDP, and explores whether these
end of the episode generally fails to return GDP per variables are correlated with basic characteristics of the
capita to its predecline level. Distinguishing among episodes: the initial level of development, the size of
episodes according to their main driving factor sug- the country, the extent of the GDP decline, and the
gests that for the median country in episodes involving duration of the episode. Constructing these postde-
wars, GDP and GDP per capita are lower, the median cline variables reveals a striking stylized fact: out of
duration of the episode is shorter (4.5 years), and the the 92 countries experiencing a sharp decline in GDP

Box 1.5 (continued)

Figure 1.5.1. Ongoing Episodes of Large of world population. They are predominantly small.
Declines in GDP per Capita (20 percent or Exceptions include Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, and some
more) economies in the Gulf Cooperation Council with
high GDP per capita that have experienced very rapid
Number of ongoing episodes population growth, including because of immigration
Share of countries affected (right scale) (Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates).
Excluding these four countries, those countries still
45 0.30
below their past peak in GDP per capita account for
40 about 3 percent of global GDP.
0.25 •• Table 1.5.3 presents the results of simple regression
35 analyses. In columns (1) and (2), the dependent
variable is the growth rate in the five years after a
30 0.20
trough; in columns (3) and (4), it is the number
25 of years following the trough it takes for GDP
0.15 per capita to return to its level immediately before
20 the collapse. The purpose of these regressions is
simply to identify correlations in the data—there
15 0.10
are clearly many omitted factors that can play a role
10 in explaining postcollapse economic performance,
0.05 ranging from economic policies to the external
5 environment (growth in trading partners, terms
of trade, and so on). With those caveats in mind,
0 0.00
1965 70 80 90 2000 10 17 a surprising result is that the postdecline growth
rate is uncorrelated with the extent of the previ-
Source: IMF staff calculations. ous change in GDP per capita, holding constant
the length of the episode. In other words, deeper
downturns are not followed by sharper recoveries.
However, the postdecline growth rate is strongly
per capita in the sample, 45 had GDP per capita in negatively correlated with the length of that decline.
2017 still below its predecline level.6 These countries The regressions also suggest that, on average, recov-
account for over 5 percent of global GDP at pur- eries tend to be weaker in smaller countries, consis-
chasing power parity in 2017, and about 7½ percent tent with the evidence on challenges to economic
performance in small states. The sample size for the
6Using the data from the World Economic Outlook projection
second set of regressions, in which the dependent
period changes results only slightly—three countries (Djibouti,
variable is the number of years it takes to return to
Kyrgyz Republic, Sierra Leone) are projected to reach their pre-
collapse levels of GDP per capita during 2018–23 but Sudan is the predecline level of GDP per capita, is consider-
projected to experience a more than 20 percent decline in GDP ably smaller given that, as mentioned above, many
per capita during the projection period. countries have not yet reached that predecline level.
Table 1.5.2. Declines in GDP per Capita: Stylized Facts

Mean Median Standard Deviation Observations
GDP per Capita at Beginning of Episode (in constant 2010 US dollars) 11,933 2,466 23,639 133
Percent Change in GDP per Capita in the Five Years before the Peak 24 14 34 101
Percent Change in GDP per Capita Peak to Trough –36 –32 14 133
Length of Episode of GDP Decline in Years 8 6 6 133
Percent Change in GDP per Capita in the Five Years after the Trough 14 11 18 121
Number of Years to Return to Predecline GDP per Capita 12 10 7 70

Box 1.5 (continued)

Table 1.5.3. Postcrisis Outcomes and Crisis Depth
Cumulative Growth in the Five Years after the Trough Number of Years to Return to Precrisis Peak
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Log GDP per Capita at Peak –0.70 0.01 –1.41** –1.13*
(–0.72) (0.01) (–2.28) (–1.86)
Log GDP at Peak 1.75*** 1.39** –0.25 –0.15

(2.77) (2.08) (–0.62) (–0.40)
Change in GDP per Capita 0.02 –0.02 –0.11* –0.12**

(peak to trough) (0.33) (–0.23) (–1.68) (–2.13)
Length of GDP Decline (years) –0.61*** –0.79*** 0.39** 0.47***

(–2.84) (–3.37) (2.57) (3.57)
Adjusted R 2 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.16

Number of Observations 120 102 69 64
Note: Robust errors in parenthesis. *** (**) indicate statistical significance at the 99 (95) percent confidence level. Columns (2) and (4) exclude
episodes when the five years after the trough include the beginning of a new GDP decline episode.
For this more restricted sample, results suggest that, longer to recover from sharp declines. These results
as expected, it takes longer to recover from deeper warrant a closer look at these episodes of large
and longer-duration GDP declines. They also sug- declines in GDP per capita and their driving factors
gest that GDP per capita in poorer countries takes in future research.

Box 1.6. Predicting Recessions and Slowdowns: A Daunting Task

Statistical models generally have limited success in Figure 1.6.1. World Economic Outlook Data:
accurately predicting recessions—a decline in the level Recessions, Actual and Forecast
of GDP.1 World Economic Outlook (WEO) forecasts (Number of countries)
might be expected to do better, given that they also
incorporate judgment about how policies, external Actual recessions Forecast recessions
factors, and recent economic news affect economies’
growth trajectories. However, an analysis of WEO and 30 1. AEs 2. EMDEs 30
private sector forecasts over 1991–2016 confirms the 25 25
difficulties of forecasting recessions.2
The number of economies experiencing negative 20 20
growth in any given year has been systematically 15 15
underpredicted in the October WEO forecasts of
the previous year, both for advanced economies and 10 10
emerging market and developing economies (Fig- 5 5
ure 1.6.1). While the average country in the sample
experienced 2.7 recessions during 1991–2016, out of 0 0
1991 2000 10 16 1991 2000 10 16
the 313 recessions in a sample of 117 economies, only
47 have been anticipated.3 Even for 2009, the year Actual new recessions Forecast new recessions
after global output shrank when Lehman Brothers col-
lapsed, only six advanced economies (and no emerging 30 3. AEs 4. EMDEs 30
market and developing economies) had been predicted
in the October 2008 WEO to enter into a recession; 24 25
subsequently, output was estimated to have contracted 20
in 56 (almost half ) of the economies in the sample.4 18
The accuracy in predicting a switch from positive (or 15
12
zero) to negative growth has been even lower: only 10
nine out of 212 “new” recessions were accurately fore-
6 5
cast between 1991 and 2016.
0 0
1991 2000 10 16 1991 2000 10 16
The author of this box is Francesco Grigoli. Jungjin Lee and

Jillian Zirnhelt provided research support.
1See, for example, Estrella and Mishkin (1998); Berge and Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMDEs = emerging
market and developing economies. In the top two panels,
Jordà (2011); Levanon (2011); Liu and Moench (2014); Ng
dots denote the number of recessions (output contractions)
(2014); Bluedorn, Decressin, and Terrones (2016); and Ergungor
forecast in the October WEO of the previous year; bars
(2016). Stock and Watson (2003) provide a review of the vari- denote the number of actual recessions (based on the
ables generally used to predict recessions. October WEO estimates of the subsequent year). In the
2IMF forecasts represent the growth outcome seen as most
bottom two panels, dots denote the number of new
likely by IMF staff; that is, the mode, rather than the mean, of recessions forecast in the October WEO of the previous
the distribution of expected growth. year; bars denote the number of actual new recessions
3The analysis is based on annual data, which are available
(based on the October WEO estimates of the subsequent
for most of the member countries. Observations corresponding year). New recessions are years in which growth turns from
to years in which natural disasters caused damage of at least nonnegative to negative.
1 percent of GDP, data for economies that had at least one
conflict during 1991–2017, and data for economies with average
populations smaller than 1 million people are excluded from the
WEO data set. The unsatisfactory record, however, is common
4Forecasts are formulated based on the information set
across forecasters. Data from Consensus Economics,
available in real time, hence ex post assessments of the forecasts’ reflecting the average of private forecasters’ expecta-
accuracy should rely on first estimates rather than the latest
tions for 44 economies (as of October of the previous
estimates of actual data. The use of revised data would unfairly
underestimate the forecasts’ accuracy, given that real GDP year), reveal a pattern that is strikingly comparable
growth is generally revised downward over time. to that of the WEO forecasts (Figure 1.6.2). For

Box 1.6 (continued)

Figure 1.6.2. Consensus Economics Data: year output had contracted in 32 economies. Going
Recessions, Actual and Forecast back to the full period under analysis, if one exclu-
(Number of countries) sively considers the instances in which the economies
were not already in a recession in the previous year,
Actual recessions Forecast recessions Consensus Economics predicted only two out of 75
“new” recessions in its forecasts.
25 1. AEs 2. EMDEs 25 The poor track record of predicting recessions is
symptomatic of the overall difficulty of forecasting
20 20
slowdowns in growth. WEO forecasts do a some-
15 15 what better job of predicting slowdowns—defined as
declines in the rate of real GDP growth—compared
10 10 with recessions. Across all economies over 1991–2016,
growth slowdowns occurred about half of the time,
5 5 and about half of those were accurately forecast (in
the sense that the WEO forecasts predicted a decline
0 0 in growth for that year). The predictive performance
1991 2000 10 16 1991 2000 10 16
was somewhat better in 2009, when three-fourths of
Actual new recessions Forecast new recessions the 96 slowdowns were correctly predicted. However,
restricting the 1991–2016 sample to “new” slowdowns
18 3. AEs 4. EMDEs 18 reveals that the direction of the change in growth is
16 16 correctly anticipated only about half of the time.
14 14 The slowdown metric does not distinguish between
12 12 mild slowdowns and severe ones. Focusing only on
10 10 severe slowdowns—defined as episodes in which real
8 8 GDP growth fell by more than the 75th percentile of
6 6 growth declines in the sample period—is an alternative
4 4 approach. To account for differences in growth vola-
2 2 tility across advanced economies and emerging market
0 0 and developing economies, thresholds are based on
1991 2000 10 16 1991 2000 10 16 group-specific distributions, leading to the exclusion of
growth declines smaller than 0.5 percentage point and
Source: IMF staff calculations. 0.6 percentage point in the two groups, respectively.5
Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMDEs = emerging
market and developing economies. In the top two panels,
Over 1991–2016, the average country faced 9.3 severe
dots denote the number of recessions (output contractions) slowdowns, and the count of severe slowdowns in the
forecast in the October Consensus Economics of the sample reached 1,040 (Figure 1.6.3). In these episodes,
previous year; bars denote the actual number of recessions
(based on the October Consensus Economics estimates of
declines in growth were anticipated in 54 percent
the subsequent year). In the bottom two panels, dots denote of the cases, while severe slowdowns (slowdowns of
the number of new recessions forecasted in the October 0.5–0.6 percentage point or more) were forecast only
Consensus Economics of the previous year; bars denote the
number of actual new recessions (based on the October
in 31 percent.6
Consensus Economics estimates of the subsequent year).
New recessions are years in which growth turns from
nonnegative to negative.
5The standard deviation of real GDP growth during severe
slowdowns ranges between 2.6 percentage points in Latin

America and the Caribbean and 4.4 percentage points in the
this restricted sample of 44 economies through Commonwealth of Independent States. Despite this, the results
1991–2016, the WEO and Consensus Economics are qualitatively unchanged if the 75th percentiles are calculated
forecasts projected a similar number of recessions, 16 using country-specific distributions.
6A severe slowdown is defined as being “anticipated” if the
and 13, respectively, out of 107 cases of negative GDP forecast decline in growth is at least 0.5 percentage point for
growth. In 2009, only one advanced economy was advanced economies and 0.6 percentage point for emerging
projected to fall into recession, but by the end of the market and developing economies.

Box 1.6 (continued)

Figure 1.6.3. Severe Slowdowns, Actual and Figure 1.6.4. Forecast Errors during Severe
Forecast Slowdowns
(Number of countries) (Percentage points)
Actual severe slowdowns 2

Forecast severe slowdowns
1
70 1. Advanced Economies
0
60
50 –1
40
–2
30
20 –3
10
–4
0
1991 95 2000 05 10 16
–5
70 2. Emerging Market and Developing Economies
–6
60 AE EMDE Fuel Other LAC MENAP CIS SSA EMDE
Exp. Exp. Asia
50
40 Source: IMF staff calculations.
Note: AE = advanced economies; CIS = Commonwealth of
30 Independent States; EMDE = emerging market and
developing economies; Fuel exp. = fuel exporters;
20
LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENAP = Middle
10 East, North Africa, and Pakistan; Other exp. = other
exporters; SSA = sub-Saharan Africa; WEO = World
0 Economic Outlook. Bars denote the median of the real GDP
1991 95 2000 05 10 16 growth forecast errors (calculated as the estimate for growth
in year t as of the October WEO of year t +1 minus the
Source: IMF staff calculations. forecast for growth in year t as of the October WEO of year
Note: WEO = World Economic Outlook. Bars denote the t –1) during severe slowdowns. The vertical lines and the
number of severe slowdowns (growth declines larger than dots denote the interquartile ranges and the averages,
0.5 percentage point and 0.6 percentage point for advanced respectively.
economies and emerging market and developing economies,
respectively) in the October WEO of the previous year; dots
denote the number of forecasted severe slowdowns (based
on the October WEO estimates of the subsequent year). advanced economies and −1.7 percentage points for
emerging market and developing economies (Fig-
ure 1.6.4). Across regions in the latter group, it ranges
between −2.5 percentage points in the Commonwealth
Errors in forecasting growth tend to be larger
of Independent States and −1.3 percentage points
in years of severe slowdowns than in other years.
in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and
The median forecast error (defined as actual minus
Pakistan.7
predicted growth) during severe slowdowns is
In years of synchronized slowdowns, accurately
−1.6 percentage points, revealing a positive bias in
predicting the growth rate of advanced economies
the forecasts for those years (the median forecast
helps improve the accuracy of growth predictions
error is −0.2 percentage point for nonsevere, or mild,
for other economies. Severe slowdowns appear more
slowdowns; −0.2 percentage point if all observations
are considered; and 0.5 percentage point for nonslow- 7Means and medians of the forecast errors for all groups are
down years). Across groups, the median forecast error different from zero at the 10 percent significance level, except the
during severe slowdowns is −1.4 percentage points for median for emerging and developing Asia.

Box 1.6 (continued)

Figure 1.6.5. Forecast Performance synchronized in some years. For instance, in 2001,
(Percent) 2008, 2009, and 2012, more than 20 (40) advanced
economies (emerging market and developing econo-
Ratio of correctly forecast slowdowns mies) experienced a significant decline in growth. The
Ratio of correctly forecast recessions
Ratio of correctly forecast severe slowdowns
median decline in growth in these years was as large as
2.7 percentage points, almost 1 percentage point larger
100 than for the severe slowdowns that occurred in other
years, consistent with a larger drag from weaker exter-
nal demand during synchronized slowdowns. Forecast
80 errors were larger, at −2.4 percentage points, in these
episodes, compared with −1.3 percentage points for
other severe slowdowns. A simple regression of the
60 probability of accurately predicting a severe slowdown
in emerging market and developing economies on the
share of the correctly predicted severe slowdowns in
40 advanced economies suggests that, if severe slowdowns
in advanced economies are missed, the chances of
successfully predicting severe slowdowns elsewhere are
20
significantly reduced.8
All in all, WEO forecasts perform somewhat better
in predicting growth slowdowns than in predicting
0
recessions, but the record leaves much room for
1991 95 2000 05 10 16 improvement in both cases, and forecast errors during
episodes of severe slowdowns are large (Figure 1.6.5).
8Probit regressions reveal that a 1 percentage point increase

in the share of correctly predicted severe slowdowns in advanced
economies is associated with a 29 percent higher probability of
accurately predicting a severe slowdown in emerging market and
developing economies.

Special Feature: Commodity MarketTitle:

Special Feature Developments and Forecasts
Special Feature Head with a Focus on
Recent Trends in Energy Demand
Energy prices have increased since the release of the April Figure 1.SF.1. Commodity Market Developments
2018 World Economic Outlook (WEO), mostly driven
300 1. Commodity Price Indices
by higher oil prices. Notwithstanding record-high US pro- (2005 = 100)
All commodities Energy
260 Food Metals
duction, tight supply conditions and sustained economic
220
activity in the first half of 2018 reduced Organisation
180
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
140
oil inventories rapidly, pushing up oil prices in May
100
and June to their highest levels since November 2014.
60
Since then, however, higher production in Saudi Arabia
20
and Russia has rebalanced the oil market. A decline in 2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Jul.
metals demand from China and trade tensions have put 18
downward pressure on metals prices. Agricultural market 90 2. Brent Futures Curves1
(US dollars a barrel; expiration dates on x-axis)
fundamentals, in contrast, remain solid and have partially 80
offset the introduction of tariffs on some key agricul- 70
tural products. This special feature includes an in-depth 60
analysis of the long-term determinants of energy demand. 50 April 2017 WEO
40 October 2017 WEO
April 2018 WEO
The IMF’s Primary Commodities Price Index rose 30 October 2018 WEO
3.3 percent between February 2018 and August 2018, 20
Dec. 2016 Dec. 17 Dec. 18 Dec. 19 Dec. 20 Dec. 21 Dec. 22 Dec. 23
the reference periods for the April 2018 and current
WEOs, respectively (Figure 1.SF.1, panel 1). Energy
200 3. Brent Price Prospects2 Futures
prices drove that increase, rising by 11.1 percent; food (US dollars a barrel) 68 percent confidence interval
prices declined by 6.4 percent, while metals prices 160 86 percent confidence interval
95 percent confidence interval
decreased by 11.7 percent because of trade tensions 120
and weaker-than-expected metal demand from China.
80
Oil prices increased to more than $76 a barrel in
June, attaining their highest level since November 40
2014. Since July, however, oil prices have stabilized as 0
Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(OPEC) and non-OPEC oil exporters (including Rus-
sia) agreed to boost production. Coal prices increased 180 4. Metal Price Indices
160 (Jan. 2, 2014 = 100) Aluminum Copper
strongly because of relatively tight supply conditions, Iron ore Nickel
140
while natural gas prices increased in part following
120
higher oil and coal prices. 100
80
60
Oil Prices at the Highest Level since 2014 40
On June 22, 2018, OPEC agreed to increase its 20
Jan. 2014 Jan. 15 Jan. 16 Jan. 17 Jan. 18 Jul. 18
members’ oil output by 0.7 million barrels a day (mbd)
to offset declining output in Angola and especially in Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Thomson Reuters Datastream; IMF, Primary
Venezuela, both OPEC members, and regain its origi- Commodity Price System; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: WEO = World Economic Outlook.
1
WEO futures prices are baseline assumptions for each WEO and are derived from
futures prices. October 2018 WEO prices are based on August 13, 2018, closing.
The authors of this special feature are Christian Bogmans, Lama 2
Derived from prices of futures options on August 13, 2018.
Kiyasseh, Akito Matsumoto (team co-leader), Andrea Pescatori (team
leader), and Julia Xueliang Wang, with research assistance from
Rachel Yuting Fan, Lama Kiyasseh and Julia Xueliang Wang.

SPECIAL FEATURE COMMODITY MARKET DEVELOPMENTS AND FORECASTS WITH A FOCUS ON RECENT TRENDS IN ENERGY DEMAND
nal target level set in the November 2016 agreement.1 In addition, trade tensions and other risks to global
Notwithstanding record-high US production, tight growth (highlighted in the section titled “Risks” in
supply conditions and sustained economic activity in Chapter 1) can potentially affect global activity and its
the first half of 2018 reduced OECD oil inventories prospects, reducing, in turn, oil demand. Coal prices
from historically high levels to their five-year average, are expected to decline from current levels due to a
pushing oil prices to more than $76 a barrel in June— rebound in supply and in line with declining oil and
the highest level since November 2014. In July, how- natural gas prices.
ever, oil prices retrenched from recent peaks and, as
of August, stood at about $71 a barrel as higher Saudi
and Russian production offset the effects of unplanned Metal Prices Decreasing
outages in Canada and Libya and a tougher US stance After peaking in February, metal prices declined by
on the implementation of sanctions on Iran. Natural 11.7 percent between February 2018 and August 2018
gas and coal prices have increased, supported by strong because of weaker metal demand from China following
demand from China and India. stringent environmental regulations and tighter credit
Oil futures contracts point to a decline of prices to conditions. Global trade tensions have also added
about $60 a barrel in 2023 (Figure 1.SF.1, panel 2). downward price pressures and substantially increased
Baseline assumptions for the IMF’s average petroleum volatility in metal markets.
spot prices, based on futures prices, suggest average The price of iron ore, the key input in steelmaking,
annual prices of $69.3 a barrel in 2018—an increase of dropped by 12.4 percent between the reference periods
31 percent from the 2017 average—and $68.8 a barrel because of US tariffs on steel, substitution with scrap
in 2019 (Figure 1.SF.1, panel 3). On one hand, global by Chinese steelmakers, and China’s production curbs
economic growth is expected to be relatively strong, across major steel mills. Copper prices declined after
albeit with regional differences, supporting underlying the fear of a strike at the world’s largest copper mine
oil demand—the International Energy Agency expects in Chile faded, while aluminum prices went through
oil demand to grow by 1.4 mbd and 1.5 mbd in 2018 a period of high volatility following US sanctions on
and 2019, respectively. On the other hand, the US the giant Russian aluminum and alumina producer
Energy Information Administration expects US crude (United Company Rusal), along with trade tensions.
production to reach 10.7 mbd in 2018 and 11.7 mbd Nickel, the main input for stainless steel and batteries
in 2019, putting downward pressure on oil prices in in electric vehicles, reached multiyear highs in early
the medium term. Canada’s oil production is expected June 2018 and then declined to its February price
to grow steadily, too. on trade tensions. Zinc, mainly used to galvanize
Although risks are balanced, uncertainty remains steel, dropped 28.9 percent between February and
substantial around the baseline assumptions for oil August 2018 following surging stockpiles and weak
prices because Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity is shrink- demand from China.
ing and US sanctions against Iran will both weigh on The IMF annual metals price index is projected to
Iran’s oil production prospects in the medium term increase by 5.3 percent in 2018 (relative to its average
and reduce Iran’s crude exports in the short term, in 2017) but to decline by 3.7 percent in 2019 from
requiring others with spare production capacity to step its 2018 average. Upside risks to the outlook for metal
in. Upside risks to prices in the short term include prices include sanctions against metals producers and
a faster-than-expected deterioration of Venezuelan easing environmental regulations in China. Down-
production and a larger-than-anticipated reduction in side risks are mounting because of trade tensions,
Iran’s crude exports. Downside risks include higher higher-than-expected metals production in China, and
OPEC output and stronger-than-expected Cana- a slowdown of the Chinese economy, which accounts
dian and US production even though, in the short for more than half of the world’s metals consumption.
term, the United States faces bottlenecks caused by
labor shortages and lack of pipeline infrastructure.
Food Prices Decreasing and Trade Risks Remain
1The 0.7 mbd increase is the production increase neces- Although agricultural market fundamentals
sary to bring OPEC output back to 100 percent compli-
ance from current overcompliance (the calculations are based remain solid, the IMF’s agricultural price index
on International Energy Agency data). decreased between February 2018 and August 2018

Figure 1.SF.2. Primary Energy Consumption and Supply Global Energy Demand
16,000 1. Total Primary Energy Supply 1971–2015 (Mtoe)
The consumption of energy services and liquid
14,000
fuels is pervasive and essential in the economic system
Coal
Oil and is the major driver of demand for primary energy
12,000
Natural gas sources, such as fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables.
10,000 Nuclear
Renewables Increased energy efficiency, however, has raised the
8,000
possibility of reaching a saturation point in the global
6,000
demand for energy (or some of its primary energy
4,000
sources), which could leave producer countries with
2,000
overcapacity and stranded assets. Moreover, the
0
1971 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10 15 use of energy, especially in the form of fossil fuels,
gives rise to a multitude of environmental external-
50 2. Share of Primary Energy Consumption (Percent) ities, the severity of which, in turn, depends on the
US AEs excluding US China energy mix used and the technologies adopted (Stern
40 2006; IPCC 2014).
India Fuel exporters Other EMs and LIDCs
30
This section analyzes the main drivers of energy
demand and the evolution of the primary energy–
20 source mix by looking at long-term trends in energy
efficiency; exploring the role of power generation in
10
energy demand; and investigating the presence of an
0
S-shaped relationship between energy and income that
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 would, ultimately, induce saturation in energy demand
(Wolfram, Shelef, and Gertler 2012).
Sources: International Energy Agency; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMs = emerging markets; LIDCs = low-income
developing countries; Fuel exporters = Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Basic Facts
Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Ecuador, Gabon, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya,
Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela; The demand for energy services and liquid fuels
Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.
induces a direct and indirect (through power gener-
ation) demand for primary energy sources. Electric-
ity has been a key force in the past decades: energy
by 6.4 percent on trade tensions and concerns over demand from power generation increased by nearly
global growth. 300 percent between 1971 and 2015—almost twice
Wheat prices increased by 22.6 percent between the rate of total energy. This phenomenon, dubbed
February 2018 and August 2018 following adverse electrification, has sustained the demand for coal and
weather conditions during spring and summer in has led to a major decline of oil as a share of total
Russia and western Europe, respectively. Soybean energy and to increases in natural gas usage, and, more
prices fell sharply, however, in June and July after recently, in renewables (Figure 1.SF.2, panel 1). Indeed,
China announced a 25 percent retaliatory tariff on US power generation today accounts for more than
soybean imports and US production numbers for 2018 40 percent of the demand for primary energy, and for
were revised upward. As a result, prices stood 14.7 per- about 55 percent if oil is excluded, which instead is
cent lower in August 2018 than in February 2018. mostly used in the transport sector.
Food prices are projected to increase in 2018 by Although power generation has contributed
2.3 percent, and by a further 1.7 percent in 2019. significantly to global energy demand growth, it is
Weather disruptions are an upside risk to the fore- worth looking at contributions by country. Emerging
cast. As of August 9, 2018, the National Oceanic and markets, especially China and, more recently, India,
Atmospheric Administration puts the chances of El have driven most of the energy demand growth of
Niño during winter 2018–19 at 70 percent. A deepen- the past 15 years (Figure 1.SF.2, panel 2), while the
ing of the trade conflict between the United States— contribution of advanced economies has been mini-
the world’s largest food exporter—and several of its key mal, leading to a decline in their world consumption
trading partners constitutes a major downside risk. shares and raising the prospects of saturation in energy

Table 1.SF.1. Total Demand Determinants for Baseline Specification

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Population 1.079*** 0.965*** 0.959*** 1.161***
GDP per Capita –7.103* –8.676** –5.068* –6.889***
(GDP per Capita)² 0.843* 1.044** 0.639* 0.865***
(GDP per Capita)³ –0.0293 –0.0378** –0.0231 –0.0330***
Area 0.0798 0.0953*
Oil Exporter –0.0173 0.00523
Gas Exporter 0.0483 –0.0478
Coal Exporter 0.378** 0.315**
Coal Producer 0.251* 0.132
Latitude 0.0138***
Static Saturation Point 401,087 179,389 323,516 82,921

Dynamic Saturation Point (1% eff. gain) 127,286 63,590 74,050 17,831
Dynamic Saturation Point (spec. eff. gain) 33,576 38,410 41,298 25,281
Inflection Point 14,447 10,039 10,184 6,204
Max Elasticity 0.9723 0.9416 0.8280 0.6660
Average Elasticity 0.9721 0.9233 0.8177 0.5888
R ² 0.95 0.96 0.97 1.00
Model WLS WLS WLS WLS – FE
Sources: International Energy Agency; World Bank, World Development Indicators database; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Energy exporters and producers are derived from the International Energy Agency. Average elasticity is calculated at $15,000 2011 international US
dollars. “eff. gain” is efficiency gain. “spec. eff. gain” is specific efficiency gain calculated using each specification’s average growth of time dummies. FE =
fixed effects; WLS = weighted least squares. Latitude is the absolute value of latitude in degrees for national capitals.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
demand for advanced economies (Wolfram, Shelef, and (log) income per capita, gdp; and a vector of control
Gertler 2012). This dissimilarity suggests a relation- variables, X:2
ship between stages of development and the elasticity
Eit  = β  0  + β  1 po p it  + β  2 gdp it  + β  3 (gdp it)  2
of energy demand to income. Farrell (1954) and,
more recently, Gertler and others (2016) postulate an + β  4 (gdp it)  3 + β  5  × X it  + λ  t  + ε  it (1.1)
S-shaped relationship between electricity demand and
household purchases of durable goods (such as domes- in which λ  tare year fixed effects, while X it includes a
tic appliances and automobiles). Dargay and Gately time-varying energy-export and coal producer dummy,
(1999) and Dargay, Gately, and Sommer (2007) find distance from the equator, and the log of land area; the
such an S-shaped relationship for car ownership. The indices i and t refer to countries and years, respectively.3
next section tests whether such a relationship holds Results for the baseline specification, column (2),
more generally for energy demand and income. and robustness checks are reported in Table 1.SF.1 and
in Online Annex 1.SF.1.4 Not surprisingly, the analysis
finds that energy demand moves in lockstep with popu-
Energy and Income: An S-Shaped Relationship lation. Point estimates suggest that having a sizable land
Using an unbalanced panel of 136 countries, this
analysis tests for the presence of an S-shaped relation- 2Energy demand (in million tons of oil equivalent) is the sum of
ship between energy demand and per capita income, electricity and primary energy supply (that is, coal, oil, natural gas,
hydropower, nuclear energy, and renewables). Energy data are from
controlling for the size of the country (that is, popu- the International Energy Agency; data on population, GDP per cap-
lation and land area) and fossil fuel abundance. Time ita (in 2011 US dollars), and country area size (in square kilometers)
fixed effects are used to capture worldwide gains in are from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators database.
Latitude is from the GeoDist database by Centre d’Etudes Prospec-
energy efficiency and fluctuations in global economic tives et d’Informations Internationales.
activity and energy prices. The sample is annual and 3An oil exporter is defined as having oil production exceeding
spans 1971–2015, covering two major energy price consumption. A similar definition is used for natural gas and coal
exporters. A coal producer is defined as having production able to
cycles. Specifically, the exercise estimates the follow-
satisfy between 60 percent and 100 percent of the country’s coal con-
ing specification relating (log) total energy demand E sumption. Distance from equator is the absolute value of latitude.
to (log) population, pop; a third-order polynomial in 4The annex is available online at www.imf/en/Publications/WEO.

Figure 1.SF.3. Energy Efficiency curve downward because the same economic activi-
ties (such as heating, cooling, and transport) require
Trend
Energy efficiency index (1971 = 0)
less energy. In the regression, improvements in energy
efficiency globally are captured by the time dummies,
0.2 which show a remarkably steady decline (Figure 1.SF.3).
Indeed, except for during 1990–92 (mostly affected
0.0 by the inclusion in the sample of former Soviet
Union countries, whose energy efficiency was lower),
–0.2 the improvement in energy efficiency has been very
steady, averaging about 1 percent a year over the entire
–0.4 sample. If it is conservatively assumed that energy
efficiency globally keeps increasing at its historical rate
–0.6 of 1 percent a year, the saturation point previously
estimated drops to about $64,000 per capita.6
–0.8 The estimated S-shaped energy-income relation-
ship (Figure 1.SF.4) not only predicts energy demand
–1.0 growth to be highest in emerging markets but also
captures the behavior of energy demand at low-income
–1.2 levels. Typically, in most low-income countries, energy
1971 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10 15
consumption initially declines in response to income
Sources: International Energy Agency; World Bank, World Development Indicators growth probably as the result of graduation from bio-
database; and IMF staff calculations. mass (solid biofuels excluding charcoal)—an inefficient
Note: The red line represents the time fixed effects estimated in Table 1.SF.1
column (2) with 95 percent confidence intervals (shaded area). The blue line is a
source of energy. Biomass, in fact, is an inferior good,
linear trend estimated for the period 1971–89 (1992–2015) with a slope of 0.23 implying that households reduce its use as income
(0.13). grows. The share of biomass in total primary energy
supply of the country tends to decline as income grows
(Figure 1.SF.5).
area, coupled with being a coal exporter (producer), In conclusion, the evidence suggests that the relation-
increases energy demand by about 45 (33) percent. ship between energy demand and income follows an
Turning to income, the data strongly support the S-shaped curve, with an initial decline of energy demand
presence of an S-shaped relationship between per capita at low levels of income followed by stages of acceleration
energy consumption and per capita income. The inflec- and then saturation at middle- and high-income levels,
tion point in the energy-income relationship (that is, the respectively. Thus, the main driver of future energy
maximum income elasticity) is about $10,000 (in 2011 demand hinges on the dynamics of middle-income
US dollars), which is below the global per capita income countries. In fact, even though some advanced econ-
in 2015, which stood at $15,000 (2011 US dollars). omies may have already reached saturation in energy
Indeed, this inflection point has already been reached demand, estimates suggest that global saturation is still
by many emerging markets. At that income level, the far into the future. However, total energy is not all that
energy income elasticity is close to one. matters. The same level of energy consumption can be
At higher income levels, the elasticity starts to the result of varying mixes of primary energy sources,
decline. Ultimately, as income keeps growing, the which is the topic of the next section.
economy would reach a saturation point for energy
demand; however, at an estimated $180,000 per capita
(in 2011 US dollars) the saturation point looks, at The Primary Energy Mix
current technology, to still be very far into the future.5 The optimal energy mix in each country is the result
Energy-saving technologies, however, can lead to of relative resource abundance, technology, and social
faster actual saturation by shifting the energy-income
5An economy with a $50,000 per capita income today (for exam- 6An economy with a $50,000 per capita income today (for exam-
ple, Germany) growing at 2 percent a year would take 65 years to ple, Germany) growing at 2 percent a year would take 13 years to
reach a per capita income of $180,000. reach a per capital income of $64,000.

Figure 1.SF.4. Energy Demand and GDP per Capita Figure 1.SF.5. Biomass
China Japan United States 100

India Russia France COD ETH
Share of biomass in total primary energy supply

TZA
10.0 80 MOZ TGO HTI NGA
Energy demand per capita (kilogram oil equivalent), log scale
ZMB
NER NPL CIV GAB
KEN KHM
ZWE CMR SDN
60 GTM
MMR
(percent)
BEN COG
1.0 HND AGO LKA
SEN
40 GHA NIC PRY
20
0.1
0
500 2000 8000 32000 128000
Income per capita 2014, PPP adjusted, log scale
0.0
125 500 2000 8000 32000 128000 512000 Sources: International Energy Agency, IEA Renewables Information Statistics;
GDP per capita (constant 2011 international dollars), log scale World Bank, World Development Indicators database; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Data labels for countries with biomass shares greater than 40 percent are
displayed in the figure. Data labels in the figure use International Organization for
Sources: International Energy Agency; World Bank, World Development Indicators Standardization (ISO) country codes. PPP = purchasing power parity.
database; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Adjusted fitted values show the S-shaped energy-income relation
(constructed using the cubic polynomial) while energy demand per capita is
adjusted for estimated time fixed effects. Estimates are from the baseline
specification. term, however, efficiency is also determined by capital
investment, which allows the potential of an energy
source (for example, investment in solar power or
preferences. The local relative abundance or avail- natural gas infrastructure) to be better exploited. This
ability of an energy source determines its local costs, generates a relationship between the energy mix and
while the efficiency of use in production determines the stage of development (see Online Annex 1.SF.1 for
its desirability (that is, its marginal benefit).7 These further details).
two factors combined help determine the relative At medium- and low-income levels, the
price of an energy source. Technical substitutability semi-elasticity of the oil share to income is positive
across resources then determines the impact of changes as the transport sector expands (for example, car and
in efficiency of use or relative prices on the energy truck ownership increases), but it turns negative at
mix. For example, the relative importance of oil as a higher income levels when the stock of motor vehicles
primary energy source has substantially declined over plateaus, fuel efficiency reduces gasoline consumption,
time as other energy sources became cheaper (such as and cleaner natural gas is preferred in heating and
coal and nuclear in the early part of the sample) or power generation. Regressions, indeed, suggest that
more desirable to use (such as natural gas and, more peak oil demand may have already been reached for
recently, renewables). The link between high and some advanced economies, given that their oil share
volatile crude oil prices and the decline in the oil share declines while energy demand is close to saturation (see
is indeed noticeable (Figure 1.SF.6).8 Over the long Online Annex 1.SF.1). In contrast, the share of natural
gas seems mostly independent of income.
7It is up to policy to align private and social marginal benefits. The relationship between income and the share of
8In most advanced economies, the two oil shocks of the 1970s coal is weak because higher incomes are associated
that generated high oil prices called into question the energy security with cleaner energy sources but also with higher
of oil and led to a switch in the power sector, with oil being replaced
by alternative sources of power generation, such as coal, natural gas,
electrification rates (the main driver of coal consump-
and nuclear power. tion). At medium incomes, however, coal has proved

Figure 1.SF.6. Primary Energy Source Shares Figure 1.SF.7. Decomposition of Change in World Coal
(Percent) Intensity
(Percent)
Oil Coal Natural gas Nuclear Renewables
Country intensity Composition effects
50 World coal intensity (right scale) Change in world coal intensity
45 6 5.0
40 4.5
4
35 4.0
30 2 3.5
25 3.0
0
20 2.5
15 –2
2.0
10 1.5
–4
5 1.0
0 –6
1971 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10 15 0.5
–8 0.0
Sources: International Energy Agency; and IMF staff calculations. 1991 95 2000 05 10 15
Note: Sample is International Energy Agency world aggregate; grey shaded
area = high and volatile oil prices; nonshaded area = low and stable oil prices. Sources: International Energy Agency; World Bank, World Development Indicators
database; and IMF staff calculations.
to be a cheap and abundant energy source able to

satisfy a quickly growing demand for electricity, espe-
cially in some large, coal-abundant emerging markets, The implication of higher electrification rates
such as China and India (being a coal producer or is important for primary energy demand. In fact,
exporter increases a country’s coal share by 10 per- while oil saturation will probably be reached sooner
centage points or 18 percentage points, respectively). than total energy saturation (as oil’s share in the mix
Hence, notwithstanding a reduction of coal intensity declines), saturation for natural gas and renewables
at the country level, the legacy of high coal usage in will come later. Recent sharp declines in the price of
large and fast-growing economies led to a surprise solar photovoltaic cells and government support for the
increase in global coal intensity in the mid-2000s development of renewables are paving the way for the
(Figure 1.SF.7). As China and other major emerging rapid growth of renewables (see Box 1.SF.1). Although
markets develop, however, demand for cleaner fuels coal may remain attractive for some countries, local
is expected to increase, leading to a decline in the air pollution has compelled China and India, to some
coal share. extent, to shift toward renewables. Thus, cost changes
Although it is too early to assess the evolution of and environmental concerns will play a key role for the
renewables, the analysis clearly points to an increase increased penetration of renewables and the saturation
in the use of renewables in high-income countries, point for coal.
especially for power generation. Advanced economies,
in fact, are typically highly electrified while emerging
markets, as they become more urbanized and expand Conclusion
the electricity grid, are expected to substantially Most of the increase in energy consumption is
increase their electrification rate in the medium term. expected to come from emerging markets whose energy
The projected rise of the electric car and growth in the demand is approximately at its peak income elasticity,
services sector, moreover, are expected to increase the which is about one. In contrast, that elasticity is close
electrification rate in advanced economies, too. to zero for advanced economies, suggesting that their

contribution to energy demand growth will be more transitions and technological innovations are hard to
modest or possibly absent. Nonetheless, emerging predict, substantial long-term investment is required to
markets’ saturation point for energy demand is still far change the energy infrastructure of an economic system
in the future—even assuming steady gains in energy (for example, the life of power plants and airplanes is
efficiency. Saturation, however, is probably much closer about 40 years). Nonetheless, climate concerns, energy
for some energy sources, such as coal and oil, raising the policies, and market forces will be key in forging future
risk of stranded assets for high-cost projects, while other energy markets as energy regulation and prices interact
sources, such as natural gas and renewables, are expected to stimulate or constrain technological innovation. It is
to become more important in the energy mix as electri- the role of policymakers to exploit these interactions to
fication rates increase. Even though dynamics in energy develop ecologically sustainable economies.

Box 1.SF.1. The Demand and Supply of Renewable Energy

The rapid growth of renewable energy since Figure 1.SF.1.1. Renewables Capacity
the beginning of the 21st century (see Online (Gigawatts)
Annex 1.SF.1) can be attributed to several demand-
and supply-side factors. First, governments have Existing capacity
Trend effect
implemented a variety of energy policies over the years GDP per capita effect
that have helped countries lower their greenhouse gas Population effect
emissions. Second, aided by regulatory pressure, tech- Renewables capacity (conservative)
Renewables capacity (baseline)
nological innovation has reduced the cost of wind and
solar energy substantially in recent years (Goldman
9,000
Sachs 2015; IRENA 2017).1
Using a model that relates renewable energy capac- 8,000
ity to GDP per capita, population, a set of control
variables, and a trend, this box analyzes the outlook 7,000
for renewable energy capacity (see Online Annex 1.
6,000
SF.1). Results depend on whether the relationship is
estimated over the full sample (1990–2015) or only 5,000
over the most recent sample (2000–15), as the trend
coefficient increases from 1.7 percent a year to 3.9 per- 4,000
cent in the most recent sample. The rising trend
3,000
reflects performance improvements and price reduc-
tions in several major renewable energy technologies, 2,000
most notably solar panels and wind turbines.
An out-of-sample prediction, focusing on 45 coun- 1,000
tries for which long-term forecasts for GDP per capita
0
and population size are available (OECD 2014), shows 1990 95 2000 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
that, under the conservative forecast, the world will
have accumulated more than 4,600 gigawatt of renew- Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
able energy-generating assets by 2040. This number Development; US Energy Information Administration; World
Bank, World Development Indicators database; and IMF staff
increases to more than 8,400 gigawatt in the baseline calculations.
scenario—a fourfold increase from 2015.
The increase in renewable energy capacity under the
conservative and baseline scenarios will, respectively,
deliver 732 million tons and 1,733 million tons of place fossil-fuel-based electricity generation, it would
oil equivalent of energy to the electricity grid, equal constitute a sizable step in reducing global greenhouse
to 50 percent and 117 percent, respectively, of all gas emissions.
electricity generated by fossil fuels in 2015. Indeed, Figure 1.SF.1.1. decomposes future renewable
if the new renewable energy capacity were to dis- energy growth under the baseline scenario into
income, population, and the trend effect. This shows
that renewable energy investment is driven mostly
The authors of this box are Christian Bogmans and by supply (technology) rather than demand (income
Lama Kiyasseh. and population), which is in line with the popular
1Other factors of importance are the rate of interest;
rationale of an energy transition led by innovations in
cross-country differences in endowments of human capital and
raw potential for wind, solar, and hydro energy (Collier and Ven-
wind, solar, and other technologies. The same depen-
ables 2012); and government support for renewable industries dence on a persistence in the trend factor, however,
(see Zhang and others 2013). makes the outlook for renewable energy uncertain.

Annex Table 1.1.1. European Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance, and Unemployment
(Annual percent change, unless noted otherwise)
Real GDP Consumer Prices1 Current Account Balance2 Unemployment3
Projections Projections Projections Projections
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Europe 3.1 2.3 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 ... ... ...
Advanced Europe 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.9 2.8 7.9 7.2 7.0
Euro Area4,5 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.7 3.5 3.0 2.9 9.1 8.3 8.0
Germany 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 7.9 8.1 7.9 3.8 3.5 3.4
France 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.8 –0.6 –0.9 –0.7 9.4 8.8 8.5
Italy 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.8 2.0 1.6 11.3 10.8 10.5
Spain 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.2 17.2 15.6 14.7
Netherlands 2.9 2.8 2.6 1.3 1.4 1.6 10.5 9.9 9.7 4.9 3.9 3.8
Belgium 1.7 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.2 1.8 –0.2 0.1 –0.1 7.1 6.4 6.6
Austria 3.0 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.2 1.8 5.5 5.2 5.1
Greece 1.4 2.0 2.4 1.1 0.7 1.2 –0.8 –0.8 –0.4 21.5 19.9 18.1
Portugal 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.5 0.0 –0.3 8.9 7.0 6.7
Ireland 7.2 4.7 4.0 0.3 0.7 1.2 8.5 7.4 6.7 6.7 5.3 5.1
Finland 2.8 2.6 1.8 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 8.5 7.7 7.4
Slovak Republic 3.4 3.9 4.1 1.3 2.6 2.2 –2.1 –1.8 –0.9 8.1 7.5 6.9
Lithuania 3.9 3.5 2.9 3.7 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 7.1 6.5 6.3
Slovenia 5.0 4.5 3.4 1.4 2.1 2.0 7.1 6.3 5.5 6.6 5.8 5.4
Luxembourg 2.3 4.0 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.8 5.0 4.9 4.8 5.8 5.4 5.2
Latvia 4.5 3.7 3.3 2.9 2.7 2.4 –0.8 –2.0 –2.6 8.7 7.9 7.8
Estonia 4.9 3.7 3.2 3.7 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.2 1.1 5.8 6.7 6.9
Cyprus 3.9 4.0 4.2 0.7 0.8 1.8 –6.7 –3.1 –5.2 11.1 9.5 8.0
Malta 6.7 5.7 4.6 1.3 1.8 2.1 13.6 11.6 11.1 4.6 4.1 4.1
United Kingdom 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.7 2.5 2.2 –3.8 –3.5 –3.2 4.4 4.1 4.2
Switzerland 1.7 3.0 1.8 0.5 1.1 1.4 9.8 10.2 9.8 3.2 2.8 2.8
Sweden 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 3.3 2.6 2.8 6.7 6.2 6.2
Norway 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 5.5 7.8 7.8 4.2 3.8 3.7
Czech Republic 4.3 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.1 –0.4 –0.9 2.9 2.5 3.0
Denmark 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 7.6 7.7 7.5 5.7 5.4 5.3
Iceland 4.0 3.7 2.9 1.8 2.5 2.6 3.5 2.4 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.3
San Marino 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.6 ... ... ... 8.1 8.2 8.3
Emerging and Developing Europe6 6.0 3.8 2.0 6.2 8.3 9.0 –2.6 –2.8 –1.4 ... ... ...
Turkey 7.4 3.5 0.4 11.1 15.0 16.7 –5.6 –5.7 –1.4 10.9 11.0 12.3
Poland 4.6 4.4 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.8 0.3 –0.8 –1.3 4.9 4.1 4.0
Romania 6.9 4.0 3.4 1.3 4.7 2.7 –3.4 –3.5 –3.4 4.9 4.7 4.8
Hungary 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.2 2.3 2.1 4.2 3.9 3.5
Bulgaria5 3.6 3.6 3.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 4.5 2.4 1.6 6.2 5.6 5.5
Serbia 1.9 4.0 3.5 3.1 2.1 2.3 –5.7 –5.7 –5.6 14.1 13.8 13.5
Croatia 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.5 3.9 2.7 2.3 12.4 12.0 11.2
Note: Data for some countries are based on fiscal years. Please refer to Table F in the Statistical Appendix for a list of economies with exceptional reporting periods.
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages. Year-end to year-end changes can be found in Tables A6 and A7 in the Statistical Appendix.
2Percent of GDP.
3Percent. National definitions of unemployment may differ.
4Current account position corrected for reporting discrepancies in intra-area transactions.
5Based on Eurostat’s harmonized index of consumer prices except for Slovenia.
6Includes Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, and Montenegro.

Annex Table 1.1.2. Asian and Pacific Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance, and Unemployment
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Asia 5.7 5.6 5.4 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.1 1.5 1.4 ... ... ...
Advanced Asia 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.3
Japan 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 1.2 1.3 4.0 3.6 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9
Korea 3.1 2.8 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 5.1 5.0 4.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Australia 2.2 3.2 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 –2.6 –2.8 –3.1 5.6 5.3 5.0
Taiwan Province of China 2.9 2.7 2.4 1.1 1.5 1.3 14.5 13.8 13.6 3.8 3.8 3.7
Singapore 3.6 2.9 2.5 0.6 1.0 1.4 18.8 18.5 18.3 2.2 2.0 1.9
Hong Kong SAR 3.8 3.8 2.9 1.5 2.3 2.1 4.3 3.4 3.1 3.1 2.6 2.6
New Zealand 3.0 3.1 3.0 1.9 1.4 1.7 –2.7 –3.6 –3.8 4.7 4.5 4.4
Macao SAR 9.1 6.3 6.3 1.2 2.2 2.4 33.3 35.9 38.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Emerging and Developing Asia 6.5 6.5 6.3 2.4 3.0 3.2 0.9 0.1 0.2 ... ... ...
China 6.9 6.6 6.2 1.6 2.2 2.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 3.9 4.0 4.0
India4 6.7 7.3 7.4 3.6 4.7 4.9 –1.9 –3.0 –2.5 ... ... ...
ASEAN-5 5.3 5.3 5.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.0 1.3 1.0 ... ... ...
Indonesia 5.1 5.1 5.1 3.8 3.4 3.8 –1.7 –2.4 –2.4 5.4 5.2 5.0
Thailand 3.9 4.6 3.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 11.2 9.1 8.1 0.7 0.7 0.7
Malaysia 5.9 4.7 4.6 3.8 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.9 2.3 3.4 3.2 3.0
Philippines 6.7 6.5 6.6 2.9 4.9 4.0 –0.8 –1.5 –1.5 5.7 5.5 5.5
Vietnam 6.8 6.6 6.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2
Other Emerging and Developing
Asia5 6.2 6.1 6.3 4.9 5.3 5.5 –2.0 –3.4 –2.8 ... ... ...
Memorandum
Emerging Asia6 6.5 6.5 6.3 2.3 2.9 3.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 ... ... ...
2Percent of GDP.
4See country-specific note for India in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
5Other Emerging and Developing Asia comprises Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Fiji, Kiribati, Lao P.D.R., Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
6Emerging Asia comprises the ASEAN-5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) economies, China, and India.

Annex Table 1.1.3. Western Hemisphere Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance, and Unemployment
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
North America 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 –2.3 –2.5 –2.9 ... ... ...
United States 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.1 –2.3 –2.5 –3.0 4.4 3.8 3.5
Canada 3.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.6 2.2 –2.9 –3.0 –2.5 6.3 6.1 6.2
Mexico 2.0 2.2 2.5 6.0 4.8 3.6 –1.7 –1.3 –1.3 3.4 3.5 3.5
Puerto Rico4 –2.4 –2.3 –1.1 1.8 2.7 1.2 ... ... ... 10.8 11.0 11.0
South America5 0.7 0.6 1.9 6.4 6.9 7.1 –1.4 –1.6 –1.8 ... ... ...
Brazil 1.0 1.4 2.4 3.4 3.7 4.2 –0.5 –1.3 –1.6 12.8 11.8 10.7
Argentina 2.9 –2.6 –1.6 25.7 31.8 31.7 –4.9 –3.7 –3.2 8.4 8.9 9.4
Colombia 1.8 2.8 3.6 4.3 3.2 3.4 –3.3 –2.4 –2.4 9.3 9.2 9.1
Venezuela –14.0 –18.0 –5.0 1,087.5 1,370,000.0 10,000,000.0 2.0 6.1 4.0 27.1 34.3 38.0
Chile 1.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.4 3.0 –1.5 –2.5 –2.7 6.7 6.9 6.5
Peru 2.5 4.1 4.1 2.8 1.4 2.0 –1.1 –1.8 –2.2 6.9 6.9 6.8
Ecuador 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 –0.2 0.5 –0.3 –0.5 0.7 4.6 4.8 5.2
Bolivia 4.2 4.3 4.2 2.8 3.2 4.2 –6.3 –5.2 –5.1 4.0 4.0 4.0
Uruguay 2.7 2.0 3.2 6.2 7.6 6.7 1.5 0.9 0.2 7.6 7.9 7.6
Paraguay 4.8 4.4 4.2 3.6 4.2 4.0 –0.8 –1.3 –0.9 5.7 5.7 5.7
Central America6 3.7 2.8 3.8 2.6 3.0 3.4 –2.0 –3.2 –3.2 ... ... ...
Caribbean7 2.6 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 –0.9 –1.6 –1.7 ... ... ...
Memorandum
Latin America and the Caribbean8 1.3 1.2 2.2 6.0 6.1 5.9 –1.5 –1.6 –1.8 ... ... ...
East Caribbean Currency Union9 1.8 2.0 3.8 1.1 1.7 1.8 –8.0 –11.6 –10.2 ... ... ...
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages. Aggregates exclude Venezuela, but include Argentina starting from 2017 onward. Year-end to year-end
changes can be found in Tables A6 and A7 in the Statistical Appendix.

2Percent of GDP.
4Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States but its statistical data are maintained on a separate and independent basis.
5Includes Guyana and Suriname. See country-specific notes for Argentina and Venezuela in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
6Central America comprises Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
7The Caribbean comprises Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.

8Latin America and the Caribbean comprises Mexico and economies from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. See country-specific notes for Argentina and
Venezuela in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.

9Eastern Caribbean Currency Union comprises Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines as well as
Anguilla and Montserrat, which are not IMF members.

Annex Table 1.1.4. Commonwealth of Independent States Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account
Balance, and Unemployment
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Commonwealth of Independent States4 2.1 2.3 2.4 5.5 4.5 5.7 1.1 4.1 3.3 ... ... ...
Net Energy Exporters 2.0 2.1 2.2 4.8 4.0 5.6 1.6 5.1 4.3 ... ... ...
Russia 1.5 1.7 1.8 3.7 2.8 5.1 2.2 6.2 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.3
Kazakhstan 4.0 3.7 3.1 7.4 6.4 5.6 –3.4 –0.2 0.2 5.0 5.0 5.0
Uzbekistan 5.3 5.0 5.0 12.5 19.2 14.9 3.5 –0.5 –1.5 ... ... ...
Azerbaijan 0.1 1.3 3.6 13.0 3.5 3.3 4.1 6.6 8.1 5.0 5.0 5.0
Turkmenistan 6.5 6.2 5.6 8.0 9.4 8.2 –11.5 –8.2 –6.4 ... ... ...
Net Energy Importers 3.2 3.9 3.2 10.2 7.9 6.2 –2.6 –4.1 –4.8 ... ... ...
Ukraine 2.5 3.5 2.7 14.4 10.9 7.3 –1.9 –3.1 –3.9 9.2 9.4 9.2
Belarus 2.4 4.0 3.1 6.0 5.5 5.5 –1.7 –2.5 –4.2 0.8 0.8 0.8
Georgia 5.0 5.5 4.8 6.0 2.8 2.7 –8.9 –10.5 –10.2 ... ... ...
Armenia 7.5 6.0 4.8 0.9 3.0 4.4 –2.8 –3.8 –3.8 18.9 18.9 18.6
Tajikistan 7.1 5.0 5.0 7.3 5.8 5.5 –0.5 –4.7 –4.3 ... ... ...
Kyrgyz Republic 4.6 2.8 4.5 3.2 2.9 4.6 –4.0 –12.3 –11.8 7.1 7.0 7.0
Moldova 4.5 3.8 3.8 6.6 3.6 4.9 –6.3 –7.4 –6.3 4.1 4.1 4.0
Memorandum
Caucasus and Central Asia5 4.1 4.0 4.0 9.0 8.4 7.2 –2.5 –1.3 –0.8 ... ... ...
Low-Income CIS Countries6 5.5 4.9 4.9 9.5 12.8 10.7 –0.9 –4.6 –4.7 ... ... ...
Net Energy Exporters Excluding Russia 3.9 3.8 3.9 9.6 9.2 7.7 –2.2 –0.3 0.1 ... ... ...
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages. Year-end to year-end changes can be found in Table A7 in the Statistical Appendix.
2Percent of GDP.
4Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), are included in this group for reasons of geography and
similarity in economic structure.

5Caucasus and Central Asia comprises Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
6Low-Income CIS countries comprise Armenia, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Annex Table 1.1.5. Middle East, North African Economies, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current
Account Balance, and Unemployment
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan 2.2 2.4 2.7 6.4 10.8 10.2 –0.7 1.8 1.9 ... ... ...
Oil Exporters4 1.2 1.4 2.0 3.6 9.8 9.9 1.6 4.7 4.8 ... ... ...
Saudi Arabia –0.9 2.2 2.4 –0.9 2.6 2.0 2.2 8.4 8.8 6.0 ... ...
Iran 3.7 –1.5 –3.6 9.6 29.6 34.1 2.2 1.3 0.3 11.8 12.8 14.3
United Arab Emirates 0.8 2.9 3.7 2.0 3.5 1.9 6.9 7.2 7.5 ... ... ...
Algeria 1.4 2.5 2.7 5.6 6.5 6.7 –13.2 –9.0 –7.9 11.7 11.6 12.3
Iraq –2.1 1.5 6.5 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 6.9 3.1 ... ... ...
Qatar 1.6 2.7 2.8 0.4 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.8 6.6 ... ... ...
Kuwait –3.3 2.3 4.1 1.5 0.8 3.0 5.9 11.3 11.0 1.1 1.1 1.1
Oil Importers5 4.1 4.5 4.0 12.4 12.9 10.8 –6.6 –6.5 –6.1 ... ... ...
Egypt 4.2 5.3 5.5 23.5 20.9 14.0 –6.3 –2.6 –2.4 12.2 10.9 9.9
Pakistan 5.4 5.8 4.0 4.1 3.9 7.5 –4.1 –5.9 –5.3 6.0 6.1 6.1
Morocco 4.1 3.2 3.2 0.8 2.4 1.4 –3.6 –4.3 –4.5 10.2 9.5 9.2
Sudan 1.4 –2.3 –1.9 32.4 61.8 49.2 –10.5 –14.2 –13.1 19.6 19.5 19.6
Tunisia 2.0 2.4 2.9 5.3 8.1 7.5 –10.5 –9.6 –8.5 15.5 15.2 15.0
Lebanon 1.5 1.0 1.4 4.5 6.5 3.5 –22.8 –25.6 –25.5 ... ... ...
Jordan 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.3 4.5 2.3 –10.6 –9.6 –8.6 18.3 ... ...
Memorandum
Middle East and North Africa 1.8 2.0 2.5 6.7 11.8 10.6 –0.3 2.6 2.6 ... ... ...
Israel6 3.3 3.6 3.5 0.2 0.9 1.3 2.9 2.3 2.3 4.2 3.9 3.9
Maghreb7 5.6 3.2 3.4 5.3 6.7 6.0 –8.0 –6.6 –5.8 ... ... ...
Mashreq8 3.9 4.8 5.0 20.8 18.8 12.6 –9.5 –7.2 –6.6 ... ... ...
2Percent of GDP.
4Includes Bahrain, Libya, Oman, and Yemen.
5Includes Afghanistan, Djibouti, Mauritania, and Somalia. Excludes Syria because of the uncertain political situation.
6Israel, which is not a member of the economic region, is included for reasons of geography but is not included in the regional aggregates.
7The Maghreb comprises Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia.
8The Mashreq comprises Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Syria is excluded because of the uncertain political situation.

Annex Table 1.1.6. Sub-Saharan African Economies: Real GDP, Consumer Prices, Current Account Balance, and Unemployment
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Sub-Saharan Africa 2.7 3.1 3.8 11.0 8.6 8.5 –2.3 –2.8 –3.4 ... ... ...
Oil Exporters4 0.0 1.4 2.3 18.2 13.4 13.5 1.1 0.9 0.5 ... ... ...
Nigeria 0.8 1.9 2.3 16.5 12.4 13.5 2.8 2.0 1.0 16.5 ... ...
Angola –2.5 –0.1 3.1 29.8 20.5 15.8 –1.0 –2.1 –1.9 ... ... ...
Gabon 0.5 2.0 3.4 2.7 2.8 2.5 –4.9 –1.6 –0.5 ... ... ...
Chad –3.1 3.5 3.6 –0.9 2.1 2.6 –5.7 –4.2 –5.5 ... ... ...
Republic of Congo –3.1 2.0 3.7 0.5 1.2 2.0 –12.9 9.1 12.4 ... ... ...
Middle-Income Countries5 3.1 2.7 3.3 5.1 4.7 4.9 –2.6 –3.4 –3.6 ... ... ...
South Africa 1.3 0.8 1.4 5.3 4.8 5.3 –2.5 –3.2 –3.5 27.5 27.9 28.3
Ghana 8.4 6.3 7.6 12.4 9.5 8.0 –4.5 –4.1 –4.0 ... ... ...
Côte d’Ivoire 7.8 7.4 7.0 0.8 1.7 2.0 –4.6 –4.6 –4.2 ... ... ...
Cameroon 3.5 3.8 4.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 –2.7 –3.2 –3.0 ... ... ...
Zambia 3.4 3.8 4.5 6.6 8.5 8.2 –3.9 –4.0 –3.4 ... ... ...
Senegal 7.2 7.0 6.7 1.3 0.4 0.9 –7.3 –7.7 –7.1 ... ... ...
Low-Income Countries6 6.1 5.7 6.2 8.9 7.3 6.6 –6.3 –6.7 –7.8 ... ... ...
Ethiopia 10.9 7.5 8.5 9.9 12.7 9.5 –8.1 –6.2 –6.2 ... ... ...
Kenya 4.9 6.0 6.1 8.0 5.0 5.6 –6.3 –5.6 –5.3 ... ... ...
Tanzania 6.0 5.8 6.6 5.3 3.8 4.7 –2.8 –4.3 –5.5 ... ... ...
Uganda 4.8 5.9 6.1 5.6 3.8 4.2 –4.6 –6.9 –8.9 ... ... ...
Madagascar 4.2 5.0 5.4 8.3 7.8 7.2 –0.3 –2.2 –3.4 ... ... ...
Democratic Republic of the Congo 3.4 3.8 4.1 41.5 23.0 13.5 –0.5 0.0 –1.8 ... ... ...
Memorandum
Sub-Saharan Africa Excluding
South Sudan 2.8 3.1 3.8 10.4 8.3 8.2 –2.3 –2.8 –3.4 ... ... ...
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages. Year-end to year-end changes can be found in Table A7 in the Statistical Appendix.
2Percent of GDP.
4Includes Equatorial Guinea and South Sudan.
5Includes Botswana, Cabo Verde, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mauritius, Namibia, and Seychelles.
6Includes Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Comoros, Eritrea, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger,
Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Zimbabwe.

Annex Table 1.1.7. Summary of World Real per Capita Output

(Annual percent change; in international currency at purchasing power parity)
Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
World 2.4 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4
Advanced Economies 1.1 2.5 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.1
United States 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.7 2.1 0.8 1.5 2.2 1.9 0.7
Euro Area1 1.0 1.8 1.3 –1.1 –0.5 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.3
Germany 0.9 4.2 3.7 0.5 0.3 1.8 0.6 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.2
France 0.8 1.5 1.7 –0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.2
Italy 0.1 1.2 0.2 –3.2 –2.3 –0.3 0.9 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.7
Spain 1.3 –0.4 –1.4 –3.0 –1.3 1.7 3.7 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.3 1.8
Japan 0.4 4.2 –0.3 1.7 2.2 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.4 1.3 0.9
United Kingdom 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.2
Canada 1.0 1.9 2.1 0.6 1.3 1.7 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.9 1.1 0.7
Other Advanced Economies2 2.6 5.0 2.5 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6
Emerging Market and Developing
Economies 4.4 5.9 4.9 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.6
Commonwealth of Independent
States 5.9 4.3 4.7 3.2 2.0 1.4 –2.5 0.0 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.9
Russia 5.7 4.5 5.0 3.6 1.7 0.6 –2.6 –0.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.4
CIS Excluding Russia 7.0 4.3 4.7 2.7 3.4 2.6 –1.7 1.0 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.5
Emerging and Developing Asia 6.9 8.5 6.7 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.2
China 9.6 10.1 9.0 7.4 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.1 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.5
India3 5.2 8.7 5.2 4.1 5.0 6.0 6.8 5.7 5.3 5.9 6.0 6.3
ASEAN-54 3.6 5.5 3.2 4.7 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1
Emerging and Developing Europe 3.5 3.7 6.2 2.0 4.3 3.5 4.3 2.8 5.5 3.2 1.5 2.3
Latin America and the Caribbean 1.6 4.8 3.4 1.7 1.7 0.2 –0.9 –1.8 0.2 0.3 1.4 2.0
Brazil 2.1 6.5 3.0 1.0 2.1 –0.4 –4.3 –4.2 0.2 0.7 1.7 1.6
Mexico 0.2 3.8 2.4 2.4 0.2 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.1
Middle East, North Africa,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan 1.9 2.3 3.9 0.6 0.0 –0.1 0.3 2.9 –0.5 0.4 0.7 1.1
Saudi Arabia 0.5 1.6 6.8 2.5 –0.1 1.1 3.3 –0.7 –3.3 0.2 0.4 0.3
Sub-Saharan Africa 2.7 4.3 2.4 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.6 –1.3 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.5
Nigeria 5.4 8.3 2.1 1.5 2.6 3.5 –0.1 –4.2 –1.9 –0.8 –0.5 –0.3
South Africa 2.3 1.6 1.8 0.7 1.0 0.3 –0.3 –1.0 –0.3 –0.8 –0.2 0.2
Memorandum
European Union 1.4 1.8 1.5 –0.6 0.1 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.5
Low-Income Developing Countries 3.7 5.0 3.5 1.6 3.7 3.8 2.3 1.2 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.2
1Data calculated as the sum of individual euro area countries.
2Excludes the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) and euro area countries.
3See country-specific note for India in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.

References Díez, Federico, Daniel Leigh, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai.

Aghion, Philippe, Nick Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Grif- 2018. “Global Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Impli-
fith, and Peter Howitt. 2005. “Competition and Innovation: cations.” IMF Working Paper 18/137, International Monetary
An Inverted-U Relationship.” Quarterly Journal of Economics Fund, Washington, DC.
120 (2): 701–28. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. “Petroleum,
Autor, David, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Pat- Natural Gas, and Coal Still Dominate US Energy Consump-
terson, and John van Reenen. 2017. “The Fall of the Labor tion.” EIA, Washington, DC. Accessed August 23.
Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms.” NBER Working Ergungor, O. Emre. 2016. “Recession Probabilities.” Economic
Paper 23396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Commentary 2016–09.
Cambridge, MA. Estrella, Arturo, and Frederic S. Mishkin. 1998. “Predicting US
Baker, Scott, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven Davis. 2016. “Mea- Recessions: Financial Variables as Leading Indicators.” Review
suring Economic Policy Uncertainty.” Quarterly Journal of of Economics and Statistics 80 (1): 45–61.
Economics 131 (4): 1593–636. Farrell, M. J. 1954. “The Demand for Motor-Cars in the United
Barro, Robert J., and Tao Jin. 2011. “On the Size Distri- States.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 117 (2): 171–201.
bution of Macroeconomic Disasters.” Econometrica 79 Fell, Michael James. 2017. “Energy Services: A Concep-
(5): 1567–89. tual Review.” Energy Research and Social Science 27
Barro, Robert J., and Jose F. Ursua. 2008. “Macroeconomic (May): 129–40.
Crises since 1870.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 39 Gertler, Paul J., Orie Shelef, Catherine D. Wolfram, and Alan
(1): 255–350. Fuchs. 2016. “The Demand for Energy-Using Assets among
Baumeister, Christiane, and James D. Hamilton. 2015. “Sign the World’s Rising Middle Classes.” American Economic
Restrictions, Structural Vector Autoregressions, and Useful Review 106 (6): 1366–401.
Prior Information.” Econometrica 83 (5): 1963–99. Gobat, Jeanne, and Kristina Kostial. 2016. “Syria’s Conflict
Becker, Torbjörn, and Paolo Mauro. 2006. “Output Drops and Economy.” IMF Working Paper 16/123, International Mone-
the Shocks That Matter.” IMF Working Paper 06/172, Inter- tary Fund, Washington, DC.
national Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Goldman Sachs. 2015. “The Low Carbon Economy.” Goldman
Berge, Travis J., and Òscar Jordà. 2011. “Future Recession Sachs Equity Research. https://www.goldmansachs.com/
Risks: An Update.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco insights/pages/new-energy-landscape-folder/report-the-low
Economic Letter 35. -carbon-economy/report.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2017.
Bluedorn, John C., Jörg Decressin, and Marco E. Terrones. Greening, Lorna A., David L. Greene, and Carmen Difiglio.
2016. “Do Asset Price Drops Foreshadow Recessions?” Inter- 2000. “Energy Efficiency and Consumption—The Rebound
national Journal of Forecasting 32 (2): 518–26. Effect—A Survey.” Energy Policy 28 (6–7): 389–401.
Caldara, Dario, and Matteo Iacoviello. 2018. “Measuring Gruss, Bertrand. 2014. “After the Boom—Commodity Prices
Geopolitical Risk.” Working Paper, Board of Governors of the and Economic Growth in Latin America and the Carib-
Federal Reserve Board, January. bean.” IMF Working Paper 14/154, International Monetary
Collier, Paul, and Anthony J. Venables. 2012. “Greening Africa? Fund, Washington, DC.
Technologies, Endowments and the Latecomer Effect.” Energy Gutiérrez, Germán, and Thomas Philippon. 2017. “Declining
Economics 34: S75–S84. Competition and Investment in the US.” NBER Work-
Dargay, Joyce, and Dermot Gately. 1999. “Income’s ing Paper 23583, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Effect on Car and Vehicle Ownership, Worldwide: Cambridge, MA.
1960–2015.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Hall, Robert E., and Charles I. Jones. 1999. “Why Do Some
Practice 33 (2): 101–38. Countries Produce So Much More Output per Worker Than
Dargay, Joyce, Dermot Gately, and Martin Sommer. 2007. Others?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (1): 83–116.
“Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth, Worldwide: Hamilton, James D. 2009. “Understanding Crude Oil Prices.”
1960–2030.” Energy Journal 28 (4): 143–170. Energy Journal 30 (2): 179–206.
De Loecker, Jan, and Jan Eeckhout. 2017. “The Rise of Market Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014.
Power and the Macroeconomic Implications.” NBER Work- “Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.” Contribution
ing Paper 23687, National Bureau of Economic Research, of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment
Cambridge, MA. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
———. 2018. “Global Market Power.” NBER Working Geneva: IPCC.
Paper 24768, National Bureau of Economic Research, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2017.
Cambridge, MA. Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Markets to 2030.
De Loecker, Jan, and Frederic Warzynski. 2012. “Markups and Abu Dhabi: IRENA. http://www.irena.org/publications/2017/
Firm-Level Export Status.” American Economic Review 102 Oct/Electricity-storage-and-renewables-costs-and-markets.
(6): 2437–71. Accessed December 10.

Jevons, William Stanley. 1865. The Coal Question: An Sorrell, Steve. 2009. “Jevons’ Paradox Revisited: The Evidence
Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the for Backfire from Improved Energy Efficiency.” Energy Policy
Probable Exhaustion of the Coal-Mines. London and New 37 (4): 1456–69.
York: Macmillan. Stern, Nicholas. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The
Levanon, Gad. 2011. “Forecasting Recession and Slow-Down Stern Review. London: HM Treasury.
Probabilities with Markov Switching Probabilities as Stock, James H., and Mark W. Watson. 2003. “Forecasting
Right-Hand-Side Variables.” Business Economics 46 (2): 99–110. Output and Inflation: The Role of Asset Prices.” Journal of
Liu, Weiling, and Emanuel Moench. 2014. “What Predicts US Economic Literature 41 (3): 788–829.
Recessions?” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report United Nations (UN). 2017. “World Population Prospects: The
691, September. 2017 Revision.” DVD edition. United Nations, Department of
Medlock, Kenneth B., and Ronald Soligo. 2001. “Economic Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York.
Development and End-Use Energy Demand.” Energy Journal van Benthem, Arthur A. 2015. “Energy Leapfrogging.” Journal
22 (2): 77–105. of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 2
Nakamura, Emi, Jón Steinsson, Robert J. Barro, and José Ursua. (1): 93–132.
2013. “Crises and Recoveries in an Empirical Model of Con- Wolfram, Catherine, Orie Shelef, and Paul J. Gertler. 2012.
sumption Disasters.” American Economic Journal: Macroeco- “How Will Energy Demand Develop in the Developing
nomics 5 (3): 35–74. World?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (1): 119–38.
Ng, Serena. 2014. “Boosting Recessions. Canadian Journal of World Bank (WB). 2017. The Toll of War: The Economic and
Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique 47 (1): 1–34. Social Consequences of the Conflict in Syria. Washington,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DC: World Bank.
(OECD). 2014. “Long-Term Baseline Projections.” 95 Zhang, Sufang, Philip Andrews-Speed, Xiaoli Zhao, and
(Edition 2014). OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Yongxiu He. 2013. “Interactions between Renewable Energy
Projections (database). https://doi.org/10.1787/eo-data-en. Policy and Renewable Energy Industrial Policy: A Critical
Silva, J. M. C. Santos, and Silvana Tenreyro. 2006. “The Log of Analysis of China’s Policy Approach to Renewable Energies.”
Gravity.” Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 641–58. Energy Policy 62 (November): 342–53.

This page intentionally left blank

2
CHAPTER
THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY 10 YEARS AFTER
THE 2008 FINANCIAL MELTDOWN
This chapter takes stock of the global economic recovery a ing panic—marked by distressed asset sales, deposit
decade after the 2008 financial crisis. Output losses after withdrawals from banks and money market funds,
the crisis appear to be persistent, irrespective of whether and the freezing of credit—triggered a collapse in
a country suffered a banking crisis in 2007–08. Sluggish cross-border trade and led to the worst global recession
investment was a key channel through which these losses in seven decades.
registered, accompanied by long-lasting capital and total Ten years later, the sequence of aftershocks and
factor productivity shortfalls relative to precrisis trends. policy responses that followed the Lehman bankruptcy
Policy choices preceding the crisis and in its immedi- has led to a world economy in which the median
ate aftermath influenced postcrisis variation in output. general government debt-GDP ratio stands at 52 per-
Underscoring the importance of macroprudential policies cent, up from 36 percent before the crisis; central bank
and effective supervision, countries with greater finan- balance sheets, particularly in advanced economies,
cial vulnerabilities in the precrisis years suffered larger are several multiples of the size they were before the
output losses after the crisis. Countries with stronger crisis; and emerging market and developing econo-
precrisis fiscal positions and those with more flexible mies now account for 60 percent of global GDP in
exchange rate regimes experienced smaller losses. Unprec- purchasing-power-parity terms (compared with 44 per-
edented and exceptional policy actions taken after the cent in the decade before the crisis), reflecting, in part,
crisis helped mitigate countries’ postcrisis output losses. a weak recovery in advanced economies.
Against this backdrop, this chapter takes stock of the
global economic recovery 10 years after the financial
Introduction meltdown of 2008 and the policy lessons that can help
Over the weekend of September 13–14, 2008, two prepare for the next downturn. Specifically, the chapter
large US financial institutions teetered close to failure addresses the following questions:
while a third urgently sought a buyer to avoid that same • Compared with precrisis trends, how did output
fate. By Sunday night that weekend, Merrill Lynch was evolve across countries in the aftermath of the crisis?
acquired by Bank of America. Insurance giant AIG still • How did the associated components—capital, labor
desperately pursued credit lines, just days away from a inputs, total factor productivity (TFP)—advance
ratings downgrade that looked likely to push it over the after the crisis? What does this decomposition show
edge. And in the early hours of Monday, September 15, about why it took a long time for output in many
2008, the investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for economies to return to its precrisis level?
bankruptcy, brought down largely by its exposure to a • Even as the world economy experienced its worst
US housing market in deep decline. slump in seven decades, postcrisis macroeconomic
The post-Lehman scramble for liquidity in global performance varied across countries. What accounts
markets heralded the most acute phase of the financial for this variation? Which policies and structural attri-
turmoil that, by then, had been brewing in the United butes helped limit the damage and facilitate recovery?
States and Europe close to 18 months.1 The ensu-
The chapter uses a sample of 180 countries—
The authors of this chapter are Wenjie Chen, Mico Mrkaic, covering advanced, emerging market, and low-income
and Malhar Nabar (lead), with contributions from Deniz Igan,
Christopher Johns, and Yuan Zeng, and supported by Luisa Calixto,
Meron Haile, and Benjamin Hilgenstock. mortgage-related hedge funds associated with Bear Sterns (June
1Identifying a precise starting point for the timeline—the “patient 2007) and BNP Paribas (August 2007); the United Kingdom’s first
zero” of the epidemic—is difficult. This chapter takes the April bank run since the 19th century, on Northern Rock (September
2007 collapse of subprime mortgage lender New Century Finan- 2007); the failure of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial (Jan-
cial as the first major distress sign following the mid-2006 turn in uary 2008); JPMorgan’s acquisition of Bear Sterns with US Federal
the US housing market. Key markers of financial stress over the Reserve support (March 2008); and the US government’s takeover of
subsequent 18 months include the suspension of redemptions from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (September 2008).

developing economies—to quantify output losses, • Financial: Underscoring the importance of macro
explore the precrisis correlates of postcrisis variation prudential policies and effective supervision, the
in output performance, and examine whether actions analysis finds that countries in which financial
taken in the immediate aftermath of the crisis are vulnerabilities had accumulated to a larger degree
associated with limiting output losses over the medium in the precrisis years suffered greater output losses
term (2015–17). Previous World Economic Outlook after the crisis. In the years running up to the crisis,
(WEO) analysis (October 2009) examines output per- countries with larger excess current account deficits
formance after an earlier set of financial crises during and those with more rapid credit growth found
1970–2002. The current chapter builds on that by that constraints bound relatively more strongly
zeroing in on the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. when financial conditions tightened after the crisis.
An important consideration when comparing pre- Stricter banking regulation (proxied by an index of
and postcrisis output patterns is the extent to which restrictions on certain aspects of bank activity) in
precrisis growth was fueled by excessive credit growth the precrisis years is associated with a lower proba-
and unsustainable investment that had to be worked off. bility of a banking crisis in 2007–08.
A related issue is whether structural change unrelated • Policy constraints and frameworks: The evidence
to the crisis may have affected trend growth over time suggests that countries with stronger precrisis fiscal
in some countries (specifically, whether some coun- positions experienced smaller output losses in the
tries experienced temporarily elevated potential growth aftermath. The analysis also finds that flexible
rates before the crisis that subsequently reverted to the exchange rate regimes helped lessen GDP damages.
long-term average). As discussed in the next section, the • Postcrisis actions: Several countries took unprece-
analysis attempts to adjust precrisis trends for the influ- dented and exceptional policy actions to support
ence of factors, such as credit growth, that may affect the their economies after the 2008 financial meltdown.
path of output beyond the influence of typical demand The chapter finds that these actions (specifically,
fluctuations. Even with this correction, for some coun- quasi-fiscal measures to support the financial sector,
tries, the output deviations from precrisis trends may still including guarantees and capital injections) helped
capture the effect of slow-moving structural changes in temper postcrisis output losses.
trend growth rates over time. Nonetheless, the chapter’s
cross-country analysis—comparing countries that expe- Some of these factors appear to be particularly
rienced banking crises in 2007–08 with those that did relevant for the euro area. The 2008 financial crisis
not, as well as across income levels—can help identify exposed thin buffers in some member economies and
precrisis drivers of postcrisis output deviations. gaps in the architecture of the currency union. The
Among the main findings of the analysis are that interaction of domestic and area-level factors exacer-
output losses appear to be persistent and not restricted bated adjustment difficulties in the euro area follow-
to countries that suffered a banking crisis in 2007–08. ing the 2008 shock and gave rise to an intensifying
Sluggish investment appears to be a key channel sovereign debt crisis during 2010–12, which spurred
through which these losses registered, with associated efforts to strengthen the architecture of the currency
long-lasting capital and TFP shortfalls relative to their union (IMF 2012, 2013a; Allard and others 2013;
precrisis trends. Consistent with these TFP shortfalls, Goyal and others 2013; Berger, Dell’Ariccia, and
research and development expenditure and technol- Obstfeld 2018). In contrast to the 2009 shock, euro
ogy adoption appear to have increased more slowly area countries hit by the sovereign crisis were not in
in countries that suffered larger output losses. The a position to use expansionary fiscal policy to counter
findings are similar to those of recent papers showing the “sudden stop.” Rather, they needed to reduce
that output tends to stay below previous trends after their fiscal deficits to regain creditors’ confidence
crises and recessions (for example Cerra and Saxena and contain sovereign borrowing costs. In the event,
2008, 2017; Blanchard, Cerutti, and Summers 2015; the contractionary effect of this fiscal tightening was
and Aslam and others, forthcoming). larger than anticipated at the time (Blanchard and
The analysis finds that policy choices leading up to Leigh 2013; IMF 2013b, 2015).
the crisis and in its immediate aftermath influenced The next section quantifies the losses in output and
postcrisis variations in output performance. These can discusses the channels through which they occurred.
be grouped into three categories. The subsequent section examines the policy and

CHAPTER 2 THE GLOBAL economic RECOVERY 10 YEARS AFTER the 2008 FINANCIAL MELTDOWN
structural attributes that, in part, account for variation Figure 2.1. Correlation of GDP Deviations between Periods
in postcrisis output. The main takeaways are summa- (Percent)
rized in the conclusion.
Postcrisis performance is persistent, with a correlation coefficient between GDP
deviations for 2011–13 and 2015–17 of about 0.90.
Persistent Post–Global Financial Crisis
Deviations in Output 40
Following the global financial meltdown in late

2008, 91 economies, representing two-thirds of global 20
GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms, experienced
a decline in output in 2009. By way of comparison, 0
during the 1982 global recession, 48 economies,
accounting for 46 percent of world GDP, registered
2015–17
–20
output declines compared with the previous year.
To get a sense of the long-lasting changes in output
after the 2008 crisis, this chapter measures postcrisis –40
deviations of output from the level that would have
prevailed had output followed its pre‑2009 trend –60
growth rate (Ball 2014). Considering that generally
accommodative financial conditions likely contrib-
–80
uted to unsustainable growth in many countries prior –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30
to 2008, it is important to adjust for these influ- 2011–13
ences when estimating an underlying trend path for

output as the benchmark for comparison (Online Note: GDP deviations are average percent deviations from precrisis trend.
Annex 2.2.B).2,3 Nevertheless, despite this adjustment,
in some cases, the measured output deviations may
include country-specific changes in trend growth rates
The post-2008 output deviations exhibit strong
that are unrelated to the crisis. Consider the world’s two
persistence over time (Figure 2.1).5 A second note-
largest economies, for example. In the United States, a
worthy aspect is that economies with larger output
slowdown in total productivity growth that predates the
and employment losses in the initial aftermath of the
2008 crisis has contributed to lower potential growth
crisis registered greater increases in income inequality
over time (Fernald 2015; Adler and others 2017).
compared with their precrisis average (Figure 2.2).6
China’s economy has experienced major structural shifts
These developments help shed light on the lingering
that span the 2008 crisis and an associated transition
sense of subpar economic performance in many econ-
to slower, albeit still-robust, growth—an example
omies and concerns about a “new mediocre” (Lagarde
of a more general phenomenon of changes in trend
2014, 2016). They may also hold clues to the disen-
growth rates documented by Pritchett and Summers
chantment with existing institutions and establishment
(2013). Given these developments (and possibly similar
political parties, and the growing appeal of protection-
underlying shifts over this period in trend growth rates
ism (Lipton 2018).
in other countries), comparisons of current GDP with
precrisis outcomes must be careful to avoid attributing
all of the observed changes to the 2008 crisis.4
2All annexes are available online at www.imf.org/en/Publications/ 5The correlation coefficient between GDP deviations for 2011–13
WEO. and 2015–17 is about 0.90. As shown in Online Annex Figure 2.2.4,

3Online Annex 2.2.B discusses the differences between the chap- the output deviations close to a decade after the 2008 crisis are more
ter’s approach and the standard filtering approach used for separating skewed toward losses than those registered at a similar interval after
output into trend and business cycle components. the 1982 global recession.
4For the United States, for example, there is a range of estimates 6Employment losses are measured as the gap between the number
regarding the postcrisis output loss due to the 2008 financial crisis of employed workers and the number consistent with employment
versus those related to changes in potential output growth already growing at the same rate during the postcrisis period as the economi-
underway prior to the crisis (see CBO 2014; Hall 2014; and cally active cohort between the ages of 15 and 65 (Schanzenbach and
Barnichon, Matthes, and Ziegenbein 2018). others 2017; see Online Annex 2.2.B).

Figure 2.2. Postcrisis Change in Inequality Figure 2.3. Postcrisis Output Deviations from Precrisis Trend,
2015–17
Economies with larger output and employment losses in the initial aftermath of the (Kernel density)
crisis registered greater increases in income inequality compared with the
precrisis average.
Output losses are persistent for a variety of economies, not just those that suffered
a systemic banking crisis in 2007–08.
8 1. Output Deviations
Average change in Gini coefficient
6 Banking crisis No banking crisis

0.05
4
2
0 0.04
–2
–4
–6 0.03
–8
–30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30
Percent deviations from precrisis trend
0.02
8 2. Employment Deviations
Average change in Gini coefficient
6 0.01
4
2
0 0.00
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20
–2
–4 Sources: Laeven and Valencia (2013); and IMF staff calculations.
–6 Note: Distribution of average percent deviations from precrisis trend, 2015–17.
See Online Annex Table 2.2.1 for banking crises country list.
–8
–20 –10 0 10 20
Percent deviations from precrisis trend
Sources: Standardized World Income Inequality Database (Solt 2016); and IMF for the list). Figure 2.3 summarizes the distribution of
staff calculations.
Note: The Gini coefficient is based on income before taxes and transfers and postcrisis output deviations from precrisis trends when
ranges from 0 to 100. The change in Gini coefficient is calculated as the difference deviations are averaged over 2015–17.
between the averages during 2005–08 and 2014–15. Movement from left to right
on the x-axis indicates less negative/more positive average deviations from
Among the 24 economies in the banking crisis
precrisis trend in 2011–13. group, about 85 percent still show negative devi-
ations from the pre-2009 trend a decade after the
2008 meltdown. In light of earlier evidence (see,
Output Remains below Precrisis Trend in More than for example, Abiad and others 2009; Chapter 4 of
60 Percent of Economies the April 2009 WEO; and Blanchard, Cerutti, and
Summers 2015), it is not surprising that economies
The deviations from pre-2009 trends are estimated
in the banking crisis group suffered persistent losses
for two broad samples of economies: those that experi-
thereafter. As Blanchard, Cerutti, and Summers
enced banking crises in 2007–08 (as defined in Laeven
(2015) show, recessions associated with financial
and Valencia 2013) and all other economies.7 Accord-
crises are more likely to lead to persistent shortfalls
ing to the Laeven-Valencia definition, there were bank-
in output relative to precrisis trends. Less credit
ing crises in 24 countries during 2007–08, 18 of which
intermediation—from a combination of supply and
were in advanced economies (see Online Annex 2.2.A
demand factors—is a significant channel (Bernanke
2018). On the supply side, impaired financial systems
7The Laeven-Valencia (2013) definition of a banking crisis is based cannot intermediate credit to the same extent as
on two criteria: significant financial distress (including bank runs before the crash, and postcrisis regulatory tightening
and liquidations) and significant government intervention in the
banking system (including recapitalization, liability guarantees, and
can also affect loan origination. In parallel with the
nationalization). supply disruptions, several factors may have held back

credit demand. These include weak growth expec- Figure 2.4. Postcrisis Output Deviations from Precrisis Trend
tations, impaired corporate and household balance by Country Group, 2015–17
(Kernel density)
sheets weighing on collateral quality, and an impera-
tive to rebuild net worth.
Postcrisis output deviations tend to be large across advanced economies,
However, Figure 2.3 shows the persistence of output emerging markets, and low-income developing countries, with relatively more
losses relative to precrisis trends for several econo- balanced gains and losses for noncommodity-exporting low-income developing
countries and emerging markets than for the other two groups.
mies, not just those that suffered a banking crisis in
2007–08 (consistent with Cerra and Saxena 2017 and AEs LIDC commodity exporters
Aslam and others, forthcoming, who find persistent EMs LIDC noncommodity exporters
0.05
losses associated with most recessions, not just those
associated with financial crises). In the group without
a banking crisis in 2007–08, output remains below 0.04
precrisis trends in about 60 percent of economies. A
possible channel—discussed later in the chapter—that
affected this group is weaker external demand from 0.03
trading partners that suffered banking crises, which
contributed to lower investment and associated capital
shortfalls (also see Candelon and others 2018). 0.02
Grouping the sample by advanced economies,
emerging markets, and low-income developing coun-
0.01
tries shows that output deviations tend to be large
across all groups (Figure 2.4). Output deviations are
relatively more balanced across gains and losses for
0.00
noncommodity-exporting (diversified) low-income –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40
developing countries and emerging market economies
than for the other two groups. More generally, the Source: IMF staff calculations.
Note: Distribution of average percent deviations from precrisis trend, 2015–17.
greater variability in output deviations across emerging AEs = advanced economies; EMs = emerging markets; LIDC = low-income
markets and low-income developing countries com- developing country. See Online Annex 2.1 for country groupings.
pared with advanced economies may reflect the variety
of forces acting on their growth processes, including
commodity price developments, export links to China, with weaker aggregate investment, as documented in
and receipt of outward investment from China (see Chapter 4 of the April 2015 WEO.9
also Aslam and others, forthcoming). Investment shortfalls may have resulted from a
lack of access to credit after the crisis, or from weak
expectations of future growth and profitability (the
Proximate Causes: Sluggish Investment, Capital, and latter view reprises the 1930s notion of secular
Total Factor Productivity Shortfalls stagnation—see Summers 2016 for a discussion; see
The persistence of output deviations suggests also Kozlowski, Veldkamp, and Venkateswaran 2017).
supply-side shifts in the factors of production. As A similar calculation for output, as described earlier in
shown in Online Annex Figure 2.2.3, deviations in this chapter, suggests shortfalls in investment relative
output per worker trace similar patterns to deviations to precrisis trends. Figure 2.5 shows the average across
in aggregate output, indicating that changes in labor all economies of deviations relative to precrisis trends.
input cannot account for the bulk of the observed By 2017, on average, investment was about 25 percent
output deviations.8 This similarity suggests shifts in below precrisis trend.
other factors of production associated, for instance,
9An important exception is China, where the investment share
of GDP rose from below 40 percent in precrisis years to almost

8Nevertheless, as noted in Box 2.1, postcrisis economic perfor- 50 percent after the crisis, driven by credit-fueled expansion of
mance appears to have had an impact on migration and fertility infrastructure, residential and commercial real estate, and corporate
decisions, with attendant implications for future labor input. capital expenditure.

Figure 2.5. Postcrisis Investment Deviations from Precrisis Figure 2.6. Postcrisis Capital Stock Deviations from Precrisis
Trend: Mean Trajectory Trend, 2015–17
(Percent) (Kernel density)
Investment dropped below precrisis trend during the crisis and deviated further in Close to 80 percent of economies that suffered a banking crisis in 2007–08
2012. By 2017, on average, investment was about 25 percent below precrisis experienced shortfalls in capital relative to precrisis trend. Among economies that
trend. did not suffer a banking crisis in 2007–08, about 65 percent appear to be
operating with capital stocks below precrisis trend.
Log investment Trend log investment
40 Banking crisis No banking crisis
0.04
20
0.03
0
–20
0.02
–40
0.01
–60
–80
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 17 0.00
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40
Note: 2008 log investment normalized to zero. Sources: Laeven and Valencia (2013); and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Distribution of average percent deviations from precrisis trend, 2015–17.
See Online Annex Table 2.2.1 for banking crises country list.
Two important consequences of sluggish invest-

ment that may hold clues to why the recovery path.10 At the sectoral level, these capital shortfalls
appears to have been so slow, are shortfalls in the are widespread, extending beyond the construction
capital stock and, to the extent technology is embed- sector, which underwent a needed correction after the
ded in machinery, slower technology adoption. A precrisis boom (Online Annex Figure 2.2.5).
useful way to see this is to decompose the deviations A second possible consequence of sluggish investment
in output per worker from precrisis trends into devi- is slow technology adoption—to the extent that new
ations in capital stock per worker and residual TFP technologies are embodied in equipment. The growth
deviations. A caveat here is that, even though TFP, in accounting approach attributes a significant role to the
principle, reflects both technology and the efficiency residual (TFP) component of deviations from precri-
of combining inputs, in practice it also reflects sis trend in output per worker once the influence of
measurement error in the factors of production deviations in capital per worker is taken into account
and changes in capacity utilization. Evidence from (Figure 2.7). These estimated deviations in TFP from
standard growth accounting techniques (described precrisis trends are consistent with evidence of wide-
in Online Annex 2.2.B and summarized in Fig- spread postcrisis deceleration in TFP growth discussed in
ure 2.6) suggests that there are large capital shortfalls Adler and others (2017). As reported in Table 2.1, the
relative to precrisis trends. Close to 80 percent of median share of output per worker deviation accounted
economies that suffered a banking crisis in 2007–08 for by TFP deviation is close to 80 percent for both
experienced shortfalls in capital relative to precrisis groups of economies. While the evidence points to the
trends. Among economies without a banking crisis in
2007–08, capital stocks of about 65 percent appear 10Online Annex 2.2.B shows that the distributions of capital stock
to be lower than they would be if capital accumu- deviations are not distinguishable across the two groups in a statisti-
lation had followed the extrapolated precrisis trend cal sense, while those of output and TFP are.

Figure 2.7. Postcrisis Total Factor Productivity Deviations Table 2.1. Total Factor Productivity Deviations
from Precrisis Trend, 2015–17 Account for a Large Share of GDP per Worker
(Kernel density) Deviations
(Percent)
Estimated deviations in TFP from precrisis trend are consistent with the evidence Median Share of GDP Deviation Accounted for by Deviation
of a widespread postcrisis deceleration in TFP growth. These TFP deviations in GDP per Worker, 2015–17
account for close to 80 percent of output per worker deviations for both groups of
economies, that is, those that suffered banking crises in 2007–08 and those that Countries without banking crisis in 2007–08 70.4
did not. 2007–08 banking crisis countries 80.5
Median Share of GDP per Worker Deviation Accounted for
Banking crisis No banking crisis by Total Factor Productivity, 2015–17
0.06 Countries without banking crisis in 2007–08 79.3
2007–08 banking crisis countries 78.2
0.05
Note: See Online Annex Table 2.2.1 for banking crises country list.
0.04
Further confirmation of slower innovation and
0.03 technology adoption among countries hit harder by the
crisis is seen through the example of industrial robots—
an observable and much-discussed class of automation
0.02
technology expected to replace human labor in an
increasing range of tasks. (Box 2.2 examines the postcri-
0.01 sis employment impact of industrial robots.)11
An inspection of the industrial robot data (Figure 2.9)
0.00 indicates that the average change in density—measured
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 as robot shipments per thousand hours worked—during
the postcrisis period was higher in countries that had
Sources: Laeven and Valencia (2013); and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Distribution of average percent deviations from precrisis trend, 2015–17. smaller postcrisis losses in output.
TFP = total factor productivity. See Online Annex Table 2.2.1 for banking crises As with the general measure of innovation (research
country list.
and development expenditure), the gap in changes in
robot density between high- and low-output-loss coun-
tries is higher among advanced economies than among
importance of TFP deviations in accounting for output
emerging markets. As part of the generalized slower
per worker deviations, the cross-country data do not
investment in the postcrisis period, robot adoption
permit a further separation of TFP deviations into those
may have been affected more negatively in countries
due to sluggish investment from those related to worsen-
hit harder by the crisis.12 This “suppressed-investment”
ing efficiency or other factors unrelated to investment.
Slower Technology Adoption

11As described in Online Annex 2.3.A, data from the International
The estimates of TFP deviation suggest that the
Federation of Robotics, which compiles information on worldwide
pace of technology adoption (and associated pace of shipment of robots, are used to examine the postcrisis diffusion of
upgrading of capital stock with embodied technology) automation technology. The data are reported at the level of indus-
may have slowed following the crisis. However, as tries for 75 countries extending back to 2004 (for some countries,
data are available going back to 1993).
noted above, TFP is an imperfect proxy for the pace of 12While there is possibly an element of reverse causality in these
technology adoption. A clearer picture emerges from correlations (lower robot investment contributed to higher output
examining variables directly associated with innovation loss), empirically, the magnitude of robot investment compared with
manufacturing output in the United States, for example, suggests
and technology adoption. Cross-country evidence on
that the effect of robot investment on manufacturing—as well as
a key innovation input—research and development aggregate—output is small. Based on US Bureau of Economic
spending—suggests that countries with above‑median Analysis data, the International Federation of Robotics (the data
output losses registered slower increases in research and source for robots used in the analysis) reports that the value of
industrial robot shipments to the United States as a share of US
development shares of GDP. This is especially evident gross manufacturing output ranged between 0.016 percent in 2002
among advanced economies (Figure 2.8). and 0.027 percent in 2016.

Figure 2.8. Changes in Research and Development Figure 2.9. Average Change in Robot Density, by Output
Expenditure, by Output Losses and Country Groups Losses and Country Groups, 2010–14
(Percent of GDP) (Robot shipment per 1,000 hours worked)
Countries with above-median output losses registered slower increases in The gap in changes in robot density between high and low loss countries is higher
research and development expenditure shares of GDP. This was especially evident among advanced economies than among emerging markets.
among advanced economies.
0.04
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.1
0.01
0.0
0.00
–0.1
–0.01
–0.2
–0.02
–0.3 High loss+ Low loss+ High loss Low loss
High loss Low loss High loss Low loss Advanced economies Emerging markets
Advanced economies Emerging markets
Sources: International Federation of Robotics; World Input-Output Database; and

Sources: World Bank, World Development Indicators database; and IMF staff IMF staff calculations.
calculations. Note: Robot density is defined as robot shipment/1,000 hours worked. The bar
Note: The bars depict the difference in averages between 2014–16 and 2011–13. chart shows the interquartile range, and lines display lesser of the maximum
The bar chart shows the interquartile range, and lines display lesser of the (minimum) and +/– 1.5 times the upper (lower) quartile range. High (low) loss
maximum (minimum) and +/– 1.5 times the upper (lower) quartile range. High indicates above (below) median losses in output relative to precrisis trend as
(low) loss indicates above (below) median losses in output relative to precrisis calculated in Online Annex 2.2.B.
trend as calculated in Online Annex 2.2.B. +
denotes differences in medians between high- and low-output loss samples
among advanced economies statistically significant at 10 percent. See Online
Annex 2.3 and Online Annex Table 2.3.2 for further details on data and estimation.
effect likely more than offset any tendency to automate in the buildup to the meltdown of 2008, policy choices
rather than rehire unemployed workers.13 in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, and structural
aspects may have also helped shape postcrisis variation
Policy Frameworks, Measures, and Postcrisis in output performance—in the first instance, by influ-
Output Performance encing countries’ vulnerability to the disruptive forces
the financial meltdown of 2008 unleashed, and subse-
A large number of economies registered output losses quently, by affecting the damage they experienced and
relative to precrisis trends, but the postcrisis experience their ability to recover.
varied by individual country. In part, this variation may Identifying why economies’ responses differed
reflect differences in the nature of the shock at the level can provide important lessons for the most effective
of individual countries. Some suffered severe banking policy responses. The exercise can also help shed light
crises as part of the global financial panic, while others on actions that may help limit damage and facilitate
were affected mostly through their trade and financial recovery in future downturns.
links to the first set of countries. But initial conditions
13Analysis at the industry-country level (Online Annex 2.3.B)

Empirical Approach
corroborates this finding. Industries in advanced economies that
suffered relatively bigger investment and TFP losses during the crisis The previous section noted the persistence of
experienced slower robot diffusion. output losses, with a strong correlation between GDP

deviations for 2011–13 and 2015–17. Understanding and central and eastern Europe, triggering a wave
the sources of variation in output performance during of defaults by overextended property developers and
2011–13 can therefore provide insight into output households unable to roll over their loans, which
patterns observed during 2015–17. further strained the balance sheets of European banks
As explained in Online Annex 2.2.C, the empirical already caught in the web of losses on US subprime
approach estimates cross-sectional regressions similar mortgage exposures. In the euro area, a debilitating
to those of other studies that have examined various nexus soon emerged between banks and sovereigns:
aspects of cross-country variation in the impact of taxpayer bailouts and guarantees of distressed banks
the global financial crisis (Blanchard, Faruqee, and severely undermined public debt sustainability in some
Das 2010; Claessens and others 2010; Lane and countries; in others, weak fiscal positions and widening
Milesi-Ferretti 2010, 2014; Giannone, Lenza, and government spreads critically compromised banks with
Reichlin 2011; Berkmen and others 2012; Tsangarides large holdings of sovereign securities.
2012; Cerra, Panizza, and Saxena 2013). The approach For economies that experienced banking crises
builds on Chapter 4 of the October 2009 WEO, in 2007–08, the loss of intermediation services and
which studies the determinants of medium-term diminished credit volumes, not surprisingly, had a
output losses following financial crises in advanced, far-reaching impact on activity. The associated corpo-
emerging market, and developing economies during rate failures and employment losses undermined the
1970–2002 (see also Abiad and others 2009). ability of borrowers to service their loans, spiraled back
to sap bank balance sheets, forced banks to retrench
credit further, and amplified the output decline.15
The Nature of the Shock Matters The analysis suggests that, on average, countries that
Although the 2008 financial crisis originated in the experienced banking crises suffered a 4 percentage
United States and Europe, it had a global macroeco- point higher output loss during 2011–13 relative to
nomic impact. The origins of the crisis are by now the precrisis trend than those that did not experience
well documented.14 Four aspects are common to most banking crises in 2007–08. (Online Annex Table 2.2.5;
accounts. First, abundant global liquidity enabled a Table 2.2 summarizes the direction of impacts for the
lending boom in the United States, United Kingdom, various drivers.)
euro area, and central and eastern Europe before 2008.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of the October 2018 Global
Financial Stability Report (GFSR), the credit expansion Macroeconomic Imbalances and Financial Factors
was intermediated through complex links between Regardless of whether a country suffered a banking
traditional banks and nonbank financial institutions crisis in 2007–08, tighter financial conditions after the
beyond the regulatory perimeter. Second, as a wave crisis brought out the central role of precrisis financial
of US adjustable rate mortgages began to reset in vulnerabilities in influencing postcrisis output perfor-
2006–07 and subprime borrowers found it difficult to mance. This influence is reflected, at a general level, in
stay current on their loans or refinance them, the US the variation of output performance as a function of
housing market began to turn in an unprecedented, initial macroeconomic and financial imbalances. It is
synchronized manner across many states. Third, unlike also seen in the role played by specific factors, such as
the late-1990s US subprime mortgage collapse, which the pace of precrisis credit growth.
affected mostly loan originators, the financial losses A useful summary statistic of macroeconomic imbal-
were amplified in 2007–08 by the poorly monitored ances is the gap between the actual current account
practice of securitizing subprime loans into complex balance and its level consistent with medium-term
financial products that became impossible to price in fundamentals. This gap can be thought of as a
a declining market. Fourth, tightening global finan- real-time estimate of imbalances resulting from private
cial conditions during 2007–08 hastened the end of
the lending boom in the euro area, United Kingdom, 15Gertler and Gilchrist (2018) examine the relative contribu-
tions of banking disruption and household balance sheets to the

contraction of US employment during the Great Recession. They
14See,for example, Obstfeld and Rogoff 2009; Sorkin 2009; Lewis find that banking disruption is key to the aggregate decline in US
2010; Lowenstein 2010; Rajan 2010; Blinder 2013; Paulson 2013; employment, while household balance sheet strength is relatively
Geithner 2014; Bernanke 2015; Bayoumi 2017; and Toloui 2018. more important for explaining regional variation.

Table 2.2. Impact of Precrisis Conditions on 2011–13 GDP Deviations from Precrisis Trend
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
All Countries AEs EMs
Domestic Credit Growth –** –*** –*** –*** –*** –**
Demand Exposure to Advanced Economies –*** – + + – –
Demand Exposure to China + + + +* +** +
Financial Openness –* – – – – –
CA Balance + +*** –
CA Gap +*** +*** +
Share of Manufacturing in GDP + + +
Difficulty of Dismissal –** –* –**
Precrisis GG Debt Change –*** –*** –***
De Facto Peg Dummy –** –*** –
Banking Crisis –** –
Note: + denotes positive impact, – denotes negative impact. Precrisis conditions are averaged over 2005–08. Results in columns (1) and (2) are reported in
Online Annex Table 2.2.5. Results in columns (3) through (6) are reported in Online Annex Table 2.2.7. AEs = advanced economies; CA = current account;
CA Gap = excess external balance, Lee and others (2008); EMs = emerging markets; GG = general government.
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
and public saving-investment disparities (see Lee and may indicate reluctance on the part of firms during the
others 2008; and Lane and Milesi-Ferretti 2010). The postcrisis recovery phase to expand operations and lock
results suggest that countries with current account themselves into costly contracts in economies where
balances weaker than the level consistent with funda- subsequent exit would be more difficult.
mentals entering the crisis suffered bigger output losses
relative to precrisis trends (Online Annex Table 2.2.5; Spillovers
Table 2.2). This may, in part, reflect the more severe
The results in Table 2.2 are also consistent with
adjustment forced on countries with higher precrisis
spillover effects through trade. Controlling for the
excess deficits.
effect of banking crises, economies relatively more
In addition, countries more dependent on credit
exposed to demand from advanced economies suffered
(those with faster credit growth in the buildup to
larger output losses in the aftermath.
the crisis) suffered larger losses in an environment of
The size of gross external financial exposure acted as
tighter financial conditions.
another key channel through which financial distress
from the crippled core of advanced economies trans-
Labor Market Structure mitted to the rest of the global economy. Countries
Some economies are more flexible than others when more integrated into global financial markets (repre-
it comes to relocating workers in the face of shocks. The sented by larger fractions of external assets and liabil-
strength of employment protection legislation—the bal- ities relative to GDP) experienced bigger deviations
ance it provides between security for workers and flexi- from the precrisis trend.17 This may reflect, in part,
bility for firms—is a key influence on firms’ decisions to retrenchment in global banking after the crisis.
hire new workers. The evidence suggests that economies
in which it was more difficult for firms to terminate Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) strength of employment
labor contracts (proxied by an index of ease of dismissal protection indices. The index correlates well with the OECD mea-
compiled by the Centre for Business Research [CBR] at sures for countries covered by the OECD’s indices, as well as with a
typical measure of labor market churn and dynamism (the probabil-
Cambridge University) suffered larger postcrisis losses ity of entering and exiting employment), which can be constructed
in output relative to precrisis trends (Table 2.2).16 This for a limited set of countries along the lines of Elsby, Hobijn, and
Sahin (2013), as described in Online Annex 2.2.C.
17This is consistent with Perri and Quadrini (2018), who develop a
16The Cambridge University CBR index (Adams, Bishop, and model of global, synchronized recessions that follow from cross-border
Deakin 2016) is based on an average of nine detailed indicators of transmission of liquidity shortages in highly integrated capital mar-
dismissal procedures constructed using leximetric coding methodol- kets. The extensive cross-border financial links—particularly among
ogy on country-level labor legislation. The index is used here because advanced economies—on the eve of the crisis was unprecedented and
it has broader country coverage than the Organisation for Economic may have compounded countries’ vulnerabilities. See also Chapter 4 of

There is a similar pattern for postcrisis investment Figure 2.10. Probability of Banking Crisis
deviations among countries that did not experience a (Probability)
banking crisis in 2007–08 (Online Annex Table 2.2.6).
Stronger restrictions in 2006 on banks’ ability to underwrite, broker, and deal in
In particular, countries with stronger trade ties to securities; offer mutual fund products; and engage in insurance underwriting, real
advanced economies going into the crisis experienced estate investment, development, and management are associated with a lower
probability of banking crisis in 2007–08.
larger deviations in investment during 2011–13
relative to precrisis trends. This finding is consistent
0.8
with the earlier observation (Figure 2.6) that persistent Probit
Logit
capital shortfalls were observed also in countries that Linear probability model
did not experience a banking crisis in 2007–08.
An important offsetting influence on weak demand 0.6
from advanced economies during this period was
demand from China. China’s 4 trillion yuan stimulus
during 2008–11 (close to 10 percent of 2008 GDP) 0.4
supported a large nationwide infrastructure expansion
and construction of social housing, with associated
favorable impacts on exporters of commodities and
heavy equipment (Ahuja and Nabar 2012). The results 0.2
in Online Annex Table 2.2.7 (summarized in Table 2.2),
grouped according to advanced and emerging mar-
ket economies, indicate that economies whose export 0.0
baskets were more exposed to China before the crisis –2 –1 0 1 2
Strength of restrictions on banking activities
benefited disproportionately in the aftermath from
higher exposure to China’s domestic demand (measured
Sources: Barth, Caprio, and Levine (2013); and IMF staff calculations.
as the share of trading partner demand accounted for by Note: Movement from left to right on the x-axis indicates stronger restrictions on
China), especially among emerging market economies. banking activities. Figure is based on Online Annex Table 2.2.3.
Precrisis Policies and Policy Frameworks overall intensity of financial sector monitoring activity;
The incidence of bank crises in 2007–08 was a key the porosity of the regulatory perimeter and opportuni-
driver of subsequent losses. Regulatory and supervisory ties for regulatory arbitrage) likely also played a role.
structures may thus have played a preemptive role in In general, the initial policy space available prior
influencing subsequent damage. The bank regulation to a crisis can affect the extent of activity decline
index constructed by Barth, Caprio, and Levine (2013) afterward (Blanchard, Dell’Ariccia, and Mauro 2010;
illustrates this link. Specifically, stronger restrictions in Jordà, Schularick, and Taylor 2016; Romer and Romer
2006 on banks’ ability to underwrite, broker, and deal 2018). For the 2008 episode specifically, countries
in securities; offer mutual fund products; and engage in with smaller increases in general government debt
insurance underwriting, real estate investment, devel- over 2005–08 experienced smaller losses relative to
opment, and management are associated with a lower trends (Table 2.2). Countries with lower public sector
probability of a banking crisis during 2007–08 (Fig- borrowing requirements going into the crisis appear
ure 2.10).18 However, the index measures the strength to have had more room to deploy fiscal policy for
of restrictions only on specific aspects of bank activity. demand support in the immediate aftermath.
Other dimensions (for instance, strength of capital, Policy frameworks also appear to matter for postcri-
funding, and liquidity requirements; the accompanying sis output outcomes. Exchange rate flexibility is associ-
supervisory approach to stress-testing balance sheets; ated with less damage, pointing to a buffering role of
nominal exchange rates (Table 2.2). This finding may,
the April 2009 WEO, which documents the role of international links in part, reflect the difficulties experienced by some
in transmitting financial stress across borders. euro area economies. In these countries, the absence
18The association shown here is robust to controlling for some
other influences on the likelihood of a bank crisis (Online Annex of an independent nominal exchange rate, together
Table 2.2.4). with fiscal stress and the lack of a common area-wide

Figure 2.11. Postcrisis Deviations of Euro Area and Box 2.3), and—despite substantial progress toward a
Other Advanced Economies banking union and the creation of the European Sta-
(Percent)
bility Mechanism for crisis management—remaining
gaps in the euro area architecture.19
The median and PPP GDP-weighted mean of output loss for euro area economies
are higher than for other advanced economies.
Euro area Other advanced economies Extraordinary Actions Taken in the Aftermath
of the Crisis
1. Median
0 Several countries took exceptional and unprecedented
policy measures to support their economies after the
–2
2008 financial crisis. In many cases, notably among the
–4 advanced economies most severely affected by the crisis,
–6 the measures comprised (1) central bank monetary pol-
icy actions—unconventional monetary policy support
–8
through asset purchases as policy rates approached their
–10 effective lower bounds, and liquidity support to specific
–12
segments of credit markets through targeted central
2011–13 2015–17 bank facilities; (2) discretionary fiscal stimulus; and (3)
financial sector operations—bank balance sheet stress
2. PPP GDP-Weighted Mean
0
tests, government guarantees of banking sector liabil-
ities, purchases of toxic assets from banks, and capital
–2 injections. Central banks also established ad hoc bilat-
–4 eral swap lines to support foreign exchange liquidity in
jurisdictions beyond home markets.
–6
Advanced economy monetary policy actions, in
–8 particular, represented a significant change in the
–10 approach to providing monetary accommodation—
necessitated in some cases by central banks rapidly
–12
2011–13 2015–17 reducing policy rates to their effective lower bounds
during the crisis (Bernanke 2017). The particular mix
Source: IMF staff calculations. of tools varied across individual cases, but generally
Note: Other advanced economies are advanced economies that are not in the euro included a combination of quantitative easing (mas-
area. PPP = purchasing power parity.
sive balance sheet expansion with purchases mainly of
government bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and
corporate bonds); state-dependent forward guidance
banking union and fiscal backstop, meant the burden (specifying particular levels of unemployment and
of adjustment after the crisis fell entirely on domestic inflation as conditions for rate hikes); negative interest
prices and output. rates (charging commercial banks a penalty on excess
The median output loss for euro area economies is reserves held at the central bank); and yield-curve
notably higher than for other advanced economies in control (targeting the yields of longer-maturity govern-
2011–13 (Figure 2.11), covering an intense phase of ment bonds through central bank purchases).
the sovereign debt crisis, deposit flight from stressed Estimates of the impact of advanced economy
euro area economies, and financial fragmentation central banks’ quantitative easing on interest rates and
within the euro area (see IMF 2012, 2013a). The dif- financial conditions vary (Gagnon 2016). In general,
ference in losses widened through 2015–17, pointing the positive effect of the actions on domestic output in
to a weaker recovery compared with other advanced
economies. The divergence may, in part, reflect the
19Thomsen (2017); Arnold and others (2018); and Berger,
limited policy levers available within a currency union
Dell’Ariccia, and Obstfeld (2018) discuss the reforms implemented
for adjustment to asymmetric shocks, differences in to strengthen the euro area architecture and the remaining steps to
the speed of financial sector repair (as discussed in complete the banking and fiscal union.

Table 2.3. Financial Sector Support and Discretionary Fiscal Stimulus in Group of Twenty Economies
(Percent of GDP)
1. Headline Support for the Financial Sector (as of February 2009)
Purchase of Central Bank Central Bank
Capital Assets, Lending Support with Liquidity
Injection by Treasury Treasury Backing Support Guarantees Total
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A+B+C+D+E)
G20 Average (PPP GDP-weighted) 2.0 3.3 1.0 9.2 14.3 29.8
Advanced Economies 2.9 5.0 1.2 12.9 21.3 43.3
Advanced Europe 2.4 3.6 2.1 1.0 19.5 28.6
Emerging Markets 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.2 2.7
2. Crisis-Related Discretionary Fiscal Stimulus in G20 Economies (as of October 2010)

2009 2010 2011
G20 Average 2.1 2.1 1.1
Advanced Economies 1.9 2.1 1.2
Emerging Markets 2.4 2.0 0.9
Sources: IMF (2009); IMF Fiscal Affairs and Monetary and Capital Markets departments database on public interventions; Chapter 1 of the November 2010
Fiscal Monitor.
Note: Panel 1 is calculated based on country statistics originally published in IMF (2009). The data on guarantees for Australia are based on Schwartz and Tan
(2016). In panel 1, G20 calculations do not include Mexico and South Africa. G20 = Group of Twenty.
advanced economies and imports from trading partners instances of asset purchase programs by advanced
is believed to have outweighed negative effects as a economy central banks and therefore more easily stud-
result of elevated capital inflows and currency appre- ied in a regression framework to assess their impact on
ciation pressure elsewhere (IMF 2014). More broadly, output deviations.
quantitative easing may have also helped stabilize activ- Estimating the immediate effect of the actions is
ity by reducing the tail risk of debilitating asset price difficult. In the case of discretionary fiscal stimulus,
declines. Nevertheless, the actions were the subject of for example, causality runs in both directions, with
controversy, with policymakers in emerging market larger output collapses likely to prompt larger policy
and developing economies, at times, raising concern responses, all else equal. It is nonetheless possible to
about adverse spillovers from advanced economy cen- detect lagged effects of the measures on output devia-
tral banks’ unconventional monetary policy approaches tions from precrisis trends averaged over 2015–17.
(Mantega 2010; Zhou 2010; Rajan 2014). As shown in Figure 2.12, conditional on the size of
The analysis in this chapter focuses on the impact initial losses during 2011–13, quasi-fiscal actions taken
of fiscal and quasi-fiscal measures in support of the to stabilize the financial sector helped limit damage
financial sector undertaken by some economies in during 2015–17. Overall headline support for the
the aftermath of the crisis (Table 2.3). The Group financial sector has a statistically significant positive
of Twenty (G20) economies, for example, on aver- correlation with subsequent output deviations from
age, injected discretionary fiscal stimulus of just over trend; among the specific actions, capital injections
2 percent of GDP in 2009 and 2010. (The IMF and guarantees appear to have helped limit subsequent
was among the early advocates of the effort in the output losses. These interventions may have helped
days leading up to the November 2008 G20 Sum- thaw credit markets, and resumption of credit services
mit.)20 The number of such actions is larger than the subsequently contributed to raising output.
Beyond action at the national level, as discussed
20During 2008 and 2009, the G20 forum (Argentina, Australia, in Chapter 2 of the October 2018 GFSR, there were
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, extensive multilateral efforts to strengthen financial
Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea,
regulatory standards (aimed at expanding the regu-
Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, European Union) was piv-
otal in forging international consensus on fiscal expansion, augment- latory perimeter, containing the buildup of systemic
ing the lending resources of the IMF and multilateral development risk, strengthening resilience to shocks, and develop-
banks, and the need to strengthen financial regulation (see https:// ing resolution frameworks). Multilateral cooperation
www.g20.org/en/g20/timeline). For the IMF’s November 2008 call
for fiscal stimulus by the G20 economies, see http://www.imf.org/en/ also helped craft an important component of the
News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr08278. monetary response to the crisis, with the IMF pro-

Figure 2.12. Impact on 2015–17 GDP Deviations from Summary

One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers
(Percent) The 2008 financial crisis had its roots in the US
housing boom of the preceding half-decade. Its impact
Actions taken to stabilize the financial sector helped limit damages during was seen worldwide from shuttered maquiladora facto-
2015–17. Overall headline support for the financial sector has a statistically ries in Mexico to the restructuring of regional savings
significant positive correlation with subsequent output deviations from precrisis
trend. Among specific actions, capital injections and guarantees have helped limit and loan cajas in Spain and extended joblessness for
subsequent output losses. migrant workers in China’s Pearl River Delta. Output
losses following the 2008 financial meltdown were per-
sistent and experienced by a broad set of countries, not
Total headline support for just the group afflicted by banking crises at the time.
**
financial and other sectors

Protracted weak investment after the crisis was a major
contributing factor, associated with persistent shortfalls
in capital and total factor productivity, relative to pre-
Capital injections crisis trends, and slower technology adoption among
*
countries hit harder by the crisis.

The crisis prompted a still-ongoing rethink of the
Purchase of assets and nature of economic fluctuations, as well as of the
lending by treasury
role of policy frameworks and measures to combat
downturns. The policy lessons of the crisis discussed
Guarantees in this chapter follow from the lens adopted to view
(excluding deposit its aftermath and to understand why the recovery
*
insurance)
appeared so slow in many countries. Other important
0 1 2 3 4 developments covered in previous WEO reports, such
Percent deviations from precrisis trend as the declining share of labor income (Chapter 3 of
the April 2017 WEO), subdued wage growth, and the
Note: Movement from left to right on the x-axis indicates less negative/more
rise of part-time work (Chapter 2 of the October 2017
positive deviations from precrisis trend. Extraordinary measures were taken during WEO), pose additional policy challenges for ensuring
2008–09. Coefficient bars correspond to estimates in Online Annex Table 2.2.8. the income security and welfare of those who rely
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
mostly on their labor income.
The evidence documented in this chapter suggests
that policy choices in the run-up to the crisis and in
viding unconditional financial resources to its mem- its immediate aftermath influenced postcrisis out-
bers through a general allocation of SDR 204 billion put performance in multiple ways. Stronger banking
($316 billion) during August–September 2009.21 In regulation—proxied by restrictions on certain aspects
addition, several economies relied on the global finan- of bank activity—appears to have played a preventive
cial safety net to ease their adjustment to the funding role by lowering the probability of a banking crisis in
shock after the crisis. The IMF, for example, approved 2007–08. The finding is relevant for ongoing debates
SDR 420 billion in support to its members during on rolling back the regulatory standards adopted fol-
2008–13, of which SDR 119 billion was drawn lowing the crisis.
during that interval.22 Countries with stronger fiscal positions entering the
crisis suffered smaller losses, suggesting that greater
room for policy maneuver may have helped defend
21The IMF’s special drawing right (SDR), an international reserve
against harm. Extraordinary fiscal and quasi‑fiscal
asset based on a basket comprising the US dollar, Chinese renminbi,
actions to support the financial sector after the crisis
Japanese yen, euro, and British pound, is a claim on freely usable
currencies of IMF members. The 2009 general SDR allocation appear to have helped lessen output losses over the
augmented IMF members’ international reserves, with the aim of medium term. Economies that moved quickly to assess
easing postcrisis liquidity constraints (https://www.imf.org/en/News/ the health of their banking systems and recapitalize
Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr09283).
22The gross figure includes precautionary arrangements. See IMF banks appeared to have suffered smaller output losses
(2015) for details. subsequently. As IMF (2013c), Auerbach (2017),

Blanchard and Summers (2017), and Furman (2018) buildup of financial vulnerabilities, as discussed in the
note, there is renewed recognition of discretionary April and October 2018 GFSRs. The large accumu-
fiscal policy as a countercyclical demand management lation of public debt and the erosion of fiscal buffers
tool. Moreover, as the analysis shows, China’s large in many economies following the crisis point to the
fiscal stimulus during 2008–11 appears to have had urgency of rebuilding those defenses to prepare for the
favorable spillovers on trading partners. Altogether, the next downturn. Moreover, some of the crisis manage-
evidence presented here suggests some confirmation ment tools deployed in 2008–09 are no longer available
of the efficacy of fiscal measures in limiting persistent (the Federal Reserve’s bailouts of individual institutions,
losses after a recession. And as noted in earlier IMF for example), suggesting financial rescues in the future
research (IMF 2014), unconventional monetary policy may not be able to follow the same playbook.
actions by advanced economy central banks helped Beyond these aspects, more fundamental challenges
limit output declines and employment losses at home relate to long-lasting legacies of the crisis. There are
while supporting imports from abroad. already signs of possible long-term consequences of
The policy efforts of the past decade helped fore- the crisis on potential growth through its impacts on
stall an even worse outcome with deeper output and migration, fertility, and future labor input (Box 2.1).
employment losses. After faltering at times over the And societal support for openness and global economic
past 10 years, the global economic recovery experi- integration appears to have weakened in many coun-
enced a long-awaited synchronized growth upswing in tries after the crisis. The corollary of these develop-
2017–18. Nevertheless, large challenges loom for the ments is the rising appeal of protectionist nostrums
global economy. The extraordinary policy actions to and populism. A fuller reckoning of such long-lasting
prevent a second Great Depression have had important legacies of the 2008 financial crisis must necessarily
side effects. The extended period of ultralow interest await the broader perspective that will emerge with
rates in advanced economies has contributed to the further passage of time.

Box 2.1. The Global Financial Crisis, Migration, and Fertility

Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that Figure 2.1.1. International Migration and the
changes in economic performance affect migration Global Financial Crisis
flows and fertility rates. This box explores the rela-
tionships between postcrisis economic performance, AEs EMs LIDCs
policies, migration, and fertility. The main finding of
the box is that postcrisis economic performance had 4 1. Net Migration Rate
a significant impact on both migration and fertil- (per 1,000 of population)
3
ity. Through these channels, the crisis has likely left
2
long-lasting scars on future growth. The box also iden-
tifies several policies associated with significant impacts 1
on migration and fertility. 0
The Great Recession and Migration –1
The decades leading up to the global finan- –2

cial crisis saw large increases in net migration –3
(immigration-emigration) rates between advanced 1980 85 90 95 2000 05 10 15
economies.1 This trend, however, reversed after the
crisis. Meanwhile, net migration has been consis- 140 2. Output Losses and Emigration
Percent change in emigration rate,
120
tently neutral in emerging markets through both 100
2014–16 versus 2005–08
periods, while low-income developing countries have 80

increased net migration rates in the postcrisis years, 60
40
even as they are generally more prone to volatile net 20
migration rates (Figure 2.1.1, panel 1). Motivated by 0
this heterogeneity of net migration among coun- –20
–40
try groups, the analysis examines the relationship –60
between the changes in trends before and after the –80
crisis, looking at per capita GDP and migration –100
–0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
flows by using data on migration inflows from Source country GDP per capita losses, 2011–13
143 source countries to 20 destination advanced
economies.2 Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Immigrants are typically more vulnerable to Development; United Nations Department of Economic and
economic shocks than natives. They are often over- Social Affairs, World Population Prospects: The 2017
Revision; and IMF staff calculations.
represented in sectors most sensitive to the business Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMs = emerging market
cycle (OECD 2009) and may face discrimination in economies; LIDCs = low-income developing countries. Net
a tight labor market (Arai and Vilhelmsson 2004). migration rate by country group is population-weighted average.
Losses are based on calculations in Online Annex 2.2.B.
Immigrants have also responded to changes in labor
demand more strongly than natives (Kahanec and
Guzi 2017). Simple correlations confirm the conjec-
ture that migrants respond to economic performance
(Figure 2.1.1, panel 2), measured by the deviations
The authors of this box are Christopher Johns, Mico Mrkaic, of GDP per capita from precrisis trend (calculated as
and Yuan Zeng. described in Online Annex 2.2.B).
1Net migration rate is defined as the number of immigrants
minus the number of emigrants over a period, divided by the

Beyond the correlations, the analysis explores the
person-years lived by the population of the destination country links between economic performance and migra-
over that period. It is expressed as net number of migrants per tion in a multivariate setting, controlling for the
1,000 population. additional main drivers mentioned in the October
2The analysis uses migration inflows, given that inflows are
2016 World Economic Outlook—structural factors
tracked more precisely and more frequently than bilateral migra-
tion outflows and migrant stocks. Data on bilateral migration
and immigration policies. While the box’s discussion
inflows facilitates accurate analysis of the push and pull factors centers on the role of economic factors in migra-
influencing international migration. tion decisions, it should be mentioned that some

Box 2.1 (continued)

migration decisions are driven entirely by such factors Figure 2.1.2. Impact on Emigration Rate from
as political instability and war in the source country One Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers at
or region. To avoid biasing results, migration flows Different Horizons
data exclude flows of refugees and asylum seekers.3 (Percentage points)
Figure 2.1.2, panel 1 shows the impact of losses in
GDP per capita on differences between emigration Short term Medium term
rates in 2011–13 and 2014–16 compared with years
before the crisis (2005–08).4 Losses in GDP per cap- 1. Effect of GDP per Capita Losses
ita significantly impact migration flows in the short GDP per capita losses (D)
and medium terms. In addition to economic perfor- GDP per capita losses (S)
mance, migration flows are affected by the strength of
Education level (D)
poverty constraints in source countries5 and the GDP
per capita in the destination relative to the source Education level (S)
country, education in destination and source coun- Poverty constraint (S), 2005–08
tries, and the distance between destination country
GDP per capita (D/S), 2005–08
and source country.6,7
Policies imposed in the wake of the crisis to limit Distance
migration and reduce competition in labor markets –20 –10 0 10 20
also affect migration (Figure 2.1.2, panel 2). The
analysis examines restrictions on legal entry, stay, 2. Effect of Policies
and quotas (an increase in each variable denotes GDP per capita losses (D)
greater restrictiveness). Increased postcrisis restric- GDP per capita losses (S)
tions significantly reduced migration flows, mostly Legal entry (D), 2011–13
in the medium term, over and above the impact of
Quotas (D), 2011–13
economic losses.
Poverty constraint (S), 2005–08
The Great Recession and Fertility
GDP per capita (D/S), 2005–08
During a recession, relatively elevated unemploy-
Distance
ment rates may lead to deferred decisions on mar-
riage, having children, or both. In nearly all recent –20 –10 0 10 20
Average percent change from
recessions in advanced economies, the impact on precrisis migration rate
fertility has been mainly to postpone births, which
contributes to a short-run reduction in the number Sources: International Migration Institute; Organisation for
of births in the aftermath (long-run effects tend to be Economic Co-operation and Development; Standardized World
Income Inequality Database (Solt 2016); World Bank, World
Development Indicators database; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Explanatory variables are contemporaneous with
3Inflows of foreign population data are from the Organisa- dependent variable unless noted otherwise. All postcrisis
tion for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). variables except GDP per capita losses are average changes
Refugees and asylum seekers are excluded from the data for all from precrisis (2005–08) levels. Losses are based on
calculations in Online Annex 2.2.B. All coefficients are
countries except: Germany, Netherlands, and Norway—included
statistically significant at 5 percent. Increases in policy variables
if living in private households (as opposed to reception centers correspond to increases in restrictiveness. S = source country;
or hostels for immigrants); and United Kingdom—included if D = destination country. Short term = 2011–13 average;
stayed in country longer than one year. Medium term = 2014–16 average.
4Emigration rate is defined as inflows to destination country
from source country over a period, divided by 1,000 population

in source country.
5Defined as the disposable income Gini coefficient divided by less pronounced).8 Although immigration may be a
the square of PPP GDP per capita. partial solution for low fertility and an aging popula-
6Distance is defined as great-circle distance between most
tion in the short term, in the long term, immigrants’
populated cities in destination country and source country.
7Controls based on measures used in Borjas (1987); Hatton and
Williamson (2002); and Clark, Hatton, and Williamson (2007). 8Neels (2010); Cherlin, Cumberworth, and Morgan (2013).

Box 2.1 (continued)

Figure 2.1.3. Total Fertility Rate Figure 2.1.4. Impact of Crisis Exposure on
(Number of births per woman) Fertility Rate at Different Horizons
(Average change in fertility rate on x-axis;
OECD AEs EMs United States postcrisis minus precrisis)
Italy Spain Greece
Short term Medium term
2.2
2.0
*
GDP losses
1.8
1.6
*
GDP per capita losses
1.4
1.2
***
Employment losses
***
1.0
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16
–0.10 –0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD); World Bank, World Development Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Indicators database; and IMF staff calculations. Development; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: OECD is the average fertility rate for OECD and partner Note: Explanatory variables are contemporaneous with
countries. AEs = OECD and partner advanced economies; dependent variable. Average changes in fertility rate are the
EMs = OECD and partner emerging market economies. See difference between postcrisis term and precrisis (2005–08) level.
Online Annex 2.1 for country list. Losses are based on calculations in Online Annex 2.2.B. Short
term = 2011–13 average; Medium term = 2015–16 average.
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.
fertility rates generally converge to that of natives

(Espenshade 1994).
In the decade before the crisis, the total fertility rate same time span. These persistently low fertility rates
rose in several advanced economies, only to decline over the past decade may weigh on future labor input
afterward (Figure 2.1.3).9 In the United States, the and thus weaken potential growth in the long run.
rate fell from a peak of 2.12 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2016. Evidence from OECD and partner countries shows
Similarly, the birth rate of foreign-born women (ages that average changes in the fertility rate for the post-
15–50) in the United States declined by 16 births per crisis period relative to the precrisis period (2005–08)
thousand women from its peak of 76 in 2008 to its have been negatively impacted by the crisis through
2016 level. For European countries, such as Greece several channels, of which employment losses were
and Spain that suffered a double-dip recession, the the most significant (Figure 2.1.4). Further evidence
fertility rate decreased from 1.5 to about 1.3 over the in the literature (Sobotka, Skirbekk, and Philipov
2011) shows that other complex social changes (higher
9Total fertility rate in a specific year is defined as the total
female labor participation rate, smaller desired family
number of children that would be born to each woman if she size, and so on) and burdened welfare systems could
were to live to the end of her child-bearing years and give birth
to children in alignment with the prevailing age-specific fertility
affect women’s reproductive decisions.
rates. It is calculated by aggregating age-specific fertility rates as The fertility rate can be affected by labor market
defined over five-year intervals. policies as well. Figure 2.1.5 shows how policies

Box 2.1 (continued)

affected fertility after the crisis. On one hand, the Figure 2.1.5. Impact on Fertility from One
result in panel 1 demonstrates that a higher precrisis Standard Deviation Increase in Drivers at
tax wedge on couples reduces fertility in the short Different Horizons
term. On the other hand, panel 2 suggests that post- (Average change in fertility rate on x-axis; postcrisis
minus precrisis)
crisis increases in family allowances and improvements
in job protection during maternity are associated
with higher fertility rates. These findings are in line Short term Medium term
with evidence and case studies from European Union
1. Effect of Precrisis Policies
countries.10 Public spending on
child education and care
Child-care benefits
Family allowance
Total protected
maternity leave
Average tax wedge
**
of couple
–0.10 –0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
2. Effect of Policy Changes

Public spending on
child education and care
Child-care benefits
***
Family allowance
Total protected
**
maternity leave
Average tax wedge
of couple
–0.10 –0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Explanatory variables are contemporaneous with
dependent variable. Precrisis policy variables are average of
period 2005–08. Policy changes are average postcrisis
changes from precrisis (2005–08) levels. Average changes
in fertility rate are of difference between postcrisis term and
precrisis (2005–08) level. Short term = 2011–13 average;
10See, for example, Hoem (2008), Kalwij (2010), and Medium term = 2015–16 average.
Thévenon (2011). * p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.

Box 2.2. The Employment Impact of Automation Following the Global Financial Crisis: The Case of
Industrial Robots
As discussed in the chapter, an important change in Figure 2.2.1. Effect of Robot Diffusion on
the production process after the global financial crisis Employment Growth
appears to be the pace of technology adoption. This box (Percent)
addresses the following questions related to technology
All
adoption, using the example of industrial robots: How High output loss
did the diffusion of robots affect employment in the Low output loss
aftermath of the crisis? What type of workers were par-
0.04 1. All Countries
ticularly affected? Did certain labor market policies alter
the impact of robot adoption on employment?
Forces of automation were at work prior to the 0.02
crisis (Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003; Goos and
Manning 2007; Acemoglu and Autor 2011; Autor 0.00
and Dorn 2013), and one much-discussed aspect of
the transformation of the workplace is the diffusion –0.02
of industrial robots. Yet, existing work has mostly
focused on exploring precrisis diffusion of automation ***
–0.04
in the United States (Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003;
Acemoglu and Autor 2011; Autor and Dorn 2013; 0.04 2. Advanced Economies
Acemoglu and Restrepo 2017), and in a few European
Displacement effect
countries (Graetz and Michaels forthcoming; Chiacchio, 0.02 dominates
Petropoulos, and Pichler 2018). Thus, less is known
about postcrisis robot diffusion in and beyond these 0.00
countries. Exploring these recent developments may
provide some perspective on possible future workplace
–0.02
dynamics and labor market outcomes, where artificial-
intelligence-powered equipment is expected to replace
***
human input in an expanding range of nonroutine –0.04
tasks (Berg, Buffie, and Zanna 2017; Frey and Osborne 1.0 3. Emerging Markets
**
2017; Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2018 and forthcoming). 0.8
0.6
Effect of Robot Diffusion on Employment
0.4
As noted in Acemoglu and Restrepo (2017), robot 0.2
diffusion can affect employment in different ways. 0.0
Greater diffusion of robots can affect employment –0.2
negatively through displacement (by directly replacing –0.4 Productivity effect
workers performing certain tasks), but also positively, –0.6 dominates
through productivity gains, as robots can free up –0.8
human labor for other tasks, incentivize investment,
Sources: IFR (2017); World Input-Output Database; and IMF
and create employment. staff calculations.
Estimation results show that increased robot Note: Robot diffusion is defined as average change in robot
diffusion in industries located in countries with more shipments/1,000 hours worked 2010–14. Error bars around
coefficient estimate are two standard errors. Losses are
negative output losses during the crisis is associated based on calculations in Online Annex 2.2.B. Figure is based
with lower employment growth (Figure 2.2.1) in the on coefficients in Online Annex Table 2.3.4.
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.
The authors of this box are Wenjie Chen and Malhar Nabar.

Box 2.2 (continued)

aftermath of the crisis. This is particularly driven by Figure 2.2.2. Hollowing-Out Effect of Robot
industries in advanced economies with relatively bigger Diffusion on Employment Growth
output deviations relative to precrisis trend. In emerg- (Percent)
ing markets with relatively lower output deviations
High medium-skill share
relative to precrisis trend, increased robot diffusion is Low medium-skill share
associated with higher employment growth.
0.06 1. All Countries
Hollowing Out of the Employment-Skills 0.04
Distribution 0.02
The negative association between labor and robot 0.00
diffusion appears to be more pronounced in indus- –0.02
tries initially more reliant on medium-skilled work- –0.04
ers. The effect is largely seen in advanced economies **
–0.06
(Figure 2.2.2). This finding is consistent with the
–0.08
hollowing-out effects documented by Autor, Levy, and
Murnane (2003), and Goos, Manning, and Salo- –0.10
mons (2014). 0.06 2. Advanced Economies
0.04 Hollowing-out effect
Labor Market Policies
0.02
To explore whether labor market policies can mit- 0.00
igate the impact of robot diffusion on employment,
–0.02
regression analysis is conducted on samples divided by
–0.04 **
the severity of crisis exposure.1
A consistent picture emerges (Figure 2.2.3): the –0.06
postcrisis displacement effect of robots on employ- –0.08
ment was more pronounced in countries with more –0.10
rigid labor market policies and less labor market 1.0 3. Emerging Markets
dynamism (churn) prior to the crisis.2 More specifi-
0.5
cally, lower active labor market spending as a share of
GDP, stricter dismissal policies, less churn in the labor 0.0
market, and more stringent employment protection –0.5
legislation are associated with higher displacement –1.0
effects of robot diffusion in countries that experienced
–1.5
relatively high output losses.
–2.0
–2.5
1Four specific measures of labor market policy are under Sources: IFR (2017); World Input-Output Database (WIOD);
consideration: (1) active labor market policy (ALMP) spending and IMF staff calculations.
as share of GDP, (2) ease of dismissal index by Cambridge Note: Robot diffusion is defined as robot shipment/1,000
University’s Center for Business Research, (3) labor churn hours worked. Level of worker skills is based on education
as calculated in Online Annex 2.2.B, and (4) employment attainment from WIOD. Medium-skilled workers have
protection legislation index compiled by the Organisation for attained secondary and/or postsecondary nontertiary
Economic Co-operation and Development. All measures are education in 2009. Error bars around coefficient estimate
calculated as precrisis averages to capture the initial extent of are two standard errors. Figure is based on coefficients in
Online Annex Table 2.3.5.
labor market rigidities.
2Labor market dynamism, also referred to as job churn, is * p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.
measured as described in Online Annex 2.2.B, following Elsby,
Hobijn, and Sahin (2013).

Box 2.2 (continued)

Figure 2.2.3. Labor Market Policies and In sum, industries in advanced economies with rel-
Effect of Robot Diffusion on Employment atively bigger output losses experienced displacement
Growth effects from robot diffusion in the aftermath of the
(Average change in employment growth, 2010–14) crisis. This negative effect on employment growth was
particularly severe in industries in advanced economies
ALMP Job churn with relatively large shares of medium-skilled workers.
Dismissal EPL
At the same time, in countries with more rigid labor
market policies and less churn, the labor displace-
0.20 1. High Output Losses
ment effect of robot diffusion was more pronounced,
0.15 suggesting that policies supportive of creating more
0.10 flexible labor markets can help absorb employment
0.05
displacement associated with automation.
0.00
–0.05 *** *** ***
–0.10 **
–0.15
More flexible Less flexible
labor market labor market
0.20 2. Low Output Losses

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
–0.05
–0.10
–0.15
More flexible Less flexible
labor market labor market
Sources: Cambridge University Center for Business Research

(CBR); IFR (2017); Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development; World Input-Output Database; and IMF
staff calculations.
Note: More flexible labor market comprises countries that
have above-median ALMP spending (percent of GDP),
above-median job churn rates, below-median dismissal
regulations as measured by CBR, and below-median EPL.
Error bars around coefficient estimate are two standard
errors. Losses are based on calculations in Online Annex
2.2.B. Figure is based on coefficients in Online Annex Table
2.3.6. ALMP = active labor market policy; EPL = employment
protection legislation.
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.

Box 2.3. The Role of Financial Sector Repair in the Speed of the Recovery
As the financial crisis started rattling markets, Figure 2.3.1. Containment and Resolution
policymakers broadly followed the crisis management
rulebook: step one—stop panic from spreading (con- 50 1. Unadjusted Cost and Support
Fiscal costs of bank restructuring

tainment phase), step two—repair the damage (resolu-
tion phase). The principal forms of intervention were 40
y = 0.639x + 1.740
(percent of GDP)
(1) liquidity provision through collateralized lending R 2 = 0.223
30
and other arrangements; (2) support for short-term
wholesale funding markets; (3) (more extensive) 20
guarantees of retail deposits and other liabilities; (4)
purchases or exchanges of nonperforming or illiquid 10
assets; and (5) capital injections to banks. Interven-
tions often started with liquidity support to relieve the 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
immediate pressure and then moved on to identifying Liquidity support
and meeting recapitalization needs. (% of total deposits and liabilities to nonresidents)
Yet the timing and strength of the response varied
across countries, especially when it came to the chal- 2. Cost and Support Adjusted for Crisis
lenge of repairing the damage (Figure 2.3.1). Part of 7 Severity
Fiscal costs of bank restructuring

the variation certainly reflected when and how severely 6
a country was affected, plus how large the banking sec-
(divided by peak NPL)
5
tor was relative to GDP, but there are differences even
after controlling for crisis severity. Specific forms of 4
y = 0.247x + 0.808
intervention also differed. Some governments acquired 3 R 2 = 0.059
minority stakes in distressed banks while others chose 2
to close or nationalize them. Stress tests were intro-
1
duced to restore confidence, with different approaches
in design and governance. Sometimes, but not always, 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
measures aiming to reduce debt overhang in the Liquidity support
nonfinancial sector accompanied the interventions (Divided by peak NPL)
targeted at the financial institutions. Last but not least,
cross-country differences in structural features, such as Sources: Laeven and Valencia (2013); and IMF staff
resolution frameworks, bankruptcy regimes, and the calculations.
Note: To adjust for crisis severity, fiscal costs of bank
degree to which the system depended on bank- versus restructuring and liquidity support are divided by the peak
market-based financing, came into focus. NPL. NPL = nonperforming loan ratio.
Drawing on this variation, several insights can be
gained from comparing crisis management in the
United States and in Europe: • The resolution phases diverged more, laying bare
• The containment phases were fairly similar. The stark differences in regulatory and supervisory archi-
major central banks were quick to offer liquidity tecture across the two regions.
support through traditional facilities and established • The United States mobilized recapitalization plans
unconventional facilities to ensure that pressure in faster than did countries in the European Union
funding markets subsided. They also established (EU) (Figure 2.3.2).
swap lines as early as December 2007 and extended • In addition to speed, the actions taken in the
these to other central banks as the crisis spread. In United States were more decisive. Banks replenished
many respects, the response in the containment their eroded capital base by issuing new equity
phase was better coordinated internationally during early in the crisis, whereas, in the EU, there was
the recent crisis than in past crises (Laeven and no matching effort (Figure 2.3.3). At least in part,
Valencia 2013). this was driven by the supervisory approach: US
banks were compelled to raise fresh capital (and
The author of this box is Deniz Igan. were able to do so because of support from the

Box 2.3 (continued)

Figure 2.3.2. Timing of Recapitalization Figure 2.3.3. New Share Issuance by Banks
(Months) (Percent)
5 1.2 United States European Union
4
1.0
3
2 0.8
1
0.6
0
–1 0.4
–2
0.2
–3
–4 0.0
IRL AUT BEL NLD GBR 2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
LVA DNK DEU LUX USA
Sources: Homar and van Wijnbergen (2015); and IMF staff
Sources: Laeven and Valencia (2013); and IMF staff calculations.
calculations. Note: New share issuance by banks is measured by the
Note: Timing is measured by the months between moments volume in percent of the consolidated balance sheet.
when liquidity support became extensive and implementation
of recapitalization. Data labels use International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) country codes.
released in the 2010 exercise. The scenarios were
criticized for being too benign and not capturing
the risk of sovereign default—a major concern
Federal Reserve and other agencies); EU banks at the time (Abramovich 2011).1 Moreover, the
were instructed to improve their risk-weighted newly created European Financial Stability Facility
capital ratios, but options were left open on how to (EFSF)—tasked with potential capital assistance—
do that. Faced with tight funding conditions and could offer funding to member states by selling
broader uncertainty, banks chose to cut lending and bonds rather than investing directly in banks.2
increase their sovereign debt holdings—which carry Finally, despite the seal of approval gained by pass-
a zero risk weight under Basel III. ing the stress tests, many banks continued to strug-
• Further, while stress tests were conducted on both gle. Taken together, these led markets to label the
sides of the Atlantic, market perceptions of what exercise a “nonevent” with no useful information
they accomplished differed. In the United States, content (Shah 2010).3 The EU experience under-
the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program aimed
to address uncertainty about the solvency of sys-
1Regulators reportedly chose not to include a default scenario
temic institutions (Bernanke 2009). Moreover, the
“partly because they said that a sovereign default was unlikely
Treasury Department committed to making capital and partly due to worries that it would send the wrong political
available to eligible banks. Test results were publicly message” (Enrich 2010).
available on a bank-by-bank basis, providing the 2The EFSF was succeeded by the European Stability Mech-
needed information to nervous markets (Fernandes, anism, which, under some conditions, can provide funding
Igan, and Pinheiro 2015). In the European Union, directly to recapitalize banks.
3Regulators will prefer to fully reveal banks’ capital short-
the Committee of European Banking Supervisors fall at times of crisis if they are able to recapitalize them, but
conducted two rounds of tests. Individual results will hold onto some information if they cannot recapitalize
were kept confidential in the 2009 round, though (Spargoli 2012).

Box 2.3 (continued)

scored the importance of credibility—established Figure 2.3.4. Nonperforming Loan Ratio
through independent governance, the requisite tech- (Percent)
nical expertise, and clearly communicated plans for
30 United States Ireland Spain
any backstop needs (Ong and Pazarbasioglu 2013).
• Because the epicenter of the crisis in many countries
was housing markets, mortgage defaults became 25
endemic. In the United States, the Making Home
Affordable (MHA) program was introduced in
20
2009 to help struggling homeowners (Chapter 3
of the April 2012 World Economic Outlook). The
refinancing program under the MHA program, 15
in particular, provided substantial welfare gains to
highly indebted households (Mitman 2016) and
10
boosted consumption (Agarwal and others 2015).
In European countries caught up in their own
credit-fueled housing boom-bust, there were no 5
corresponding widespread programs at the outset
of the crisis. Nonperforming loan ratios increased
0
more than in the United States and remain high 2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
(Figure 2.3.4).4
• More generally, many European countries continue Source: World Bank, Global Financial Development Database.
to grapple with large stocks of impaired assets a
decade after the onset of the crisis. A large conflu-
ence of factors—the global financial crisis hit many
hard and particularly hurt those with their own the concentration of debt overhang in small and
homegrown bubbles (Claessens and others 2010)— medium-sized enterprises, this further amplified the
exposed the monetary union’s incomplete architec- impact of the banks’ problems and debt overhang
ture and triggered a sovereign debt crisis, subjecting on investment and consumption. Inadequate capital
banks to a second round of shocks. The deep and buffers, prudential problems with collateral valuation
prolonged economic downturn that followed further and treatment of nonperforming loans, legal obstacles
weakened borrowers’ debt service capacity, leading to debt enforcement, loan restructuring and foreclo-
to an increase in loan defaults and large corporate sure, and a lack of distressed debt markets have been
and household debt overhangs. The nonperform- identified as primary obstacles to nonperforming
ing loans are concentrated most notably in small loan resolution (Aiyar and others 2015).
and medium-sized enterprises, which contribute • A related point of comparison between the US and
almost two-thirds of Europe’s output and employ- EU experiences involves the resolution framework for
ment and tend to rely more on bank financing than banks themselves. In the former, having an estab-
large firms. In addition, many European countries lished resolution authority that can act independently
have bank-based financial systems.5 Together with on the best option to resolve distressed banks (across
state borders)—the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation—helped ensure swift resolution of fail-
4Ireland and Spain were chosen for illustrative purposes as
ing banks (although dealing with systemic financial
they both had housing booms and busts and significant banking
distress. Other EU countries that could be used for direct
institutions required further action). In the latter, the
comparison (for example, Greece, Italy, Portugal) either did not troubles of the banking system started a search for
have a similar precrisis boom-bust pattern in housing markets, or new mechanisms that culminated in the creation of a
their experience was dominated by the sovereign debt crisis that single supervisor and a unified resolution framework
followed the global financial crisis. (Goyal and others 2013).
5Market-based economies experience significantly and durably
stronger rebounds than those that are bank-based; in particular,

The postcrisis paths for credit, investment, consump-
the more bank-based economies of continental Europe (Allard tion, and growth differed accordingly (Figure 2.3.5).
and Blavy 2011). The United States recovered faster and more strongly.

Box 2.3 (continued)

Figure 2.3.5. Postcrisis Paths The deleveraging phase, notably, has been shorter and
(Percent; 2007 = 100) more shallow—consistent with the importance of
repairing bank balance sheets in restoring growth.6
United States Ireland Spain Summing up, comparison of the US and European
experiences and cross-country studies highlights the
120 1. Bank Credit 2. Private 120 following:
Investment
• Swift and decisive action: Recapitalizing or resolving
100
100 banks shortly after the containment phase is key.
80 The alternative leads to zombification, with signifi-
80 cant macroeconomic costs. From a structural point
60 of view, resolution frameworks should aim to ensure
that such swift and decisive action is possible.
60
40
• Appropriate backstops: In extreme circumstances,
establishing credibility and preventing panic and
20 40
2000 04 08 12 16 2000 05 09 13 17 contagion may require use of public funds. In this
context, having enough fiscal room and mitigat-
140 3. Private 4. GDP 120 ing the sovereign-bank nexus become crucial. Any
Consumption actual use of these backstops, however, should be
120 a last-resort measure accompanied by appropriate
100 burden sharing and clear exit strategies to mini-
mize moral hazard, as well as the potential costs
100
associated with direct government involvement in
80 financial markets (for example, efficiency concerns).
80
60 60
2000 05 09 13 17 2000 05 09 13 17
6Other evidence corroborates this insight: early and decisive
Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and recapitalization of distressed banks helps corporate investment
Development; World Bank, World Development Indicators recover (Sun and Tong 2015) and can take several years off the
database; and IMF staff calculations. duration of a recession (Homar and van Wijnbergen 2015).

References Allard, Julien, and Rodolphe Blavy. 2011. “Market Phoenixes

and Banking Ducks: Are Recoveries Faster in Market-Based
Abiad, Abdul, Ravi Balakrishnan, Petya Koeva Brooks, Daniel
Economies?” IMF Working Paper 11/213, International
Leigh, and Irina Tytell. 2009. “What’s the Damage? Medium-
Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Term Output Dynamics after Banking Crises.” IMF Working
Arai, Mahmood, and Roger Vilhelmsson. 2004. “Unemploy-
Paper 09/245, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
ment-Risk Differentials between Immigrant and Native
Abramovich, Alexander. 2011. “Comparative Analysis of Stress
Workers in Sweden.” Industrial Relations 43: 690–98.
Testing in the United States and Europe.” North Carolina
Arnold, Nathaniel, Bergljot Barkbu, Elif Ture, Hou Wang, and
Banking Institute 15 (1), Article 16, University of North
Jiaxiong Yao. 2018. “A Central Fiscal Stabilization Capacity
Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, NC.
for the Euro Area.” IMF Staff Discussion Note 18/03, Inter-
Acemoglu, Daron, and Autor, David. 2011. “Skills, Tasks and
national Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings.” Aslam, Aqib, Patrick Blagrave, Eugenio Cerutti, Sung Eun Jung,
Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier. and Carolina Osorio-Buitron. Forthcoming. “Recessions and
Acemoglu, Daron, and David Autor. 2011. “Skills, Tasks, and Recoveries: Are EMs Different from AEs?” IMF Working
Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings.” In Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Handbook of Labor Economics (4), edited by Orley Ashenfelter Auerbach, Alan. 2017. “Fiscal Policy.” Peterson Institute for
and David E. Card. Amsterdam: Elsevier. International Economics, Washington, DC.
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2017. “Robots and Jobs: Autor, David, and David Dorn. 2013. “The Growth of Low-Skill
Evidence from US Labor Markets.” NBER Working Paper Service Jobs and the Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market.”
23285, National Bureau of Economic Research, American Economic Review 103 (5): 1553–1597.
Cambridge, MA. Autor, David, Frank Levy, and Richard Murnane. 2003. “The
———. 2018. “Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Work.” Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empir-
NBER Working Paper 24196, National Bureau of Economic ical Exploration.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (4):
Research, Cambridge, MA. 1279–333.
———. Forthcoming. “The Race between Man and Machine: Ball, Laurence. 2014. “Long-Term Damage from the Great
Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Recession in OECD Countries.” NBER Working Paper
Employment.” American Economic Review. 20185, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR MA.
Labour Regulation Index. Cambridge: Centre for Business Barnichon, Regis, Christian Matthes, and Alexander Ziegenbein.
Research. 2018. “The Financial Crisis at 10: Will We Ever Recover?”
Adler, Gustavo, Romain Duval, Davide Furceri, Sinem Kiliç Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter
Çelik, Ksenia Koloskova, and Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro. 2018–19, August.
2017. “Gone with the Headwinds: Global Productivity.” IMF Barth, James R., Gerard Caprio, Jr., and Ross Levine. 2013.
Staff Discussion Note 17/04, International Monetary Fund, “Bank Regulation and Supervision in 180 Countries from
Washington, DC. 1999 to 2011.” NBER Working Paper 18733, National
Agarwal, Sumit, Gene Amromin, Souphala Chomsisengphet, Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Tomasz Piskorski, Amit Seru, and Vincent Yao. 2015. “Mort- Bayoumi, Tamim. 2017. Unfinished Business: The Unexplored
gage Refinancing, Consumer Spending, and Competition: Causes of the Financial Crisis and the Lessons Yet to Be Learned.
Evidence from the Home Affordable Refinancing Program.” New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
NBER Working Paper 21512, National Bureau of Economic Berg, Andrew, Ed Buffie, and Felipe Zanna. 2017. “Should We
Research, Cambridge, MA. Fear the Robot Revolution? (The Correct Answer Is Yes).”
Ahuja, Ashvin, and Malhar S. Nabar. 2012. “Investment-Led Manuscript prepared for the Carnegie-Rochester NYU Con-
Growth in China: Global Spillovers.” IMF Working Paper ference Series.
12/267, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Berger, Helge, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, and Maurice Obstfeld.
Aiyar, Shekhar, Wolfgang Bergthaler, Jose M. Garrido, Anna Ily- 2018. “Revisiting the Economic Case for Fiscal Union in
ina, Andreas Jobst, Kenneth Kang, Dmitriy Kovtun, Yan Liu, the Euro Area.” Departmental Paper, Research Department,
Dermot Monaghan, and Marina Moretti. 2015. “A Strategy International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
for Resolving Europe’s Problem Loans.” IMF Staff Discussion Berger, Helge, Thomas Dowling, Sergi Lanau, Weicheng Lian,
Note 15/19, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Mico Mrkaic, Pau Rabanal, and Marzie Taheri Sanjani. 2015.
Allard, Céline, Petya Koeva Brooks, John C. Bluedorn, Fabian “Steady as She Goes—Estimating Potential Output during
Bornhorst, Katharine Christopherson, Franziska Ohnsorge, Financial ‘Booms and Busts’.” IMF Working Paper 15/233,
Tigran Poghosyan, and an IMF Staff Team. 2013. “Toward a International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Fiscal Union for the Euro Area.” IMF Staff Discussion Note Berkmen, S. Pelin, Gaston Gelos, Robert Rennhack, and James
13/09, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. P. Walsh. 2012. “The Global Financial Crisis: Explaining

Cross-Country Differences in the Output Impact.” Journal of ture and Fertility.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of
International Money and Finance 31: 42–59. Political and Social Science 650: 214–31.
Bernanke, Ben S. 2009. “Statement Regarding the Supervisory Cap- Chiacchio, Francesco, Georgios Petropoulos, and David Pichler.
ital Assessment Program.” May 7. http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 2018. “The Impact of Industrial Robots on EU Employment
newsevents/press/bcreg/bernankescap20090507.htm. and Wages: A Local Labour Market Approach.” Bruegel
———. 2015. The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Working Paper 02, Bruegel, Brussels.
Aftermath. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Claessens, Stijn, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, Deniz Igan, and Luc
———. 2017. “Monetary Policy for a New Era.” Prepared for Laeven. 2010. “Cross-Country Experiences and Policy Impli-
conference titled “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy,” cations from the Global Financial Crisis.” Economic Policy
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington April: 267–93.
DC, October 12–13. Clark, Ximena, Timothy J. Hatton, and Jeffrey G. Williamson.
———. 2018. “The Real Effects of Disrupted Credit: Evidence 2007. “Explaining U.S. Immigration, 1971–98.” Review of
from the Global Financial Crisis.” The Per Jacobsson Foun- Economics and Statistics 89 (2): 359–73.
dation Lecture, Bank for International Settlements, Basel, Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2014. “Revisions to CBO’s
and forthcoming in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Projection of Potential Output since 2007.” https://www.cbo.
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. gov/publication/45150.
Blanchard, Olivier, Eugenio Cerutti, and Lawrence Summers. Elsby, Michael W.L., Bart Hobijn, and Aysegul Sahin. 2013.
2015. “Inflation and Activity—Two Explorations and Their “Unemployment Dynamics in the OECD.” Review of Eco-
Monetary Policy Implications.” NBER Working Paper 21726, nomics and Statistics 95 (2): 530–48.
National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Enrich, David. 2010. “EU Banks Survive Stress Test.” The Wall
Blanchard, Olivier, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, and Paolo Mauro. Street Journal, July 24. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001
2010. “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy.” IMF Staff Position 424052748703294904575384940544522582.html.
Note 10/03, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Espenshade, Thomas J. 1994. “Can Immigration Slow US
Blanchard, Olivier, Hamid Faruqee, and Mitali Das. 2010. “The Population Aging?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Initial Impact of the Crisis on Emerging Market Countries.” 13 (4): 759–68.
Brooking Papers on Economic Activity (Spring): 263–23. Fernald, John G. 2015. “Productivity and Potential Output
Blanchard, Olivier, and Daniel Leigh. 2013. “Growth Forecast before, during, and after the Great Recession.” NBER Macroe-
Errors and Fiscal Multipliers.” American Economic Review 103 conomics Annual 2014 29 (1): 1–51.
(3): 117–20. Fernandes, Marcelo, Deniz Igan, and Marcelo Pinheiro. 2015.
Blanchard, Olivier, and Lawrence H. Summers. 2017. “Rethink- “March Madness in Wall Street: (What) Does the Market
ing Stabilization Policy: Back to the Future.” Conference titled Learn from Stress Tests?” IMF Working Paper 15/271, Inter-
“Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy,” Peterson Institute for national Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
International Economics, Washington, DC, October 12–13. Frey, Carl Benedikt, and Michael A. Osborne. 2017. “The Future of
Blinder, Alan S. 2013. After the Music Stopped: The Financial Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?”
Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead. New York, NY: The Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114 (C): 254–80.
Penguin Press. Furman, Jason. 2018. “The Fiscal Response to the Great
Borjas, George J. 1987. “Self-Selection and the Earnings of Recession: Steps Taken, Paths Rejected, and Lessons for Next
Immigrants.” American Economic Review 77 (4): 531–53. Time.” Brookings Institution.
Candelon, Bertrand, Alina Carare, Jean-Baptiste Hasse, and Jing Gagnon, Joseph E. 2016. “Quantitative Easing: An Underappre-
Lu. 2018. “Globalization and the New Normal.” IMF Work- ciated Success.” Peterson Institute of International Economics
ing Paper 18/75, International Monetary Fund, Washington, Policy Brief 16–4, Peterson Institute of International Eco-
DC. nomics, Washington, DC.
Cerra, Valerie, Ugo Panizza, and Sweta Saxena. 2013. “Interna- Geithner, Timothy F. 2014. Stress Test: Reflections on Financial
tional Evidence on Recovery from Recessions.” Contemporary Crises. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Economic Policy 31 (2): 424–39. Gertler, Mark, and Simon Gilchrist. 2018. “What Happened:
Cerra, Valerie, and Sweta Saxena. 2008. “Growth Dynamics: The Financial Factors in the Great Recession.” NBER Working
Myth of Economic Recovery.” American Economic Review 98 Paper 24746, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cam-
(1): 439–57. bridge, MA.
———. 2017. “Booms, Crises, and Recoveries: A New Par- Giannone, Domenico, Michele Lenza, and Lucrezia Reichlin.
adigm of the Business Cycle and Its Policy Implications.” 2011. “Market Freedom and the Global Recession.” IMF
IMF Working Paper 17/250, International Monetary Fund, Economic Review 59 (1): 111–35.
Washington, DC. Goos, Maarten, and Alan Manning. 2007. “Lousy and Lovely
Cherlin, Andrew, Erin Cumberworth, and Christopher Morgan. Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain.” The Review
2013. “The Effects of the Great Recession on Family Struc- of Economics and Statistics 89 (1): 118–133.

———, and Anna Salomons. 2014. “Explaining Job Polariza- Kalwij, Adriaan. 2010. “The Impact of Family Policy Expenditure
tion: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring.” on Fertility in Western Europe.” Demography 47 (2): 503–519.
American Economic Review 104 (8): 2509–26. Kozlowski, Julian, Laura Veldkamp, and Venky Venkateswaran.
Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier, and Maurice Obstfeld. 2012. “Stories 2017. “The Tail That Wags the Economy: Beliefs and Per-
of the Twentieth Century for the Twenty-First.” American sistent Stagnation.” NBER Working Paper 21719, National
Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 4 (1): 226–65. Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA.
Goyal, Rishi, Petya Koeva Brooks, Mahmood Pradhan, Thierry Laeven, Luc, and Fabián Valencia. 2013. “Systemic Banking
Tressel, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, Ross Leckow, Ceyla Pazarba- Crises Database.” IMF Economic Review 61 (2): 225–70.
sioglu, and an IMF Staff Team. 2013. “A Banking Union for Lagarde, Christine. 2014. “The Challenge Facing the Global
the Euro Area.” IMF Staff Discussion Note 13/01, Interna- Economy: New Momentum to Overcome a New Mediocre.”
tional Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Speech at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service,
Graetz, Georg, and Guy Michaels. Forthcoming. “Robots at Washington, DC, October 2.
Work.” Review of Economics and Statistics. ———. 2016. “Decisive Action to Secure Durable Growth.”
Hall, Robert E. 2014. “Quantifying the Lasting Harm to the US Lecture at an event hosted by Bundesbank and Goethe Uni-
Economy from the Financial Crisis.” NBER Macroeconomics versity, Frankfurt, Germany, April 5.
Annual 29: 71–128. Lane, Philip R., and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti. 2010. “The
Hatton, Timothy J., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. 2002. “What Cross-Country Incidence of the Global Crisis.” IMF Work-
Fundamentals Drive World Migration?” NBER Working Paper ing Paper 10/171, International Monetary Fund, Washing-
9159, National Bureau of Economic Research, ton, DC.
Cambridge, MA. ———. 2014. “Global Imbalances and External Adjustment
Hoem, Jan M. 2008. “The Impact of Public Policies on Euro- after the Crisis.” IMF Working Paper 14/151, International
pean Fertility.” Demographic Research (19): 249–60. Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
Homar, Timotej, and Sweder J. G. van Wijnbergen. 2015. “On ———. 2017. “International Financial Integration in the After-
Zombie Banks and Recessions after Systemic Banking Crises: math of the Global Financial Crisis.” IMF Working Paper
Government Intervention Matters.” CEPR Discussion Paper 17/115, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
DP10963, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London. Lee, Jaewoo, Jonathan D. Ostry, Alessandro Prati, Luca A. Ricci,
International Federation of Robotics (IFR). 2017. “World and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti. 2008. “Exchange Rate Assess-
Robotics 2017 Industrial Robots.” https://ifr.org. ments: CGER Methodologies, IMF Occasional Paper 261,
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2009. “The State of International Monetary Fund.” Washington, DC.
Public Finances: Outlook and Medium-Term Policies after Lewis, Michael. 2010. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday
the 2008 Crisis.” Fiscal Affairs Department publication, Machine. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Washington, DC. Lipton, David. 2018. “Trust and the Future of Multilateralism.”
———. 2012. “Euro Area Policies: 2012 Article IV Consulta- IMF Blog.
tion.” IMF Country Report 12/181, Washington, DC. Lowenstein, Roger. 2010. The End of Wall Street. New York, NY:
———. 2013a. “Euro Area Policies: 2013 Article IV Consulta- The Penguin Press.
tion—Staff Report.” IMF Country Report 13/231, Washing- Mantega, Guido. 2010. International Monetary and Financial
ton, DC. Committee, Statement by Guido Mantega, Minister of
———. 2013b. “Greece: Ex Post Evaluation of Exceptional Finance, Ministerio da Fazenda, Brazil, October 9.
Access under the 2010 Stand-By Arrangement.” IMF Coun- Mitman, Kurt. 2016. “Macroeconomic Effects of Bankruptcy
try Report 13/156, Washington, DC. and Foreclosure Policies.” American Economic Review 106 (8):
———. 2013c. “Reassessing the Role and Modalities of Fiscal 2219–55.
Policy in Advanced Economies.” IMF Policy Paper, Washing- Neels, Karel. 2010. “Temporal Variation in Unemployment
ton, DC. Rates and Their Association with Tempo and Quantum of
———. 2014. “IMF Multilateral Policy Issues Report.” IMF Fertility: Some Evidence for Belgium, France, and the Neth-
Spillover Report, Washington, DC. erlands.” Paper prepared for the session titled “Low Fertility
———. 2015. “Crisis Program Review.” Strategy, Policy and and Its Association with Macroeconomic Trends” of the
Review Department, International Monetary Fund, Washing- Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America.
ton, DC. Obstfeld, Maurice, and Kenneth Rogoff. 2009. “Global Imbal-
Jordà, Òscar, Moritz Schularick, and Alan M. Taylor. 2016. ances and the Financial Crisis: Products of Common Causes.”
“Sovereigns versus Banks: Credit, Crises, and Consequences.” Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, October
Journal of the European Economic Association 14 (1): 45–79. 2009.
Kahanec, Martin, and Martin Guzi. 2017. “How Immigrants Ong, Li Lian, and Ceyla Pazarbasioglu. 2013. “Credibility and
Helped EU Labor Markets to Adjust during the Great Reces- Crisis Stress Testing.” IMF Working Paper 13/178, Interna-
sion.” International Journal of Manpower 38 (7): 996–1015. tional Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Sorkin, Andrew Ross. 2009. Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of
(OECD). 2009. International Migration Outlook. How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial
Paulson, Jr., Henry H. 2013. On the Brink: Inside the Race to System—and Themselves. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System. New York, Spargoli, Fabrizio. 2012. “Bank Recapitalization and the
NY: Business Plus. Information Value of a Stress Test in a Crisis.” Manuscript,
Perri, Fabrizio, and Vincenzo Quadrini. 2018. “International Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Recessions.” American Economic Review 108 (4–5): 935–84. Summers, Lawrence H. 2016. “The Age of Secular Stagnation:
Pritchett, Lant, and Lawrence H. Summers. 2013. “Asia-Phoria What It Is and What to Do about It.” Foreign Affairs, March/
Meet Regression to the Mean.” Proceedings, Federal Reserve April.
Bank of San Francisco (November): 1–35. Sun, Yangfang, and Hui Tong. 2015. “How Does Postcrisis
Rajan, Raghuram G. 2010. Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Bank Capital Adequacy Affect Firm Investment?” IMF
Still Threaten the Global Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Working Paper 15/145, International Monetary Fund,
University Press. Washington, DC.
———. 2014. “Competitive Monetary Easing: Is It Yesterday Thévenon, Olivier. 2011. “Family Policies in OECD Countries:
Once More?” Remarks at the Brookings Institution, Washing- A Comparative Analysis.” Population and Development Review
ton, DC, April 10. 37 (1): 57–87.
Romer, Christina D., and David H. Romer. 2018. “Phillips Thomsen, Poul. 2017. “The Euro Zone: What’s Next.” Speech
Lecture—Why Some Times Are Different: Macroeconomic at the Financial Times Investment Management Summit,
Policy and the Aftermath of Financial Crises.” Economica 85: London, September 28.
1–40. Timmer, Marcel. P., Erik Dietzenbacher, Bart Los, Robert
Schanzenbach, Diane, Ryan Nunn, Lauren Bauer, and Audrey Stehrer, and Gaaitzen J. de Vries. 2015. “An Illustrated User
Breitwieser. 2017. “The Closing of the Jobs Gap: A Decade Guide to the World Input-Output Database: The Case of
of Recession Recovery.” Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Global Automotive Production.” Review of International
Project, Washington, DC. Economics 23 (3): 575–605.
Schwartz, Carl, and Nicholas Tan. 2016. “The Australian Toloui, Ramin. 2018. “Global Financial Crisis: Origins and
Government Guarantee Scheme: 2008–15.” Bulletin – March Causes.” Lectures Series on Navigating Financial Crises
Quarter, Reserve Bank of Australia. in the Modern Global Economy, Stanford University,
Shah, Neil. 2010. “Wait-and-See after Europe Stress Test.” Stanford, CA.
The Wall Street Journal, July 26. http://blogs.wsj.com/ Tsangarides, Charalambos. 2012. “Crisis and Recovery: Role of
marketbeat/2010/07/26/wait-and-see-aftereurope-stress-test/. the Exchange Rate Regime in Emerging Market Economies.”
Sobotka, Tomáš, Vegard Skirbekk, and Dimiter Philipov. 2011. Journal of Macroeconomics 34: 470–88.
“Economic Recession and Fertility in the Developed World.” Zhou, Xiaochuan. 2010. International Monetary and Financial
Population and Development Review 37 (2): 267–306. Committee, Statement by Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the
Solt, Frederick. 2016. “The Standardized World Income Inequal- People’s Bank of China and Governor of the IMF for China,
ity Database.” Social Science Quarterly 97 (5): 1267–281. October 9.

3
CHAPTER
CHALLENGES FOR MONETARY POLICY IN EMERGING MARKETS AS
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CONDITIONS NORMALIZE
Inflation in emerging market and developing economies again.2 This chapter examines whether the recent
since the mid-2000s has, on average, been low and stable. gains in inflation performance—quick stabilization
This chapter investigates whether these recent gains in after inflationary shocks—are sustainable, or represent
inflation performance are sustainable as global finan- an artifact of (potentially temporary) global factors
cial conditions normalize. The findings are as follows: that have put downward pressure on inflation. The
first, despite the overall stability, sizable heterogeneity in answer is crucial as emerging markets craft their mon-
inflation performance and in variability of longer-term etary policies to navigate the future shift in global
inflation expectations remains among emerging markets. financial conditions.
Second, changes in longer-term inflation expectations are Proponents on both sides of the question can find
the main determinant of inflation, while external condi- evidence for their positions (Figure 3.2). The optimists
tions play a more limited role, suggesting that domestic, can point to substantial supportive changes in insti-
not global, factors are the main contributor to the recent tutional and policy frameworks (Rogoff 2004; Chap-
gains in inflation performance. Third, further improve- ter 4 of the September 2005 World Economic Outlook
ments in the extent of anchoring of inflation expectations [WEO]; Végh and Vuletin 2014; Chapter 2 of the
can significantly improve economic resilience to adverse April 2016 WEO). For example, after the Asian crisis
external shocks in emerging markets. Anchoring reduces of the late 1990s, which illustrated anew some limita-
inflation persistence and limits the pass-through of cur- tions of pegged exchange rate regimes, central banks
rency depreciations to domestic prices, allowing monetary in many emerging markets adopted inflation targeting.
policy to focus more on smoothing fluctuations in output. Furthermore, as noted, their price stability endured
despite sharp swings in commodity prices, the global
Introduction financial crisis, and periods of strong and sustained US
dollar appreciation. The policy changes, combined with
Inflation in emerging market and developing real-world success, indicate that the gains in inflation
economies (hereafter, emerging markets) has, on performance are well rooted.
average, been remarkably low and stable in recent years Pessimists can argue that China’s integration into
(Figure 3.1).1 Following large commodity price swings, world trade and the broader globalization of com-
inflation in most emerging markets has been quick merce created a disinflationary environment benefiting
to stabilize, and the short-lived effects of inflationary emerging markets (Carney 2017; Auer, Levchenko,
shocks have, in turn, allowed central banks in these and Sauré forthcoming; Chapter 2 of the May 2018
countries to cut interest rates to fight off recessions. Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and Pacific). They
As monetary policy gradually normalizes in may further note that the period following the global
advanced economies, the ability of emerging mar- financial crisis was characterized by historically benign
kets to fend off inflationary pressures is being tested external financial conditions—manifested in low US
government bond yields and compressed spreads in
The authors of this chapter are Rudolfs Bems (lead), Francesca emerging markets—that limited the number of crisis
Caselli, Francesco Grigoli, Bertrand Gruss, and Weicheng Lian, events and accompanying inflation surges in emerging
with contributions from Michal Andrle, Yan Carrière-Swallow,
and Juan Yépez, and support from Ava Yeabin Hong, Jungjin Lee, markets (Chapter 2 of the April 2016 WEO).
Cynthia Nyakeri, and Jilun Xing. Comments from Rafael Portillo are To shed more light on these issues, this chapter
gratefully acknowledged. first examines the above competing claims: Was the
1The analysis of this chapter is largely based on 19 emerging markets:
Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Hungary, India,

Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, 2As advanced economies endeavor to raise interest rates from
Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. For details on the sample abnormal lows, currencies in emerging markets will tend to depreci-
selection, see Online Annex 3.1. All annexes are available online at ate as global portfolio investments react to diminished yield differen-
www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO. tials. The depreciation will be passed on to domestic prices.

Figure 3.1. Headline Consumer Price Index Inflation Figure 3.2. Institutional and Policy Changes, Global Shocks,
(Percent) and Financial Conditions
Following a period of disinflation during the 1990s and early 2000s, inflation in The decline and subsequent stability of inflation in emerging markets coincided
emerging markets has remained low and stable since the mid-2000s. with substantial improvements in institutional and policy frameworks and endured
despite sharp swings in commodity prices and other large global shocks. Yet, the
35 period was also characterized by historically benign external financial conditions.
30 80 1. Inflation Targeting and Openness in Emerging Markets 40

EMs: median (Percent)
Disinflation period EMs: weighted average
25 AEs: weighted average 60
35
20
40
15 Inflation targeters 30
20 Financial openness
10 Trade openness (right scale)
0 25
5 1995 2000 04 10 15
0 180 2. Global Shocks 500

Exchange value of US dollar
(Index)
Commodity price index (right scale)
–5 160 400
1995 2000 04 10 15 18
140 300
Sources: Haver Analytics; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: AEs = advanced economies; EMs = emerging markets. See Online Annex 3.1
120 200
for data sources and country coverage. Weighted average is constructed using
weights of nominal GDP, expressed in US dollar terms, for 2010–12. The vertical
dashed line distinguishes the disinflation period from the rest of the sample. 100 100
80 0
1995 2000 04 10 15 18
recent benign inflation behavior widespread among
emerging markets? What was driving inflation during 1,200 3. 10-Year Treasury Note Yield and EMBIG Spreads
(Basis points)
this episode? And have the gains in inflation been well 10-Year Treasury note yield
1,000
EMBIG spreads: median
rooted through better domestic policies, or can they be EMBIG spreads: interquartile range
800
expected to wane as global conditions shift?
Analysis of these initial questions finds that, first, the 600
improved inflation performance since the mid-2000s 400
was indeed broad based. However, the gains have not
been uniform, as some emerging markets continue to 200
find it challenging to keep inflation low. Second, it 0

1995 2000 04 10 15 18
concludes that longer-term inflation expectations have
been the main factor determining inflation, compared
Sources: Haver Analytics; JPMorgan Emerging Market Bond Index; Lane and
with the considerably smaller role of external condi- Milesi-Ferretti (2018); and IMF staff calculations.
tions. This finding suggests that domestic, not global, Note: EMBIG = emerging market bond index global. See Online Annex 3.1 for data
sources and country coverage. Inflation targeters are expressed as percent of
factors were the main contributor to the recent gains countries in the sample. Trade openness is defined as imports in percent of GDP
in inflation performance.3 (five-year moving average). Financial openness is defined as the sum of foreign
direct investment and portfolio equity liabilities in percent of GDP (five-year
moving average). Exchange value of US dollar is the nominal broad trade-weighted
3Chapter 3 of the April 2006 WEO draws similar conclusions exchange value of the US dollar (Jan-95=100). The commodity price index is
from an analysis of the role of global factors in the disinflation based on prices in US dollars of a broad set of commodities (Jan-95=100). EMBIG
spreads are spreads between sovereign bonds in emerging markets and
episode of the 1990s and early 2000s. Focusing on advanced econ-
comparable US Treasury bonds. The vertical dashed line distinguishes the
omies, Ihrig and others (2010) find little support for an increasing disinflation period from the rest of the sample.
role of global factors in the inflation process, although others (see
Borio and Filardo 2007) argue that the role of global factors has
increased since the 1990s.

CHAPTER 3 Challenges for Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets as Global Financial Conditions Normalize
Given the importance of changes in inflation expec- tions remain relevant also for emerging markets with
tations in driving inflation in emerging markets, the better-anchored expectations, as their commitment to
second part of the chapter zooms in on the behavior of inflation targets will likely be tested by the gradual mon-
inflation expectations. It measures and summarizes the etary policy normalization in advanced economies.
extent of anchoring of longer-term inflation expecta-
tions in emerging markets and studies its implications
for inflation performance and the conduct of monetary Extent of Improvements in Inflation Outcomes
policy. More specifically, the chapter addresses the How broad based are the gains in inflation perfor-
following questions: mance? To answer this question, this section first exam-
•• How has the extent of anchoring of inflation ines headline consumer price inflation statistics, which
expectations evolved in recent decades? How much are available for a comprehensive set of 90 emerging
heterogeneity in the extent of anchoring is there market and developing economies, and then zooms in
among emerging markets, and how does it compare on a sample of 19 emerging markets for which more
with conditions in advanced economies? detailed inflation data are available.4 Box 3.1 shows
•• What are the implications of the extent of anchoring that the 19 sample countries, which constitute 80 per-
of inflation expectations for monetary policy cycli- cent of the GDP of all emerging market and develop-
cality and macroeconomic resilience when facing ing economies, are broadly representative in terms of
adverse external shocks? inflation trends of the comprehensive set of emerging
market and developing economies.5
In examining those questions, the chapter reaches Headline consumer prices in the wider group of
the following conclusions: emerging market and developing economies, split into
•• The anchoring of inflation expectations has three broad geographical areas—Asia, Latin America,
improved significantly over the past two decades, and the combination of Europe, the Middle East, and
with the bulk of the gains taking place in the 2000s. Africa—all exhibit the same pattern of convergence to
Nonetheless, there is considerable heterogeneity in lower inflation rates (Figure 3.3, panel 1). The sizable
the extent of anchoring across emerging markets, and persistent differences in inflation rates among
as longer-term inflation expectations in several coun- these regions during the 1990s and early 2000s were
tries remain relatively volatile. gone by the mid-2000s. In addition, the dispersion of
•• Better-anchored inflation expectations reduce infla- inflation rates across emerging market and developing
tion persistence and limit the pass-through of cur- economies—as measured by the distance between the
rency depreciations to domestic prices. Such stability 10th and 90th percentiles of the distribution—had
allows monetary policy to focus more on smoothing declined substantially by the mid-2000s and has
output fluctuations and improving resilience to remained relatively stable since then.
adverse external shocks. The share of emerging market and developing econo-
mies with inflation rates exceeding 10 percent declined
The chapter concludes that, amid monetary policy
normalization in advanced economies, it is important for
4Country coverage, data sources, and definitions of variables are
policymakers in emerging markets to consolidate and, in
reported in Online Annex 3.1.
some cases, further improve the extent of anchoring of 5The sample includes relatively large emerging markets but, with
inflation expectations. How can the volatility of domes- regard to other basic macroeconomic characteristics (income per
tic inflation expectations be reduced? The empirical capita, GDP growth rates, the level of financial development, and
trade openness), the sample economies are comparable to the rest of
findings from the literature, confirmed by the evidence emerging market and developing economies. One notable difference
reported in this chapter, link the extent of anchoring to is that the median degree of exchange rate flexibility among the
the performance of domestic fiscal and monetary policy sample economies is larger than among all emerging market and
developing economies. The more limited exchange rate flexibility in
frameworks. Fiscal sustainability is a necessary precondi- the broader set of emerging market and developing economies can
tion for a credible nominal anchor. Similarly, a reduction affect inflation through channels that are less prevalent in the sample
in the variability of longer-term inflation expectations economies (see Box 3.1). However, the broader concept of inflation
expectations anchoring—as studied in this chapter—is equally rele-
cannot be achieved without a credible and independent
vant in flexible, managed, or fixed exchange rate regimes. See Adrian,
central bank that communicates its intentions in a Laxton, and Obstfeld (2018) for a discussion of the challenges in
transparent and timely manner. These recommenda- managing inflation expectations under different monetary regimes.

Figure 3.3. Regional Differences and Dispersion in Headline Figure 3.4. Other Measures of Price Inflation in Emerging
Consumer Price Index Inflation in Emerging Market and Markets
Developing Economies (Percent)
(Percent)
Alternative price measures for emerging markets also indicate a sizable decline in
The gains in inflation performance among emerging market and developing inflation during the 1990s and early 2000s and relative price stability since the
economies were broad based. But 15 percent of these economies still registered mid-2000s.
double-digit inflation rates over 2004–18.
30
35 1. Weighted Average Inflation, by Region Core consumer price index
Asia Producer price index
25 GDP deflator
Latin America
25 Europe, Middle East, and Africa
All EMDEs: interdecile range 20
15
15
5
10
–5
1995 2000 05 10 15 17 5
60 2. Share of Countries with Double-Digit Inflation 0

50
–5
40 1995 2000 05 10 15 17
30
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. Lines denote
20
medians across sample emerging markets of each indicator.
10
0
1995 2000 05 10 15 17 inflation rate of producer prices fell drastically during
the 1990s and has remained at relatively low levels ever
Source: IMF staff calculations. since. Finally, the same pattern is exhibited by GDP
Note: EMDEs = emerging market and developing economies. See Online Annex 3.1
for data sources and country coverage. deflators, which encompass the prices of all domesti-
cally produced final goods and services.
Inflation variability has been stable or declining in
emerging markets since 2004 (Figure 3.5). The decline
dramatically from the mid-1990s until the early 2000s
in the variability of inflation rates is not driven by
and stayed relatively stable thereafter (Figure 3.3, panel
exchange rate behavior, as there is no clear evidence
2). Nonetheless, the gains in inflation behavior are not
of a decline in the variability of exchange rate move-
uniform—15 percent of emerging market and devel-
ments since the late 1990s.7 Inflation persistence also
oping economies have had a headline inflation rate of
declined gradually during the sample period.8 As with
10 percent or more, on average, from 2004 to the first
inflation rates—which are higher in emerging markets
quarter of 2018. Several other economies exhibited
than in advanced economies—two factors suggest that
sustained surges of inflation to double-digit rates.
emerging markets could be expected to exhibit a greater
Turning to other measures of price inflation, the
degree of inflation volatility and persistence. First, a
inflation rate for so-called core consumer prices, which
higher share of consumption in emerging markets is
exclude food and energy items with more volatile
devoted to food and other commodities, whose prices
prices, also declined until the mid-2000s and has
remained low and stable since then (Figure 3.4).6 The 7See Ilzetzki, Reinhart, and Rogoff (2017) for a discussion of
changes in de facto exchange rate volatility.

6For these more detailed inflation statistics, as well as the econo- 8Inflation persistence is defined as the tendency for price shocks to
metric analysis that follows, the chapter focuses on the narrower elevate inflation above its long-term level for a prolonged period (see
sample of 19 emerging markets, defined in Online Annex 3.1. Online Annex 3.1 for details).

tend to be more volatile. And, especially regarding per- Figure 3.5. Inflation Dynamics
(Percent)
sistence, monetary policy institutions and frameworks
in emerging markets could be less developed and thus
The variability and persistence of consumer price inflation has declined
less effective.9 So, it is a notable commentary on the significantly in emerging markets, remaining relatively low since the mid-2000s.
progress made in strengthening monetary policy
frameworks in emerging markets that, since 2004, the 1. Headline Consumer Price Index Inflation
volatility of inflation for a large share (but not all) of
40 Volatility Persistence 12
the country sample has been comparable to that in
35
advanced economies. The persistence of inflation has 10
30
also been reduced, even though it remains somewhat 8
25
above the level in advanced economies.
20 6
In sum, inflation performance in emerging mar-
15
kets has markedly improved since the mid-2000s. 4
10
The improvement is not, however, uniform across the 2
5
country sample, and inflation is still generally more
0 0
volatile and persistent than in advanced economies. 1998 2001 04 07 10 13 16 1998 2001 04 07 10 13 16
Determinants of Inflation in Emerging Markets 2. Core Consumer Price Index Inflation
35 Volatility Persistence 10
What has been driving inflation in emerging mar-
kets during the period of stable and low inflation from 30
8
2004 to the first quarter of 2018? Among other infla- 25
tion determinants, this section assesses the role played 20 6
by two competing forces—external price pressures and 15 4
changes in longer-term inflation expectations—and
10
gauges the overall contributions from factors of global 2
and domestic origin.10 5
The analysis decomposes inflation into contributions 0 0

1998 2001 04 07 10 13 16 1998 2001 04 07 10 13 16
from conventional determinants of inflation—the degree
of economic slack, inflation expectations, and external Source: IMF staff calculations.
factors—and consists of two stages.11 The first stage Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The volatility is
computed as the standard deviation of detrended (Hodrick-Prescott) inflation.
estimates a Phillips curve.12 The specification includes Persistence denotes the standard deviation of the permanent component of
domestic and foreign output gaps, three-year-ahead inflation based on Stock and Watson (2007). The horizontal line in each box
represents the median across countries; the upper and lower edges of each box
inflation forecasts, and a measure of external price devel- show the top and bottom quartiles; and the vertical lines denote the range
opments as explanatory factors, and allows for inflation between the top and bottom deciles. The dots denote the average for advanced
persistence and country fixed effects. The baseline economies. X-axis labels indicate the start of three-year windows.
specification is estimated for a panel of sample emerging
9See Mishkin (2007) for a discussion of how better monetary

markets using core inflation and quarterly data from the
policy can contribute to a decline in inflation persistence.
10In line with the existing literature, longer-term inflation expec- first quarter of 2004 to the first quarter of 2018.13 Esti-
tations are proxied by surveys covering professional forecasters. Some mated parameters are broadly consistent with findings in
studies have documented significant differences between forecasts the literature (Figure 3.6).
of households and firms and those of professional analysts (see, for The second stage of the analysis explores the role
instance, Mankiw, Reis, and Wolfers 2004); unfortunately, surveys
covering households and firms are rarely available. of explanatory factors in determining actual inflation
11See Online Annexes 3.1 and 3.2 for details. during 2004–18. The exercise is constructed in terms
12Estimates are from a hybrid variant of a standard New Keynes-
ian Phillips curve framework. See Galí and Gertler (1999) and
Galí, Gertler, and Lopez-Salido (2001, 2003) for the theoretical 13The chapter’s main findings are unchanged for specifications
underpinnings. To account for the role of global factors, the analysis using headline consumer price inflation (Online Annex 3.2). The
follows Borio and Filardo (2007); Ihrig and others (2010); and Auer, results are robust to excluding the period of the global financial crisis
Levchenko, and Sauré (forthcoming). or focusing the analysis on the postcrisis period.

Figure 3.6. Coefficient Estimates from the Baseline Phillips Figure 3.7. Contributions to Deviation of Core Inflation from
Curve Specification Target
(Percentage points) (Percentage points, unless noted otherwise)
Inflation expectations, domestic output gaps, and external price pressure Changes in longer-term inflation expectations have been the key driver of the level
significantly influence consumer price inflation in emerging markets. and variability of inflation in emerging markets, although there is substantial
cross-country heterogeneity.
1.0 0.05
Output gap Foreign output gap Country fixed effect
External price pressure Expected inflation Residual
0.8 0.04
1.5 1. Average Contribution, by Subperiod
0.6 0.03
1.0
0.4 0.02 0.5
0.0
0.2 0.01
–0.5
0.0 0.00 –1.0

2004:Q1–08:Q2 08:Q3–09:Q4 10:Q1–14:Q2 14:Q3–18:Q1
–0.2 –0.01
Inflation Past Output gap Foreign External price 3 2. Average Contribution, by Country
expectations inflation output gap pressure
(right scale) 2
1
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The dots 0
denote the estimated coefficient from a hybrid Phillips curve model (see Online
Annex 3.2) and the vertical lines denote the 90 percent confidence interval. –1
–2
of deviations in inflation from its target values.14 The –3

BGR
CHL
CHN
COL
HUN
IDN
IND
MEX
MYS
PER
PHL
POL
ROU
RUS
TUR
ZAF
BRA
THA
contribution of each explanatory factor is computed
in terms of (1) average contributions to inflation
levels, and (2) contributions to inflation variability at 3. Contribution to Inflation Variability, by Country
(Percent)
quarterly frequency, in the spirit of a variance decom- 100
position exercise.15 80
60
Contributions to Inflation
40
The results indicate that changes in longer-term
inflation expectations have been the key driver of 20
the level of inflation in emerging markets, with an 0

BGR
CHL
CHN
COL
HUN
IDN
IND
MEX
MYS
PER
PHL
POL
ROU
RUS
TUR
ZAF
BRA
THA
overall positive contribution to inflation in each of

the four indicative subperiods explored (Figure 3.7,
panel 1). That is, inflation expectations for the sample Source: IMF staff calculations.
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The bars in
panel 1 (panel 2) represent the simple average contribution of each factor
14When a country is not an inflation targeter, its implicit
averaged across countries (periods). The diamonds in panel 1 represent the overall
target is defined as the moving average of 10-year-ahead inflation deviation in inflation. Bars for contributions to inflation variability in panel 3 show
expectations. the simple average of the absolute values of country-specific contributions across
15The decomposition of inflation dynamics is conducted in a periods, expressed as percent of the overall deviation of core inflation from target.
manner similar to that in Yellen (2015) and Chapter 3 of the Octo- Data labels use International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country codes.
ber 2016 WEO, taking into account the estimated persistence of the
inflation process. See Online Annex 3.2 for details.

emerging markets, on average, exceeded the inflation the foreign output gap is negligible in all decomposi-
target.16 In comparison, external prices exerted a tion results.18
deflationary influence, but the magnitude of this effect
(−0.05 percentage point annually, on average, over
the sample period) was considerably smaller than that Role of Domestic and Global Factors
of longer-term inflation expectations (0.5 percentage The remaining task for the analysis is to assess
point). The deflationary pressure from external prices domestic and global contributions to inflation in
was most pronounced during the boom that preceded emerging markets. The two capture an important
the global financial crisis. distinction in that only domestic factors can be influ-
The overall deviation of inflation from the target enced by policies in emerging markets, making them
declined gradually during 2004–14, by 0.7 percentage potentially sustainable. In contrast, foreign factors,
point.17 This trend is partly explained by output gaps even when deflationary, are more temporary in nature
(domestic and foreign), which stimulated inflation and could dissipate or reverse.
during the boom of 2004–07 and depressed it during To gauge the contribution of global factors to infla-
the bust of 2008–09, and partly by the remain- tion deviations from target, the analysis reinterprets
ing residual. results from the baseline contributions exercise in panel
Examining the same contributions at the country 3 of Figure 3.7. Fluctuations in inflation expectations
level reveals that, although changes in longer-term and domestic output gaps are considered domestic fac-
inflation expectations are the main overall contributor tors, whereas external price pressure and foreign output
to the deviations of actual inflation from target, there gaps are interpreted as global factors.19,20 Applying this
is noticeable cross-country heterogeneity (Figure 3.7, definition of global factors, the contribution results for
panel 2). The average inflationary impact of expecta- inflation variability suggest that inflation deviations
tions is sizable for only half of the economies in the from target during 2004–18 were largely determined
sample. In contrast, external price developments have by domestic factors, with foreign factors explaining
exerted downward pressure on domestic prices for 5–15 percent of inflation variability.
three-fourths of the economies in the sample, even
though the magnitude of this contribution is small. 18The analysis in this section is subject to several limitations. First,
the Phillips curve estimates can be affected by endogeneity issues,
The impact of cyclical factors is, by construction, lim-
although the robustness exercises in Online Annex 3.2 suggest that the
ited when averaged over 2004–18. economic magnitude of the potential biases are relatively small. Sec-
Analysis of contributions to the variability of ond, the decomposition results are subject to sizable uncertainty given
inflation shows that the model, on average, explains that 45 percent of the variability in inflation remains unexplained.
19The labeling of contributions as domestic and global factors
55 percent of the deviations of inflation from target warrants a cautionary note. On one hand, inflation expectations
(Figure 3.7, panel 3). The results confirm the impor- can be affected by both domestic and global factors, leading to an
tance of fluctuations in longer-term inflation expecta- underestimation of the contribution of global factors. However,
the baseline specification directly controls for foreign variables.
tions around the inflation target. Inflation expectations Moreover, the results, when the inflation expectations variable is
are the largest contributing explanatory factor for purged of external factors (by replacing it with the residual from a
four-fifths of the sample countries, explaining, on aver- regression of inflation expectations on external price pressure, foreign
output gap, and country and time fixed effects), are similar (Online
age, 20 percent of the variation in inflation. Similar to
Annex 3.2), indicating that inflation expectations are mostly driven
the evidence in Figure 3.7, panel 2, there is substantial by domestic factors. That said, foreign shocks that have an impact
heterogeneity across countries, with the share attribut- on the domestic output gap, but are not captured by changes in
able to inflation expectations ranging from 2 percent the foreign output gap and the external price pressure variable, can
also lead to a downward bias in the estimated contribution of global
to 35 percent. The results also confirm that external factors. On the other hand, some of the fluctuations in the exchange
price movements played a more limited role in the rate embedded in the external price pressure variable can be due to
variability in inflation rates, on average explaining domestic factors, potentially biasing the estimated contribution of
foreign factors upward.
8 percent of inflation deviations. The contribution of 20Online Annex 3.2 reports results from alternative model spec-
ifications that include a broader set of foreign factors (for exam-

16This could reflect the public’s doubts about the central bank’s ple, global value chain participation, external price pressure from
commitment to the inflation target, or concerns about fiscal sustain- China). Also examined is an alternative decomposition exercise that
ability, which may imply higher inflation in the future. decomposes inflation levels rather than deviations from target values.
17This decline is consistent with the small downward trend in core Baseline results concerning domestic versus global contributions are
consumer price inflation shown in Figure 3.4. shown to be robust to all alternative specifications.

Figure 3.8. Time Fixed Effects and Common Drivers, by provides a negligible average contribution to inflation
Subperiod during the post–global financial crisis period. These
(Percentage points)
findings corroborate the earlier findings on the com-
paratively limited average impact of global factors in
Apart from the commodity-induced inflation surge during 2008, common factors
played a limited role as drivers of inflation dynamics in emerging markets over driving inflation in emerging markets.
2004–18. Overall, the results of this section point to the cen-
trality of fluctuations in longer-term inflation expecta-
0.5
tions in driving inflation in emerging countries, which
Residuals Predicted values Time fixed effects
0.4
are interpreted to be of domestic origin. Motivated by
these findings, the rest of the chapter zooms in on the
0.3 behavior of inflation expectations.
0.2
Anchoring of Inflation Expectations
0.1
How anchored are expectations in emerging mar-
0.0 kets? After discussing how to define and measure the
degree of anchoring, this section documents the evolu-
–0.1 tion of anchoring over time, the extent of its variation
across the sample economies, and the influence of
–0.2 policy frameworks on the extent of anchoring.
–0.3
2004:Q1–08:Q2 08:Q3–09:Q4 10:Q1–14:Q2 14:Q3–18:Q1
Measuring Anchoring
The concept of anchored inflation expectations
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. Time fixed has no widely agreed-upon definition. The literature
effects are constructed as predicted values from the regression reported in has, however, developed an operational or practical
column (1) of Online Annex Table 3.2.2. Residuals are from a regression of these
time fixed effects on averages of other explanatory factors included in the same
definition—it is a set of predictions about the behavior
first-stage regression and a constant. Time fixed effects and predicted values are of inflation forecasts in economies where expectations
subsequently normalized such that time fixed effects in 2004–18 average to zero. are “anchored.” Under those circumstances, expec-
tations for inflation over a sufficiently long horizon
should be centered around the explicit or implicit
Could the decrease in the average decomposition target and hence not react to transitory fluctuations in
residual during 2004–14 (Figure 3.7, panel 1) signify a actual inflation or in short-term inflation expectations
common source of downward pressure on inflation? To (Demertzis, Marcellino, and Viegi 2012; Kumar and
address this question, the analysis estimates a common others 2015). In addition, if the monetary frame-
driver of inflation across emerging markets that cannot work is credible and inflation expectations are well
be explained by domestic factors.21 The approach is anchored, the dispersion (range of values) of individual
implemented by including time fixed effects in the longer-term inflation forecasts would tend to be low
model specification. Results show that the common (Capistrán and Ramos-Francia 2010; Dovern, Fritsche,
component (that is, the time fixed effects) captures and Slacalek 2012; Ehrmann 2015; Kumar and
the commodity-induced inflation surge during 2008 others 2015).
but, for other sample subperiods, its contribution to Building on these operational characteristics, the
inflation deviations from target is small in economic analysis uses survey-based longer-term inflation fore-
terms (the black line in Figure 3.8). Furthermore, the casts from professional forecasters to construct four
estimated time fixed effects correlate with domestic complementary metrics aimed at capturing the extent
explanatory factors. Beyond these factors, the residual of anchoring of inflation expectations:22
21For details of this two-stage regression specification, see notes to
Figure 3.8. See Chapter 3 of the October 2017 WEO for an earlier 22Detailed definitions for each measure are provided in Online
application of this approach. Annex 3.3.

•• A summary measure of absolute deviations in infla- Figure 3.9. Evolution of the Degree of Anchoring of Inflation
tion forecasts from a target, Expectations, 2000–17
(Percent)
•• A summary measure of the variability of inflation
forecasts over time,
Inflation expectations in emerging markets have become increasingly anchored
•• The dispersion of inflation forecasts across individ- over the past two decades, with most of the gains taking place prior to the
ual forecasters, and mid-2000s.
•• The sensitivity of inflation forecasts to surprises
2.0 1. Deviation of Long-Term 2. Variability of Long- 2.0
about current inflation. Forecasts from Target Term Forecasts
In each case, a lower reading represents better 1.5 1.5
anchoring of inflation expectations. Of course, each

measure has advantages and shortcomings, including 1.0 1.0
in terms of data coverage. Nonetheless, these four mea-
sures convey a consistent picture for each country.23 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
The Extent of Anchoring in Emerging Markets 2000–05 06–11 12–17 2000–05 06–11 12–17
These metrics suggest that inflation expectations have

1.4 3. Dispersion of Long- 4. Sensitivity of Long- 0.6
become increasingly anchored in emerging markets over Term Forecasts Term Forecasts to
the past two decades (Figure 3.9). The improvement 1.2 Inflation Surprises
in the extent of anchoring was particularly prominent 1.0 0.4
in the early 2000s; subsequent gains have been more
0.8
muted. Toward the end of the sample period, there is
evidence that the extent of anchoring has worsened in a 0.6 0.2
few countries. However, this recent trend is not consis- 0.4
tent across the four anchoring metrics.
At the same time, the metrics point to substantial 0.2 0.0
2000–05 06–11 12–17 2000–05 06–11 12–17
variation in the degree of anchoring across emerging
markets (Figure 3.10). At the high end, the average Source: IMF staff calculations.
level of anchoring over 2004–17 in some emerging Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The figure
shows the evolution of the degree of anchoring of inflation expectations over
markets was even higher than the average for a sample six-year rolling windows. The lines denote the median across countries. The
of 11 inflation-targeting advanced economies. But shaded areas denote interquartile ranges. The measures on the degree of
anchoring of inflation expectations are defined in Online Annex 3.3. In all panels,
for the emerging markets in the bottom quartile (the lower values denote more-anchored inflation expectations.
least anchored), the average reading for each measure
is between three and seven times larger than that for
emerging markets in the top quartile.24 On average,
changes in longer-term inflation expectations to actual
anchoring in emerging markets remains substantially
inflation is substantially larger for the economies with
weaker than in advanced economies.
less-anchored inflation expectations (by 0.4 percent-
The heterogeneity in the extent of anchoring is
age point annually on average) than for those with
reflected in the role of inflation expectations in deter-
more-anchored inflation expectations.25 The contri-
mining deviations of inflation from targets (Figure 3.7,
bution of other factors to actual inflation is broadly
panels 1 and 2). If the sample economies are split
similar across the less- and more-anchored groups.
into two even groups according to how well anchored
In sum, the extent of anchoring of inflation expec-
expectations were during 2004–18, the contribution of
tations in emerging markets has improved significantly
over the past few decades, but sizable differences
23The rankings of economies, based on each metric of anchoring,
correlate highly across measures, with the rank correlation between

any two measures ranging from 0.56 to 0.87. 25Similarly, changes in longer-term inflation expectations account
24The metrics also reveal that the position of economies in the for a relatively low fraction of inflation variability in those econo-
ranking for anchoring has changed little over time, indicating that mies with better-anchored expectations, such as Chile and Poland
the extent of anchoring changes slowly (Online Annex Figure 3.3.1). (Figure 3.7, panel 3).

Figure 3.10. Cross-Country Heterogeneity in Degree of remain across emerging markets and relative to
Anchoring of Inflation Expectations, 2004–17 advanced economies.
(Percent)
The extent of anchoring of inflation expectations varies markedly across emerging Anchoring and Policy Frameworks
markets and remains substantially weaker than in advanced economies on average.
What explains the improvements in the anchoring
2.0 1. Deviation of Long-Term Forecasts from Target 8.37
of longer-term inflation expectations across emerging
1.5 markets, as well as the still-sizable cross-country differ-
ences? A comprehensive study is beyond the scope of
1.0 this chapter, but an exploration of the data confirms
findings from the literature regarding the important
0.5 role of sound monetary and fiscal frameworks in deter-
mining inflation expectations.
0.0
The literature suggests that the extent of anchoring
AEs
CHL
POL
CHN
MYS
PHL
HUN
PER
MEX
COL
BGR
IDN
ZAF
IND
ROU
TUR
RUS
ARG*
BRA
THA
is intimately related to the credibility of the monetary

strategy (Cukierman and Meltzer 1986; King 1995).26
2.0 2. Variability of Long-Term Forecasts 5.99
A monetary policy plan will be credible if the public
1.5 believes the monetary authority does not have incen-
tives to deviate from that plan or does not need to
1.0 subordinate it to other considerations, such as restoring
fiscal solvency. The formation of inflation expectations
0.5 thus lies at the heart of any concept of credibility.
Central banks may use monetary policy to pursue mul-
0.0
tiple goals, but the credibility of the policy is typically
AEs
CHL
MEX
PER
POL
HUN
ZAF
MYS
COL
CHN
PHL
IDN
IND
TUR
BGR
ROU
RUS
ARG*
BRA
THA
interpreted in terms of inflation performance.

Several studies have found that adopting an infla-
2.0 3. Dispersion of Long-Term Forecasts 4.41
tion target and transparent public communication of
1.5 monetary policy helps anchor inflation expectations in
emerging and advanced economies alike.27 The data
1.0 analyzed here confirm the importance of inflation
targeting and transparency in the sample of emerg-
0.5 ing markets covered in this chapter (Figure 3.11,
0.0
AEs
CHL
POL
MEX
PER
COL
HUN
ROU
MYS
IND
PHL
CHN
BGR
IDN
RUS
TUR
ARG*
BRA
THA
26Cukierman and Meltzer (1986) argue that the ability of the

0.4 4. Sensitivity of Long-Term Forecasts to Inflation Surprises
monetary authority to achieve its future objectives depends on the
inflation expectations of the public, which in turn depend on the
0.3 public’s evaluation of the credibility of the monetary authority.
27Gürkaynak, Levin, and Swanson (2010) analyze the behavior of
0.2 long-term forward rates on nominal and inflation-indexed bonds in

Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and conclude
0.1 that announcing an explicit inflation target helps anchor long-term
inflation expectations. Levin, Natalucci, and Piger (2004) reach a
similar conclusion for a broader sample of advanced economies.
0.0 Capistrán and Ramos-Francia (2010) find that the dispersion of
AEs
CHL
COL
MYS
POL
IND
MEX
HUN
PER
ZAF
IDN
ROU
RUS
CHN
ARG
BGR
PHL
TUR
THA
BRA
inflation forecasts in emerging markets tended to fall after adopting

an inflation target, while Brito, Carrière-Swallow, and Gruss (2018)
Source: IMF staff calculations. argue that the reduction in disagreement among forecasts that
Note: AEs = average of 11 advanced inflation targeting economies. See Online follows the adoption of inflation targeting is largely due to increased
Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The figures show the average central bank transparency. Chapter 3 of the May 2018 Regional
value for each anchoring measure over 2004–17. Values marked with (*) have Economic Outlook: Western Hemisphere finds that stronger transpar-
been truncated at 2. The measures on the degree of anchoring of inflation ency frameworks and communication strategies are associated with
expectations are defined in Online Annex 3.3. In all panels, lower values denote more-anchored inflation expectations.
more-anchored inflation expectations. Data labels use International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) country codes.

panel 1).28 The cross-country variation in the degree Figure 3.11. Anchoring of Inflation Expectations and Policy
of anchoring is related to both the maturity of an Frameworks, 2004–17
(Percent, unless noted otherwise)
inflation targeting regime—more precisely, to the age
of the regime—and to the transparency of central
Sound monetary and fiscal frameworks are associated with better-anchored
bank policy (as measured by Dincer and Eichengreen inflation expectations in emerging markets.
2014). More broadly, central bank communication
plays a key role in anchoring expectations by improv- Years in IT regime CB transparency
ing the predictability of monetary policy (Box 3.2).29
Regardless of the specific design of the monetary 2.0 1. Years in IT and CB Transparency Index
framework, sound and sustainable fiscal policy is
Variability of long-term forecasts

essential for the credibility of monetary policy (see, 1.5
for instance, Masson, Savastano, and Sharma 1997; y = 0.93 – 0.05x y = 0.94 – 0.04x
Mishkin 2000; and Mishkin and Savastano 2001).30 R 2 = 0.36 (t-stat = –2.97) R 2 = 0.09 (t-stat = –1.23)
1.0
If public debt is perceived to be unsustainable, higher
inflation will be expected. The mechanism for the
0.5
expected price acceleration is the expectation of “fiscal
dominance”—an eventual monetization of the debt
or large devaluations of the currency. Some stud- 0.0
0 5 10 15
ies have indeed found an association between fiscal Years in IT and CB transparency index
institutions and credibility on one hand and inflation
performance and the anchoring of inflation expecta- EMBIG CDS
tions on the other (Combes and others 2017; Caldas
Montes and Acar 2018) or a link between expected 1.5 2. EMBIG and CDS Spread
Variability of long-term forecasts
fiscal performance and inflation expectations (Celasun,

Gelos, and Prati 2004). In line with these studies, the
cross-country variation in the degree of anchoring in 1.0
the sample covered in this chapter is positively related y = 0.99 + 0.002x
R 2 = 0.10 (t-stat = 1.32)
to the market perception about the sustainability of
0.5
public debt (Figure 3.11, panel 2).31
y = 1.42 + 0.004x
R 2 = 0.25 (t-stat = 2.14)
Implications of Anchoring for Monetary Policy 0.0
–450 –400 –350 –300 –250 –200 –150 –100
Longer-term inflation expectations are a key driver of EMBIG and CDS spread (deviation from global, bps)
inflation in emerging markets, and the economies vary
in the degree to which the expectations are anchored. Sources: Dicer and Eichengreen (2014); JP Morgan; Thomson Reuters
Datastream; and IMF staff calculations.
When longer-term expectations are not well anchored, Note: bps = basis points; CB = central bank; CDS = credit default swap;
EMBIG = emerging market bond index global; IT = inflation targeting. See Online
28The analysis on Figure 3.11 is based on the variability of infla- Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. EMBIG spreads and CDS
spreads are the residuals from a regression on time fixed effects. For the CB
tion forecasts, but a similar picture emerges when any of the other
transparency index, higher values indicate higher degree of transparency.
three anchoring metrics is used.
29See Al-Mashat and others (2018b) for a discussion of how
Argentina is excluded from the figures as an outlier; its inclusion would further
strengthen the depicted relationships.
central bank transparency and enhanced communication can rein-
force confidence in the long-term inflation target and improve the
effectiveness of the monetary policy instrument.
30Other factors are also likely to matter for longer-term anchoring; they tend to rise with price shocks that depress eco-
for instance, Mishkin and Savastano (2001) point to the importance nomic activity and place central banks in a policy
of stringent prudential regulations and strict supervision of financial dilemma. Reacting to rising inflation expectations with
institutions to ensure that the system is capable of withstanding
exchange rate fluctuations. tighter monetary conditions would worsen output
31The analysis uses asset prices to capture the market perception effects, and loosening policy to boost activity would
about the sustainability of public debt. Importantly, these measures worsen inflation expectations. Hence, central banks in
incorporate not only concerns about the current level of public
debt for intertemporal fiscal solvency, but also the expected path of
economies with less-anchored expectations would be less
future deficits. able to focus on smoothing output fluctuations.

A vast literature has explored how inflation perfor- and is modeled as a temporary surge in the country
mance differs according to variations in the monetary risk premium.34
framework (see, for instance, Rogoff and others 2004; The degree of monetary policy credibility and the
Ball and Sheridan 2005; and Gonçalves and Salles strength of inflation expectations anchoring signifi-
2008). The approach in this section asks, instead, cantly affect how the model economy responds to the
whether variations in the degree of anchoring of sudden-stop shock (Figure 3.12). Regardless of the
inflation expectations affect inflation performance and degree of credibility, the external shock induces a sharp
the trade-offs faced by monetary policy in emerg- nominal currency depreciation (not shown in Fig-
ing markets.32 ure 3.12), which boosts actual inflation. In the econ-
In particular, the external shock represented by omy with a more credible central bank, longer-term
the ongoing normalization of monetary policy in the inflation expectations are better anchored, and infla-
United States and other advanced economies may tion more quickly returns to its long-run level once
well depress activity in emerging markets while also the effect of the shock dissipates. The result implies a
triggering a temporary increase in inflation. This smaller exchange rate pass-through to consumer prices
section addresses the following question: Will emerging and lower inflation persistence.
markets with more-anchored inflation expectations be With a shorter-lived deviation of inflation from its
better able to fight the incipient downturn triggered by target, the monetary policy rate need not increase by
the external shock? as much in response to the adverse shock, and can
The approach takes the variation in the degree of return to its neutral level sooner, leading to a smaller
anchoring among emerging markets as given, or as a cumulative decline in output.35 In sum, the persistence
characteristic that changes only slowly.33 The analysis of inflationary shocks is smaller, and monetary policy
first adapts a conventional New Keynesian monetary can focus more on fighting recessions when credi-
model to illustrate how the extent of anchoring may bility is higher and expectations are better anchored,
influence the domestic economic impact of an external thereby increasing the economy’s resilience to adverse
shock. Second, an event analysis uses an earlier and external shocks.
comparable shock—the so-called taper tantrum during
the summer of 2013—to explore differences in the
responses of key variables between emerging markets The Taper Tantrum Episode
with more- and less-anchored inflation expectations. How did key macroeconomic variables in emerging
Finally, the analysis explores whether the ability to markets react to the taper tantrum in the summer of
conduct countercyclical monetary policy in emerging 2013? The episode was based on a sudden expectation
markets is related to the extent of anchoring of infla- of an imminent move toward monetary normaliza-
tion expectations. tion in the United States (via a tapering off of bond
purchases by the Federal Reserve), which boosted risk
premiums on debt instruments in emerging markets.
Insights from a Monetary Model Among the advantages of studying this shock are that
A version of a New Keynesian monetary model it is related to an expectation of de facto monetary
is used to examine how the extent of central bank policy tightening in the advanced economies, it is well
credibility can influence the impact of an external identified, and it is exogenous to emerging markets.
shock on domestic inflation dynamics and on the Did the response during the taper tantrum episode
reaction of monetary policy. The shock considered is differ across emerging markets according to how well
akin to a sudden stop in capital flows (Calvo 1998) anchored their inflation expectations were, as would be
predicted by the model?36
32The approach pursued in this chapter is more closely related to
Mishkin and Savastano (2001), who argue that policymakers can
choose from among a wide set of monetary frameworks, but their 34The framework follows Alichi and others (2009) and Al-Mashat
ability to deliver price stability will ultimately be determined by and others (2018a), which extend a conventional monetary model to
their credibility, as captured in this chapter by the robustness of the allow for imperfect credibility. See Online Annex 3.4 for details.
public’s longer-term inflation expectations. 35The expected real interest rate also increases by less in the coun-
33This is consistent with the evolution of anchoring in the sample. try with a more credible central bank.
The position of economies in the ranking for anchoring has changed 36This analysis does not imply that anchoring is the ultimate
little over time (Online Annex 3.3). driver of the differences in macroeconomic outcomes. As discussed

The empirical exercise estimates the responses of the Figure 3.12. Gains from Anchoring Inflation Expectations
variables of interest—the exchange rate, inflation, out- (Percentage points)
put, and the policy rate—to the taper tantrum shock.37
Model simulations suggest that when monetary policy is credible and inflation
To tease out the differential effects arising from expectations are better anchored, the economy is more resilient to adverse
variations in the extent of anchoring, the economies external shocks.
in the sample are sorted into a more-anchored and a
less-anchored group, as defined in Online Annex 3.3, High credibility Low credibility
and responses specific to each group are estimated.38
0.15 1. Three-Year–ahead Inflation Expectations
In each of the two country groups, the currency
depreciates on impact, as predicted by the model 0.10
(Figure 3.13, panel 1). The initial depreciation is some-
what smaller in the less-anchored group, which could 0.05
be an indication of “fear of floating” (see Calvo and
Reinhart 2002).39 However, after the first two months, 0.00
the depreciation effect equalizes across the two groups.

–0.05
The response of consumer prices suggests a very per- 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
sistent and statistically significant increase in the price
level for the less-anchored economies and, broadly, no 0.6 2. Headline Consumer Price Index
consumer price impact in the more-anchored group. 0.5
The differences between the two groups are statistically 0.4
significant at all horizons (Figure 3.13, panel 2). 0.3
A comparison of the responses of the exchange 0.2
rate and consumer prices between the two groups of 0.1
countries suggests that the exchange rate pass-through 0.0
during the taper tantrum event was substantially larger –0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
in countries with less-anchored inflation expecta-
tions. A systematic exploration of the exchange rate 0.6 3. Policy Rate
and consumer price responses across the two groups 0.5
of economies confirms that the pass-through of 0.4
currency depreciations is lower in economies with 0.3
better-anchored inflation expectations (Figure 3.14).40 0.2
0.1
in the previous section, the varying extent of anchoring can be 0.0
explained by fundamental macroeconomic factors, including the –0.1
quality of fiscal and monetary policy frameworks. 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
37The estimates are produced with a local projection framework
(Jordà 2005; Jordà, Schularick, and Taylor 2013). The methodol-

0.0 4. Output (Cumulative Change)
ogy is closely related to an event study approach (see, for example,
de Carvalho Filho 2011; Obstfeld 2014; and Ahmed, Coulibaly, and –0.2
Zlate 2017), but controls for lags of the dependent variable.
38Details of the estimation strategy and a discussion of robustness –0.4
checks for the results of this section are in Online Annex 3.5. –0.6
39As discussed further below, fear of floating could help explain
–0.8
weak anchoring if the central bank compromises its inflation goals to
achieve exchange rate stability. –1.0
40See Online Annex 3.5 for details. These results are obtained
–1.2
from a reduced-form estimation that does not distinguish between 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
the underlying sources of movements in the exchange rate and,
therefore, need to be interpreted with caution (Forbes, Hjortsoe, Source: IMF staff calculations.
and Nenova 2015). Reassuringly, however, the magnitude of the Note: The figures show impulse responses to a “sudden-stop” shock, defined as
pass-through for the less-anchored countries after six months (equal an increase in the country-specific risk premium, using a semistructural monetary
to 11 percent) is comparable to the estimates obtained from the model described in Online Annex 3.4. X-axis labels indicate time in quarters, with
taper tantrum event exercise (14 percent), where the underlying the shock occurring at time = 1.
shock is well identified. For the more-anchored countries, the magni-
tudes of the pass-through are 1 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

Figure 3.13. Response to the Taper Tantrum Figure 3.14. Cumulative Exchange Rate Pass-Through
(Percentage points) (Percentage points)
Economies with better-anchored inflation expectations were more resilient to the The exchange rate pass-through to consumer prices is lower in economies with
taper tantrum episode in the summer of 2013—they experienced a smaller increase better-anchored inflation expectations.
in inflation and could keep monetary policy relatively more accommodative.
0.30
More-anchored Less-anchored More-anchored
Less-anchored
8 1. Exchange Rate 0.25
6
0.20
4
0.15
2
0 0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.0 2. Consumer Prices

0.05
0.5
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.0
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The figure
–0.5 shows the cumulative impulse response of headline consumer prices to a 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 percent change in the nominal effective exchange rate (see Online Annex 3.5 for
details). X-axis denotes time in months. The shaded area corresponds to 90
0.2 3. Growth Forecast percent confidence intervals computed with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors. Solid
squares (unfilled circles) for responses denote that the difference between the two
0.0 responses is statistically significant (not statistically significant) at a 90 percent
confidence level. The criterion to classify countries as more- and less-anchored is
–0.2 defined in Online Annex 3.3.
–0.4
–0.6 These findings are consistent with several earlier

studies.41
–0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 In terms of the monetary policy dilemma and the
0.2 4. Monetary Policy Rate
response of the policy rate, the less-anchored country
group faced a starker trade-off between fighting infla-
0.1
tion and countering falling growth prospects during
0.0
the taper tantrum episode.42 Although, in contrast to
–0.1 the more-anchored group, these countries experienced
–0.2 a significant fall in expected output growth, they did
–0.3
41Taylor (2000) argues that improvements in monetary perfor-
–0.4 mance, as reflected in price stability and better-anchored inflation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
expectations, result in an endogenous reduction of exchange rate
pass-through. Several studies have found evidence in line with this
Source: IMF staff calculations. hypothesis, including Gagnon and Ihrig (2001), Choudhri and Hak-
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The figures ura (2006), Edwards (2006), Mishkin and Schmidt-Hebbel (2007),
show the cumulative impulse response to the taper tantrum episode (see Online Carrière-Swallow and others (2016), and Caselli and Roitman (2016).
Annex 3.5 for details). An increase in the exchange rate denotes a depreciation. 42Given the monthly frequency of the estimation, the analysis
X-axis denotes time in months. The episode is defined as equal to 1 in May 2013.
The shaded areas correspond to 90 percent confidence intervals computed with proxies the response of output using one-year-ahead growth forecasts
Driscoll-Kraay standard errors. Solid squares (unfilled circles) for responses from Consensus Forecasts. An alternative exercise, using quarterly
denote that the difference between the two responses is statistically significant data and analyzing the reaction of actual output growth to the taper
(not statistically significant) at a 90 percent confidence level. The criterion to tantrum shock, shows similar results, confirming more a negative
classify countries as more- and less-anchored is defined in Online Annex 3.3. output response in less-anchored countries.

not pursue looser monetary policies. Indeed, there is Figure 3.15. Correlation between Detrended Policy Rate and
no significant difference in the response of the policy Output Gap, 2004:Q1–2018:Q1
(Percent)
rate across the two groups at any horizon.
In sum, the analysis suggests that economies with
A simple correlation analysis suggests that over 2004–18 monetary authorities
better-anchored inflation expectations were more tended to react more to output gap fluctuations in economies with better-anchored
resilient to the taper tantrum episode and were able to inflation expectations.
keep monetary policy relatively more accommodative.
0.6
Countercyclical Monetary Policy 0.5

How general are the findings of the taper tan-
trum episode? When output enters a cyclical decline, 0.4
could the monetary authorities in countries with

0.3
more-anchored inflation expectations act more coun-
tercyclically than authorities in less-anchored countries, 0.2
focusing more on reducing output fluctuations?
Following Végh and Vuletin (2014) and Végh and 0.1
others (2017), an examination of a simple correlation
0.0
between the detrended policy rate and the output gap
reveals that monetary policy in both country groups, on
–0.1
average, reacted countercyclically to output gap develop-
ments over the first quarter of 2004 to the first quarter –0.2
More-anchored Less-anchored
of 2018 (Figure 3.15). The countercyclical response
was stronger in the more-anchored group. However,
such correlation-based findings can be subject to several Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage. The dots
criticisms. First, they need not be informative of the denote the median correlation across countries and the vertical lines denote the
interquartile range. Monetary policy rate series have been detrended by the
monetary policy dilemma that policymakers in emerg- Hodrick-Prescott filter, following Végh and Vuletin (2014). The output gap is
ing markets face when hit by adverse external shocks, measured by the real-time output gap from the World Economic Outlook database if
available, or by detrended real output using the Hodrick-Prescott filter. The criterion
as monetary policy tradeoffs can vary depending on to classify countries as more- and less-anchored is defined in Online Annex 3.3.
the nature of the underlying shock. Second, a simple
correlation does not control for other factors important
to policymakers. For example, if exchange rate stability
To focus on adverse external shocks that can poten-
is an additional policy objective and the exchange rate is
tially pose a dilemma between stabilizing output and
correlated with the output gap, the estimated response
inflation, such as the one examined in the event study
of the policy rate to the output gap may be biased.
of the taper tantrum, two complementary identifica-
To address these limitations, this section estimates
tion strategies are used. First, the regression analysis is
a monetary policy reaction function for the emerg-
restricted to 2011–15, when emerging markets experi-
ing markets in the sample. Following Taylor (1993)
enced a substantial slowdown in net capital inflows.44
and Coibion and Gorodnichenko (2012), the spec-
Second, the domestic output gap is instrumented
ification allows for inertia in monetary policy and
with shocks to the global risk premium, as captured
includes the inflation rate, the output gap, and the
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility
change in the nominal effective exchange rate. The
Index (VIX).
estimated coefficient on the output gap is interpreted
The results show that the output gap coeffi-
as a measure of monetary policy countercyclicality. To
cient is smaller for less-anchored countries than for
assess whether the extent of anchoring influences the
more-anchored ones for all specifications and, in
ability to conduct countercyclical policy, the estimation
two of these, the difference between the two output
allows the coefficients in the monetary policy reaction
function to differ between countries in the more- and
less-anchored groups.43 44See Chapter 2 of the April 2016 WEO for a detailed examina-
tion of this slowdown episode and Online Annex Figure 3.6.1 for
43See Online Annex 3.6 for details. the evolution of net capital inflows to the countries in the sample.

Figure 3.16. Effects of Less-Anchored Inflation Expectations: in less-anchored countries not only responds less to
Regression Results, 2004:Q1–2018:Q1 output gap fluctuations, but it also responds more to
(Percentage points)
fluctuations in the nominal effective exchange rate.
Overall, these findings suggest that the ability to
Model estimates suggest that monetary policy reacts more to output fluctuations
and less to exchange rate developments in countries with better-anchored conduct countercyclical monetary policy in emerging
inflation expectations—including in periods when adverse external shocks pose a markets is positively linked to the extent of anchoring
dilemma between stabilizing output and inflation.
of inflation expectations.46
0.05 1. Effect on Countercyclicality of Monetary Policy 0.2 Taken together, the results in this section suggest
that well-anchored expectations can attenuate the
0.00 0.0 monetary policy dilemma faced by emerging markets
when they are hit by adverse external shocks. The infla-
–0.05 –0.2
tionary impact of such shocks is smaller when inflation
–0.10 –0.4 expectations are more anchored, allowing monetary
policy to focus more on smoothing output fluctua-
–0.15 –0.6 tions, thus improving the resilience of the economy.
–0.20 –0.8
2004:Q1–18:Q1 11:Q1–15:Q4 04:Q1–18:Q1
OLS OLS IV (right scale) Summary and Policy Implications
Following a period of disinflation during the 1990s
0.05 2. Effect on Response of Monetary Policy to Changes in the NEER
and early 2000s, inflation in emerging market and
0.04 developing economies has remained low and stable.
This chapter examines the low and stable inflation
0.03
experience in 19 emerging markets during 2004–18
0.02 to determine whether the recent gains in inflation
0.01 performance are sustainable as global financial condi-
tions normalize.
0.00
The chapter finds that, for the average sample
–0.01 emerging market, the gains in inflation performance
2004:Q1–18:Q1 2011:Q1–15:Q4 2004:Q1–18:Q1
OLS OLS IV have been broad based—present across alternative
price measures and geographic regions, as well as in
Source: IMF staff calculations. terms of both inflation levels and inflation variability.
Note: IV = instrumental variables; NEER = nominal effective exchange rate; At the same time, the gains are not uniform, as some
OLS = ordinary least squares. See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country
coverage. The figure shows the effect on the output gap coefficient (panel 1) and emerging markets continue to find it challenging to
the exchange rate coefficient (panel 2) of being a less-anchored country rather keep inflation low and stable in the face of capital flow
than a more-anchored country from estimated monetary policy reaction functions.
Each panel summarizes results from three regression specifications. Starting from reversals and exchange rate pressures. Average inflation
the left, the first regression result refers to a full-sample OLS specification, the in several sample economies remained in double-digit
second regression result refers to the OLS specification in which the impact of
more- or less-anchored inflation expectations is identified from the territory during the period under study. The main
2011:Q1–15:Q4 period only, and the third regression result refers to a full-sample driver of deviations of inflation from target is fluc-
instrumental variable specification (see Online Annex 3.6 for details). The criterion
to classify countries as more- and less-anchored is defined in Online Annex 3.3.
tuations in longer-term inflation expectations, while
the role of global factors is more limited. Zooming in
on the behavior of inflation expectations reveals that
the extent of expectations anchoring has improved
gap coefficients is statistically different from zero
but remains subpar in many emerging markets rel-
(Figure 3.16). The results also suggest that the coeffi-
ative to the better-performing peers and relative to
cient on the nominal effective exchange rate is larger
advanced economies.
for less-anchored countries.45 Thus, monetary policy
45The results could indicate that fear of floating leads to 46The findings are qualitatively robust to the exclusion of the
less-anchored inflation expectations. But there are other possible global financial crisis period (third quarter of 2007 to the first
explanations, and more research is needed before drawing strong quarter of 2009) and to alternative groupings of more-anchored and
conclusions. less-anchored economies.

What do these findings imply for inflation, and for emerging markets have succeeded in reducing inflation
economic outcomes more broadly, as global financial to low and sustainable levels. Whether these gains
conditions normalize? To the extent that a tightening of will be maintained largely depends on policymakers’
global financial conditions leads to currency deprecia- continued commitment to improving the long-term
tions in emerging markets, some adjustment in relative sustainability of fiscal frameworks, including by
prices and a temporary increase in their inflation rates adopting fiscal rules, and preserving and rebuilding
is to be expected. But if expectations are well anchored, fiscal buffers where necessary. Equally important is
price stability would not be jeopardized. Indeed, the their commitment to improving the credibility of
analysis shows that more-anchored inflation expectations central banks, which can be achieved by consolidating
reduce inflation persistence and limit the pass-through and enhancing their independence, as well as through
of currency depreciations to domestic prices, allowing improvements in timeliness, clarity, transparency,
monetary policy to focus more on reducing output and openness in communications. In this context, it
fluctuations. Subpar levels of anchoring of longer-term is notable that public debt has increased in emerg-
inflation expectations can constrain central banks’ ing markets over the past decade and is projected to
monetary policy responses and make emerging markets increase further in many of the largest economies over
more vulnerable to adverse external shocks, such as the the next five years (see Chapter 1). Also, a number of
ongoing normalization of monetary policy in the United less-anchored emerging markets have more recently
States and other advanced economies. come under considerable pressures from exchange
In terms of policy implications, the chapter argues rate depreciations and shorter-term inflation. These
that domestic fiscal and monetary policy frameworks developments suggest that the past gains in inflation
can significantly affect the performance of output performance cannot be taken for granted and require
and inflation in response to adverse external shocks continued improvements in fiscal and monetary pol-
through their impact on the extent of anchoring of icy frameworks.
inflation expectations. One important implication is The chapter also emphasizes that anchoring inflation
that emerging markets are not simply bystanders to expectations takes time, which suggests that policy-
the forces of globalization and financial conditions in makers in emerging markets should consolidate and
advanced economies.47 By improving fiscal and mon- further improve the extent of anchoring of inflation
etary policy frameworks over the past two decades, expectations, even when favorable economic conditions
prevail. In countries where the credibility of monetary
47Chapter 3 of the April 2017 Global Financial Stability Report
frameworks is relatively low, the emphasis should be on
draws similar conclusions regarding the domestic impact of global
communicating clearly the reasons for policy actions
financial conditions. taken in response to global developments.

Box 3.1. Inflation Dynamics in a Wider Group of Emerging Market and Developing Economies
This box compares (1) basic macroeconomic char- Figure 3.1.1. Comparison of Macro
acteristics and (2) headline inflation dynamics for a Characteristics across Country Groups
wider group of 71 emerging market and developing
economies with the 19 emerging markets covered in 1. Nominal GDP 2. Real GDP per Capita
the chapter (termed here the “sample” economies).1 The (Trillion PPP (Thousand PPP
wider set of 71 economies is separated into (1) 33 other international dollars) constant 2011
4.0 international dollars) 30
emerging markets, and (2) 38 low-income developing 3.5 25
countries, as defined in the World Economic Outlook 3.0
classification, and referred to hereafter as the “other 2.5 20
two country groups.” 2.0 15
The 19 emerging markets covered in the chapter 1.5 10
are among the largest emerging markets (Figure 3.1.1, 1.0
0.5 5
panel 1). This sample is representative of the broader
0.0 0
set of emerging markets along several dimensions, Sample Other LIDCs Sample Other LIDCs
including GDP per capita and financial development EMs EMs EMs EMs
(Figure 3.1.1, panels 2 and 3). Also, countries in all
3. Credit to GDP 4. Real GDP Growth
three groups grow at a comparable pace (Figure 3.1.1, 125
(Percent) (Percent)
10
panel 4) and exhibit similar openness to international
100 8
trade over the sample period (Figure 3.1.1, panel
5). One difference is that the 19 sample economies 75 6
have more flexible exchange rates, although several
50 4
of them exhibit degrees of exchange rate flexibility
that are comparable to those of economies in the 25 2
other two country groups (Figure 3.1.1, panel 6).
0 0
Greater exchange rate rigidity can contribute to higher Sample Other LIDCs Sample Other LIDCs
inflation volatility for commodity exporters when EMs EMs EMs EMs
facing large commodity price swings.2 Beyond this
5. Trade Openness 6. Exchange Rate
specific set of countries, the approach pursued in the 160 (Percent of GDP) Flexibility 15
chapter emphasizes the broader concept of credible 140 (Index)
12
monetary policy frameworks, as captured by the extent 120
of anchoring of inflation expectations, in delivering 100 9
80
60 6
The authors of this box are Francesca Caselli and Jilun Xing. 40
3
1The wider group includes all emerging markets and 20
low-income developing countries not included in the core 0 0
sample of 19 countries, except countries with (1) populations Sample Other LIDCs Sample Other LIDCs
of fewer than 2 million people or (2) at least one episode EMs EMs EMs EMs
of hyperinflation, defined as annual inflation of more than
100 percent. The selection of the core sample of 19 economies is Sources: Ilzetzki, Reinhart, and Rogoff (2017); World Bank;
driven by data availability. The key data constraint for inclusion and IMF staff calculations.
Note: EMs = emerging markets; LIDCs = low-income
in the core sample of countries is the availability of longer-term
developing countries; PPP = purchasing power parity. See
(three-year-ahead and longer) forecasts for inflation. Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage.
2Several countries in the “other two country groups” exhibit
The horizontal line in each box represents the median across
limited exchange rate flexibility and are heavily dependent on countries calculated over the period 2004–17; the upper and
commodities. Under a fixed exchange rate, when commodity lower edges of each box show the top and bottom quartiles;
export prices increase, both domestic and import prices rise and the vertical lines denote the range between the top and
(given higher domestic demand, which raises nontradables prices, bottom deciles. A higher value of the exchange rate index
including distribution margins for imports), with the adjustment means greater flexibility.
to the income windfall taking place through relative prices rather
than the exchange rate. Conversely, periods of weak commod-
ity export prices put downward pressure on domestic demand
and prices. By contrast, under a flexible exchange rate part of
the terms-of-trade movement is absorbed by the exchange rate,
dampening the effect of this type of shock on inflation.

Box 3.1 (continued)

price stability over the narrower focus on the exchange Figure 3.1.2. Inflation Dynamics
rate regime. (Percent)
Inflation dynamics in the wider group of other
emerging markets and low-income developing 35 1. Headline Consumer Price Index Inflation
countries (the “other two country groups”) show 30 Sample EMs
broadly similar trends to that of the sample econo- 25 Other EMs
LIDCs
mies. Headline consumer price inflation in the other 20
two country groups declined between the mid-1990s 15
and the mid-2000s, and, on average, remained lower 10
thereafter (Figure 3.1.2, panel 1). The number of 5
countries with double-digit headline inflation also fell 0
dramatically from the 1990s in all three groups. Less 1995 2000 05 10 15 18
than 15 percent of the countries exhibited double-digit
inflation at the end of the sample period, compared 80 2. Share of Countries with Double-Digit Inflation
with 50–70 percent in 1995 (Figure 3.1.2, panel 2). 70
Sample EMs
Inflation volatility in the other two country groups 60 Other EMs
also declined after 2004 (Figure 3.1.2, panel 3). 50 LIDCs
40
However, a focus on the post-2004 period reveals
30
some heterogeneity across the three groups. The
20
average inflation rates for the other emerging market
10
and low-income developing country groups, at 7 per- 0
cent and 8 percent, respectively, remain higher than 1995 2000 05 10 15 18
those of the sample group, at 5 percent (Figure 3.1.2,
panel 1). Similarly, volatility of inflation in the other 25 3. Volatility of Headline Consumer Price Index
two country groups remains higher than in the sample 1995–2003
20
countries (Figure 3.1.2, panel 3). 2004–18
What are the factors that could have contributed 15
to higher inflation rates in the other two country
10
groups? Compared with the sample, inflation in these
two groups follows the evolution of commodity price 5
inflation more closely (Figure 3.1.3, panel 1), pointing
0
to stronger exposure of these economies to commodity Sample EMs Other EMs LIDCs
price fluctuations. Indeed, the largest economies in the
broader sample include several oil exporters, where the Sources: Haver Analytics; and IMF staff calculations.
strength of domestic demand is heavily influenced by oil Note: EMs = emerging markets; LIDCs = low-income
developing countries. See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources
prices. The comovement of inflation with commodity and country coverage. The lines in panel 1 denote averages
prices is particularly evident in the period after 2004: weighted by nominal GDP. The weights are time invariant
headline inflation peaks along with the 2008 com- and computed between 2010 and 2012. The lines in panel 2
denote the share of countries with headline consumer price
modity price spike, declines during the global financial index greater than or equal to 10 percent. Volatility is
crisis, rebounds later, and finally drops again. Overall, computed as the standard deviation of headline inflation.
this evidence suggests that economies in the other two The dots (vertical lines) in panel 3 denote the medians
(interquartile ranges).
country groups were not fully successful in smooth-
ing the repeated commodity shocks they faced in the
postcrisis period. Moreover, in low-income developing others (2018) find that, over time, a more credible
countries food accounts for a larger share of consump- monetary policy, together with reduced reliance on
tion expenditure, and higher food shares are linked to energy imports, lessens the impact of oil price shocks
higher inflation (Figure 3.1.3, panel 2). on inflation. Gelos and Ustyugova (2017) find that
The greater sensitivity of inflation in the other two commodity price shocks have less persistent effects in
country groups to commodity price swings could countries with independent central banks, lower initial
reflect differences in the quality of the institutional inflation, and better governance. Consistent with
and policy frameworks. For instance, Choi and these results, central bank transparency—a proxy for

Box 3.1 (continued)

Figure 3.1.3. Inflation, Food Shares, and Figure 3.1.4. Central Bank Transparency
Commodity Prices (Index)
(Percent)
10
1998–2003
1. Inflation and Commodity Price Index Change 2004–16
Sample EMs Other EMs 8
LIDCs Commodity price index change
(right scale)
15 40
6
12
20
9 4
0
6
–20 2
3
0 –40
2004 10 15 18 0
Sample EMs Other EMs LIDCs
2. Inflation and Food Share in Consumption Basket

Sources: Dincer and Eichengreen (2014); and IMF staff
Other EMs LIDCs calculations.
Note: EMs = emerging markets; LIDCs = low-income
20 developing countries. See Online Annex 3.1 for data
Average CPI inflation, 2004–16
sources and country coverage. The dots (vertical lines)

denote the medians (interquartile ranges) of each group.
15 The transparency index ranges from 0 to 15 and reflects
the sum of the scores attributed to responses to various
questions about political, economic, procedural, and
10 operational transparency. An increase represents an
improvement in the index.
5
the quality of the monetary policy framework—in

0 the other two country groups exhibits a slower pace
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Share of food in consumption basket of improvement and remains significantly below the
levels of the sample group (Figure 3.1.4). Lack of
Sources: International Labour Organization; and IMF staff a clear communication strategy about the inflation
calculations. outlook and the presence of multiple inconsistent
Note: CPI = consumer price index; EMs = emerging markets; objectives contribute to lower transparency levels in
LIDCs = low-income developing countries. See Online Annex
3.1 for data sources and country coverage. In panel 1, the low-income developing countries (IMF 2015). Fur-
solid lines denote averages weighted by nominal GDP. The thermore, because economies with less transparent and
weights are time invariant and computed between 2010 and credible monetary policy frameworks tend to exhibit a
2012. The dashed line corresponds to the change in the
commodity price index (2005 = 100) of a broad set of higher degree of exchange rate pass-through, external
commodities. In panel 2, the solid lines denote the fitted shocks to such economies tend to be more inflationary
regression lines for each group. The slope coefficient is than for economies with better monetary frameworks
significant for LIDCs, but not for other EMs.
(Carrière-Swallow and others 2016). Finally, sound
fiscal institutions are also a precondition for credi-
ble monetary policy. Combes and others (2017), for
example, find that the interaction of inflation targeting
and fiscal rules has a beneficial effect on both fiscal
balances and inflation.

Box 3.2. Clarity of Central Bank Communications and the Extent of Anchoring of Inflation
Expectations
“Successful central bank communication efforts should Figure 3.2.1. Frequency of Monetary Policy
make policy more predictable and market expectations of Surprises, 2010–13 versus 2014–18
future short rates more accurate” (Blinder and others 2008). (Percent of total decisions)
30
Over the past two decades, central banks in an
increasing number of emerging market and developing
economies have adopted inflation targeting—a policy 2010–13
that sets an inflation goal and emphasizes transpar- 2014–18
ency and clear communication with the public to help
20
achieve it. The change coincided with improved anchor-
ing of longer-term inflation expectations in many of
those economies, but substantial variations in the extent
of anchoring still exist. This box shows that more trans-
parent and clear communication by the central bank
10
can improve the anchoring of inflation expectations by
reducing uncertainty about future policy actions.
One way in which the central bank can influence
the anchoring of inflation expectations is by helping
improve the ability of the public to anticipate its
0
adjustments to the monetary policy rate. An empir-
IND
COL
ROU
CHL
PER
TUR
POL
HUN
PHL
MEX
ADV
BRA
THA
ical glimpse into the clarity and consistency of the
central bank’s policy rate decisions can be obtained
by measuring the frequency with which central Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: ADV = average for eight advanced economies. See
bank decisions differ from what the market expects Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country coverage.
just before the release of policy announcements. Data labels use International Organization for Standardiza-
The evidence shows that achieving a high degree of tion (ISO) country codes. Surprises are the difference
between the decision regarding the monetary policy rate and
monetary policy predictability has been challeng- the average forecast among analysts surveyed by
ing for emerging market and developing economies Bloomberg the day of the policy announcement.
(Figure 3.2.1). Despite important steps taken to
strengthen monetary policy frameworks during the
past two decades, the predictability of policy rate policy and the degree of anchoring of medium-term
actions by their central banks remains below that of (two-years-ahead) inflation expectations (Figure 3.2.2).
more seasoned inflation-targeting central banks in How can monetary policy be made more predict-
advanced economies. Furthermore, the evidence shows able? In general terms, predictability requires having
uneven improvement over time for emerging market a clear policy function that the public understands.
and developing economies. Indeed, monetary policy is more predictable in econ-
Can poor predictability of monetary policy rate omies where the central bank operates more transpar-
actions affect the anchoring of inflation expectations? ently (Figure 3.2.3). Another characteristic of more
Poor predictability may reflect a lack of public under- predictable central banks is that their communication
standing about the central bank’s policy strategy. Alter- tends to be easier to understand because it uses plain
natively, it may indicate the public’s doubt about the language and clear sentence structures.
central bank’s commitment to price stability. In either What can central banks do to improve transpar-
case, inflation expectations may not be anchored to ency and the quality of their communication? Ele-
the central bank’s target, which has important impli- ments of best practices for transparent central banking
cations for policy. In this regard, a significant relation- include the announcement of a clear objective and
ship appears between the predictability of monetary frequent and regular publication of statements,
minutes, and reports that give an account of the
The authors of this box are Yan Carrière-Swallow factors behind policy decisions and an assessment of
and Juan Yépez. how those factors are likely to evolve over the policy

Box 3.2 (continued)

Figure 3.2.2. Monetary Policy Predictability Figure 3.2.3. Central Bank Communication
and Anchoring of Inflation Expectations and Monetary Policy Predictability
30 30
Transparency
RUS Readability
Frequency of monetary policy surprises, 2010–18
Frequency of monetary policy surprises, 2010–18

25 25
COL
(percent of total decisions)
(percent of total decisions)

20 IDN 20
BRA
R 2 = 0.485 R 2 = 0.4935
15 KOR 15
ROU PER
IND
HUN
AUS
10 NOR MEX 10
CHL POL THA R 2 = 0.2856
NZL
5 CZE 5
PHL
CAN
USA GBR
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Absolute deviation of two-year-ahead inflation Central bank transparency index and
expectations from central bank target, 2010–17 Flesch reading ease index
Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Consensus Economics; Sources: Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Dincer and Eichengreen
and IMF staff calculations. (2014); and IMF staff calculations.
Note: See Online Annex 3.1 for data sources and country Note: The Flesch reading ease (RE) index is used for central
coverage. For the definition of monetary policy surprises see bank press releases in English, which is defined as
notes to Figure 3.2.1. Solid line shows the best linear fit RE = 0.33[206.835 – (1.015 × ASL) – (84.6 × ASW)], in
between the variables. Data labels use International which ASL = average sentence length and ASW = average
Organization for Standardization (ISO) country codes. number of syllables per word. See Online Annex 3.1 for data
sources and country coverage. Solid lines show the best
linear fit between the variables. The sample includes 21
inflation-targeting economies.
horizon. Improvements along these lines over the
past decade have brought the level of transparency in
emerging market and developing economies much communication strategies to increase the clarity of the
closer to the levels observed in advanced economies information made available to the public. For instance,
(Dincer and Eichengreen 2014). The Central Bank of they have streamlined communication events to focus
Chile, for example, added information to the policy on medium-term developments; reduced the frequency
statements released after the meetings, such as the of monetary policy meetings, aligning them with the
vote tally and the main arguments given by the mem- release of the monetary policy report; and revamped
bers of the board. the content of their policy statements, giving a richer
Several countries, including Chile, Colombia, account of the macroeconomic context and explaining
and Mexico, have also implemented reforms to their why certain policy actions were taken.

References Working Paper 18/24, International Monetary Fund,

Washington, DC.
Adrian, Tobias, Douglas Laxton, and Maurice Obstfeld. 2018. Caldas Montes, Gabriel, and Tatiana Acar. 2018. “Fiscal Cred-
“A Robust and Adaptable Nominal Anchor.” In Advancing the ibility and Disagreement in Expectations about Inflation:
Frontiers of Monetary Policy, edited by Tobias Adrian, Douglas Evidence for Brazil.” Economics Bulletin 38 (2): 826–43.
Laxton, and Maurice Obstfeld. Washington, DC: Interna- Calvo, Guillermo A. 1998. “Capital Flows and Capital-Market
tional Monetary Fund. Crises: The Simple Economics of Sudden Stops.” Journal of
Ahmed, Shaghil, Brahima Coulibaly, and Andrei Zlate. 2017. Applied Economics 1 (November): 35–54.
“International Financial Spillovers to Emerging Market Calvo, Guillermo A., and Carmen M. Reinhart. 2002. “Fear of
Economies: How Important Are Economic Fundamentals?” Floating.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 379–408.
Journal of International Money and Finance 76: 133–52. Capistrán, Carlos, and Manuel Ramos-Francia. 2010. “Does
Alichi, Ali, Huigang Chen, Kevin Clinton, Charles Freedman, Inflation Targeting Affect the Dispersion of Inflation Expecta-
Marianne Johnson, Ondra Kamenik, Turgut Kışınbay, and tions?” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 42 (1): 113–34.
Douglas Laxton. 2009. “Inflation Targeting under Imperfect Carney, Mark. 2017. “[De]Globalization and Inflation.” IMF
Policy Credibility.” IMF Working Paper 09/94, International Michel Camdessus Central Banking Lecture, Washington,
Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. DC, September 18.
Al-Mashat, Rania, Kevin Clinton, Douglas Laxton, and Hou Carrière-Swallow, Yan, Bertrand Gruss, Nicolás E. Magud, and
Wang. 2018a. “India: Stabilizing Inflation.” In Advancing the Fabián Valencia. 2016. “Monetary Policy Credibility and
Frontiers of Monetary Policy, edited by Tobias Adrian, Douglas Exchange Rate Pass-Through.” IMF Working Paper 16/240,
Laxton, and Maurice Obstfeld. Washington, DC: Interna- International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
tional Monetary Fund. Caselli, Francesca, and Agustin Roitman. 2016. “Non-Linear
———. 2018b. “Managing Expectations.” In Advancing the Exchange Rate Pass-Through in Emerging Markets.”
Frontiers of Monetary Policy, edited by Tobias Adrian, Douglas IMF Working Paper 16/1, International Monetary Fund,
Laxton, and Maurice Obstfeld. Washington, DC: Interna- Washington, DC.
tional Monetary Fund. Celasun, Oya, Gaston Gelos, and Alessandro Prati. 2004.
Aslam, Aqib, Natalija Novta, and Fabiano Rodrigues-Bastos. “Obstacles to Disinflation: What Is the Role of Fiscal Expec-
2017. “Calculating Trade in Value Added.” IMF Work- tations?” Economic Policy 19 (40): 442–81.
ing Paper 17/178, International Monetary Fund, Choi, Sangyup, Davide Furceri, Prakash Loungani, Saurabh
Washington, DC. Mishra, and Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro. 2018. “Oil Prices
Auer, Raphael, Claudio Borio, and Andrew Filardo. 2017. and Inflation Dynamics: Evidence from Advanced and
“The Globalisation of Inflation: The Growing Importance Developing Economies.” Journal of International Money and
of Global Value Chains.” CEPR Discussion Paper 11905, Finance 82: 71–96.
Centre for Economic Policy Research, London. Choudhri, Ehsan, and Dalia Hakura. 2006. “Exchange Rate
Auer, Raphael, Andrei Levchenko, and Philip Sauré. Forth- Pass-Through to Domestic Prices: Does the Inflationary Envi-
coming. “International Inflation Spillovers through Input ronment Matter?” Journal of International Money and Finance
Linkages.” Review of Economics and Statistics. 25 (4): 614–39.
Ball, Laurence M., and Niamh Sheridan. 2005. “Does Inflation Coibion, Olivier, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko. 2012. “Why Are
Targeting Matter?” In The Inflation-Targeting Debate, edited Target Interest Rate Changes So Persistent?” American Eco-
by Ben S. Bernanke and Michael Woodford. NBER Studies nomic Journal: Macroeconomics 4: 126–62.
in Income and Wealth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Combes, Jean-Louis, Xavier Debrun, Alexandru Minea, and
Blinder, Alan S., Michael Ehrmann, Marcel Fratzscher, Jacob de Rene Tapsoba. 2017. “Inflation Targeting, Fiscal Rules, and
Haan, and David-Jan Jansen. 2008. “Central Bank Com- the Policy Mix: Cross-Effects and Interactions.” Economic
munication and Monetary Policy: A Survey of Theory and Journal, published online July 18.
Evidence.” Journal of Economic Literature 46 (4): 910–45. Cukierman, Alex, and Allan Meltzer. 1986. “A Theory of
Borio, Claudio, and Andrew Filardo. 2007. “Globalisation and Ambiguity, Credibility and Inflation under Discretion
Inflation: New Cross-Country Evidence on the Global Deter- and Asymmetric Information.” Econometrica 54 (Septem-
minants of Domestic Inflation.” BIS Working Paper 227, ber): 1099–128.
Bank for International Settlements, Basel. de Carvalho Filho, Irineu. 2011. “28 Months Later: How
Brainard, William. 1967. “Uncertainty and the Effectiveness of Inflation Targeters Outperformed Their Peers in the Great
Policy.” American Economic Review 57: 411–25. Recession.” The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics 1 (1): 1–46.
Brito, Steve, Yan Carrière-Swallow, and Bertrand Gruss. 2018. Demertzis, Maria, Massimiliano Marcellino, and Nicola Viegi.
“Disagreement about Future Inflation: Understanding the 2012. “A Credibility Proxy: Tracking US Monetary Develop-
Benefits of Inflation Targeting and Transparency.” IMF ments.” The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics 12 (1): 1–36.

Dincer, N. Nergiz, and Barry Eichengreen. 2014. “Central Bank Ilzetzki, Ethan, Carmen M. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff.
Transparency and Independence: Update and New Measures.” 2017. “Exchange Arrangements Entering the 21st Century:
International Journal of Central Banking 10 (1): 189–259. Which Anchor Will Hold?” NBER Working Paper 23134,
Dovern, Jonas, Ulrich Fritsche, and Jiri Slacalek. 2012. “Dis- National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
agreement among Forecasters in G7 Countries.” Review of Imbens, Guido W., and Joshua D. Angrist. 1994. “Identification
Economics and Statistics 94 (4): 1081–96. and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects.” Econo-
Driscoll, John, and Aart Kraay. 1998. “Consistent Covariance metrica 62 (2): 467–75.
Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data.” International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2015. “Evolving Monetary
Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (4): 549–60. Policy Frameworks in Low-Income and Other Developing
Edwards, Sebastian. 2006. “The Relationship between Exchange Countries—Background Paper: Country Experiences.” IMF
Rates and Inflation Targeting Revisited.” NBER Working Staff Report, Washington, DC.
Paper 12163, National Bureau of Economic Research, Jordà, Òscar. 2005. “Estimation and Inference of Impulse
Cambridge, MA. Responses by Local Projections.” American Economic Review
Ehrmann, Michael. 2015. “Targeting Inflation from below: How 95 (1): 161–82.
Do Inflation Expectations Behave?” International Journal of Jordà, Òscar, Moritz Schularick, and Alan M. Taylor. 2013.
Central Banking 11 (4): 213–49. “When Credit Bites Back.” Journal of Money, Credit and
Forbes, Kristin, Ida Hjortsoe, and Tsvetelina Nenova. 2015. Banking 45: 3–28.
“The Shocks Matter: Improving Our Estimates of Exchange King, Mervyn. 1995. “Credibility and Monetary Policy: Theory
Rate Pass-Through.” Discussion Papers from Monetary Policy and Evidence.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 42: 1–19.
Committee Unit 43, Bank of England, London. Kumar, Saten, Hassan Afrouzi, Olivier Coibion, and Yuriy
Gagnon, Joseph, and Jane E. Ihrig. 2001. “Monetary Policy and Gorodnichenko. 2015. “Inflation Targeting Does Not Anchor
Exchange Rate Pass-Through.” International Finance Discus- Inflation Expectations: Evidence from Firms in New Zea-
sion Paper 704, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve land.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 46: 151–225.
System of the United States, Washington, DC. Lane, Philip R., and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti. 2018. “The
Galí, Jordi, and Mark Gertler. 1999. “Inflation Dynamics: A External Wealth of Nations Revisited: International Financial
Structural Econometric Analysis.” Journal of Monetary Eco- Integration in the Aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis.”
nomics 44 (2): 195–222. IMF Economic Review 66 (1): 189–222.
Galí, Jordi, Mark Gertler, and J. David Lopez-Salido. 2001. Levin, Andrew T., Fabio M. Natalucci, and Jeremy M. Piger.
“European Inflation Dynamics.” European Economic Review 2004. “The Macroeconomic Effects of Inflation Targeting.”
45 (7): 1237–70. Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, July: 51–80.
Galí, Jordi, Mark Gertler, and J. David Lopez-Salido, 2003. Mankiw, N.G., R. Reis, and J. Wolfers. 2004. “Disagreement
Erratum to “European Inflation Dynamics.” European Eco- about Inflation Expectations.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual
nomic Review 47 (4): 759–60. 2003 18: 209–48.
Gelos, Gaston, and Yulia Ustyugova. 2017. “Inflation Masson, Paul R., Miguel A. Savastano, and Sunil Sharma. 1997.
Responses to Commodity Price Shocks—How and Why “The Scope for Inflation Targeting in Developing Countries.”
Do Countries Differ?” Journal of International Money and IMF Working Paper 97/130, International Monetary Fund,
Finance 72: 28–47. Washington, DC.
Gonçalves, Carlos, and Joao M. Salles. 2008. “Inflation Target- Mishkin, Frederic S. 2000. “Inflation Targeting in Emerging
ing in Emerging Economies: What Do the Data Say?” Journal Market Countries.” American Economic Review 90 (2): 105–9.
of Development Economics 85 (1–2): 312–18. ———. 2007. “Inflation Dynamics.” International Finance 10
Goodhart, Charles A.E. 2005. “The Monetary Policy Commit- (3): 317–34.
tee’s Reaction Function: An Exercise in Estimation.” Topics in Mishkin, Frederic S., and Miguel A. Savastano. 2001. “Monetary
Macroeconomics 5 (1): Article 18. Policy Strategies for Latin America.” Journal of Development
Gopinath, Gita. 2015. “The International Price System.” NBER Economics 66 (2): 415–44.
Working Paper 21646, National Bureau of Economic Mishkin, Frederic S., and Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel. 2007. “Does
Research, Cambridge, MA. Inflation Targeting Make a Difference?” NBER Working
Gürkaynak, Refet S., Andrew T. Levin, and Eric T. Swanson. Paper 12876, National Bureau of Economic Research,
2010. “Does Inflation Targeting Anchor Long-Run Inflation Cambridge, MA.
Expectations? Evidence from Long-Term Bond Yields in the Neely, Christopher J. 2014. “Lessons from the Taper Tantrum.”
US, UK, and Sweden.” Journal of the European Economic Economic Synopses 2, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Association 8 (6): 1208–42 Obstfeld, Maurice. 2014. “Never Say Never: Commentary on a Pol-
Ihrig, Jane, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaimie icymaker’s Reflections.” IMF Economic Review 62 (4): 656–93.
Marquez. 2010. “Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Rogoff, Kenneth. 2004. “Globalization and Global Disinfla-
Inflation Hypothesis.” International Finance 13 (3): 343–75. tion.” In “Monetary Policy and Uncertainty: Adapting to a

Changing Economy,” a symposium sponsored by the Federal ———. 2000. “Low Inflation, Pass-Through, and the
Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Pricing Power of Firms.” European Economic Review 44
Rogoff, Kenneth, Aasim M. Husain, Ashoka Mody, Robin (7): 1389–408.
Brooks, and Nienke Oomes. 2004. “Evolution and Per- Végh, Carlos A., Luis Morano, Diego Friedheim, and Diego
formance of Exchange Rate Regimes.” IMF Occasional Rojas. 2017. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Mon-
Paper 229, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. etary Policy Dilemma in Latin America and the Caribbean.”
Sahay, Ratna, Vivek Arora, Thanos Arvanitis, Hamid Faruqee, LAC Semiannual Report; October 2017. Washington, DC:
Papa N’Diaye, Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli, and an IMF World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/
Team. 2014. “Emerging Market Volatility: Lessons from the 10986/28443.
Taper Tantrum.” IMF Staff Discussion Note 14/09, Interna- Végh, Carlos A., and Guillermo Vuletin. 2014. “Overcoming
tional Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. the Fear of Free Falling: Monetary Policy Graduation in
Stock, James H., and Mark W. Watson. 2007. “Why Has US Emerging Markets.” In the Role of Central Banks in Financial
Inflation Become Harder to Forecast?” Journal of Money, Stability: How Has It Changed? edited by Douglas Darrell
Credit and Banking 39 (1): 3–33. Evanoff, Cornelia Holthausen, George G. Kaufman, and
———. 2010. “Modeling Inflation after the Crisis.” Proceedings— Manfred Kremer. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Economic Policy Symposium—Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank Woodford, Michael. 2003. “Optimal Interest Rate Smoothing.”
of Kansas City: 173–220. Review of Economic Studies 70: 861–86.
Taylor, John B. 1993. “Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Yellen, Janet L. 2015. “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary
Practice.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Pol- Policy.” The Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of
icy 39: 95–214. Massachusetts, Amherst, September 24.


STATISTICAL APPENDIX
T
he Statistical Appendix presents histori- underlying the projections for selected economies are
cal data as well as projections. It comprises described in Box A1.
seven sections: Assumptions, What’s New, With regard to interest rates, it is assumed that the
Data and Conventions, Country Notes, London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) on six-month
Classification of Countries, Key Data Documentation, US dollar deposits will average 2.5 percent in 2018 and
and Statistical Tables. 3.4 percent in 2019, that three-month euro deposits will
The assumptions underlying the estimates and pro- average –0.3 percent in 2018 and –0.2 percent in 2019,
jections for 2018–19 and the medium-term scenario and that six-month yen deposits will average 0.0 percent
for 2020–23 are summarized in the first section. The in 2018 and 0.1 percent in 2019.
second section presents a brief description of the As a reminder, in regard to the introduction of the
changes to the database and statistical tables since the euro, on December 31, 1998, the Council of the Euro-
April 2018 World Economic Outlook (WEO). The third pean Union decided that, effective January 1, 1999, the
section provides a general description of the data and irrevocably fixed conversion rates between the euro and
the conventions used for calculating country group currencies of the member countries adopting the euro
composites. The fourth section summarizes selected are as described in Box 5.4 of the October 1998 WEO:
key information for each country. The fifth section
summarizes the classification of countries in the vari-
1 euro = 13.7603 Austrian schillings
ous groups presented in the WEO. The sixth section
= 40.3399 Belgian francs
provides information on methods and reporting stan-
= 0.585274 Cyprus pound1
dards for the member countries’ national account and
= 1.95583 Deutsche marks
government finance indicators included in the report.
= 15.6466 Estonian krooni2
The last, and main, section comprises the statistical
= 5.94573 Finnish markkaa
tables. (Statistical Appendix A is included here; Sta-
= 6.55957 French francs
tistical Appendix B is available online.) Data in these
= 340.750 Greek drachmas3
tables have been compiled on the basis of information
= 0.787564 Irish pound
available through September 18, 2018. The figures
= 1,936.27 Italian lire
for 2018 and beyond are shown with the same degree
= 0.702804 Latvian lat4
of precision as the historical figures solely for conve-
= 3.45280 Lithuanian litas5
nience; because they are projections, the same degree
= 40.3399 Luxembourg francs
of accuracy is not to be inferred.
= 0.42930 Maltese lira1
= 2.20371 Netherlands guilders
Assumptions
= 200.482 Portuguese escudos
Real effective exchange rates for the advanced econo-
= 30.1260 Slovak koruna6
mies are assumed to remain constant at their average
= 239.640 Slovenian tolars7
levels measured during the period July 17 to August
= 166.386 Spanish pesetas
14, 2018. For 2018 and 2019, these assumptions 1Established on January 1, 2008.
imply average US dollar–special drawing right (SDR) 2Established on January 1, 2011.
conversion rates of 1.419 and 1.406, US dollar–euro 3Established on January 1, 2001.
4Established on January 1, 2014.
conversion rates of 1.186 and 1.170, and yen–US dollar 5Established on January 1, 2015.
conversion rates of 109.8 and 109.3, respectively. 6Established on January 1, 2009.
It is assumed that the price of oil will average $69.38 a 7Established on January 1, 2007.
barrel in 2018 and $68.76 a barrel in 2019.

Established policies of national authorities are assumed See Box 5.4 of the October 1998 WEO for details on
to be maintained. The more specific policy assumptions how the conversion rates were established.

What’s New have partially adopted the latest standards and will continue
implementation over a period of years.1
•• Argentina’s consumer prices, which were previously
The fiscal gross and net debt data reported in the WEO
excluded from the group composites because of data con-
are drawn from official data sources and IMF staff estimates.
straints, are now included starting from 2017 onward.
While attempts are made to align gross and net debt data
•• Data for Aruba are included in the data aggregated for
with the definitions in the GFSM, as a result of data limita-
the emerging market and developing economies.
tions or specific country circumstances, these data can some-
•• Egypt’s forecast data from which the nominal exchange
rate assumptions are calculated that were previously times deviate from the formal definitions. Although every
excluded because the nominal exchange rate was a effort is made to ensure the WEO data are relevant and
market-sensitive issue, are now made public. internationally comparable, differences in both sectoral and
•• Swaziland is now called Eswatini. instrument coverage mean that the data are not universally
•• Venezuela redenominated its currency on August 20, comparable. As more information becomes available, changes
2018, by replacing 100,000 bolívares Fuertes (VEF) in either data sources or instrument coverage can give rise to
with 1 bolívar Soberano (VES). Local currency data revisions that can sometimes be substantial. For clarifi-
data, including the historical data, for Venezuela are cation on the deviations in sectoral or instrument coverage,
expressed in the new currency beginning with the please refer to the metadata for the online WEO database.
October 2018 WEO database. Composite data for country groups in the WEO are either
sums or weighted averages of data for individual coun-
Data and Conventions tries. Unless noted otherwise, multiyear averages of growth
rates are expressed as compound annual rates of change.2
Data and projections for 194 economies form the statis-
Arithmetically weighted averages are used for all data for the
tical basis of the WEO database. The data are maintained
emerging market and developing economies group—except
jointly by the IMF’s Research Department and regional
data on inflation and money growth, for which geometric
departments, with the latter regularly updating country
averages are used. The following conventions apply:
projections based on consistent global assumptions.
Although national statistical agencies are the ultimate Country group composites for exchange rates, inter-
providers of historical data and definitions, international est rates, and growth rates of monetary aggregates are
organizations are also involved in statistical issues, with weighted by GDP converted to US dollars at market
the objective of harmonizing methodologies for the com- exchange rates (averaged over the preceding three years)
pilation of national statistics, including analytical frame- as a share of group GDP.
works, concepts, definitions, classifications, and valuation Composites for other data relating to the domestic
procedures used in the production of economic statistics. economy, whether growth rates or ratios, are weighted by
The WEO database reflects information from both GDP valued at purchasing power parity as a share of total
national source agencies and international organizations. world or group GDP.3 Annual inflation rates are simple
Most countries’ macroeconomic data presented in the percentage changes from the previous years, except in the
WEO conform broadly to the 2008 version of the System case of emerging market and developing economies, for
of National Accounts (SNA). The IMF’s sector statistical which the rates are based on logarithmic differences.
standards—the sixth edition of the Balance of Payments and Composites for real GDP per capita in purchasing power
International Investment Position Manual (BPM6), the Mon- parity terms are sums of individual country data after con-
etary and Financial Statistics Manual and Compilation Guide version to the international dollar in the years indicated.
(MFSMCG), and the Government Finance Statistics Manual 1 Many countries are implementing the SNA 2008 or European System
2014 (GFSM 2014)—have been or are being aligned with of National and Regional Accounts (ESA) 2010, and a few countries use
the SNA 2008. These standards reflect the IMF’s special versions of the SNA older than that from 1993. A similar adoption pat-
tern is expected for the BPM6 and GFSM 2014. Please refer to Table G,
interest in countries’ external positions, financial sector which lists the statistical standards adhered to by each country.
stability, and public sector fiscal positions. The process 2 Averages for real GDP and its components, employment, inflation,
of adapting country data to the new standards begins in factor productivity, GDP per capita, trade, and commodity prices are
earnest when the manuals are released. However, full con- calculated based on the compound annual rate of change, except in the case
of the unemployment rate, which is based on the simple arithmetic average.
cordance with the manuals is ultimately dependent on the 3 See “Revised Purchasing Power Parity Weights” in the July 2014
provision by national statistical compilers of revised country WEO Update for a summary of the revised purchasing-power-parity-based
data; hence, the WEO estimates are only partially adapted weights, as well as Box A2 of the April 2004 WEO and Annex IV of the
May 1993 WEO. See also Anne-Marie Gulde and Marianne Schulze-
to these manuals. Nonetheless, for many countries, the
Ghattas, “Purchasing Power Parity Based Weights for the World Economic
impact on major balances and aggregates of conversion to Outlook,” in Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook (Washington,
the updated standards will be small. Many other countries DC: International Monetary Fund, December 1993), 106–23.

Unless noted otherwise, composites for all sectors for and end-of-period inflation for 2015 and 2016 are not
the euro area are corrected for reporting discrepancies in reported in the October 2018 WEO.
intra-area transactions. Unadjusted annual GDP data are Argentina’s authorities discontinued the publication of
used for the euro area and for the majority of individual labor market data in December 2015 and released new
countries, except for Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, and series starting in the second quarter of 2016.
Portugal, which report calendar adjusted data. For data Greece’s primary balance estimates for 2017 are based
prior to 1999, data aggregations apply 1995 European on preliminary excessive deficit procedure data on an
currency unit exchange rates. accrual basis (ESA 2010) provided by the National
Composites for fiscal data are sums of individual Statistical Service as of April 23, 2018. Historical data
country data after conversion to US dollars at the aver- since 2010 reflect adjustments in line with the primary
age market exchange rates in the years indicated. balance definition under the enhanced surveillance pro-
Composite unemployment rates and employment growth cedure for Greece.
are weighted by labor force as a share of group labor force. India’s real GDP growth rates are calculated as per
Composites relating to external sector statistics are national accounts: for 1998 to 2011, with base year
sums of individual country data after conversion to US 2004/05; thereafter, with base year 2011/12.
dollars at the average market exchange rates in the years Against the background of a civil war and weak
indicated for balance of payments data and at end-of- capacities, the reliability of Libya’s data, especially
year market exchange rates for debt denominated in medium-term projections, is low.
currencies other than US dollars. Data for Syria are excluded from 2011 onward
Composites of changes in foreign trade volumes and because of the uncertain political situation.
prices, however, are arithmetic averages of percent changes Data and projections for Turkey represent information
for individual countries weighted by the US dollar value available as of September 11, 2018.
of exports or imports as a share of total world or group Projecting the economic outlook in Venezuela, includ-
exports or imports (in the preceding year). ing assessing past and current economic developments as
Unless noted otherwise, group composites are the basis for the projections, is complicated by the lack
computed if 90 percent or more of the share of group of discussions with the authorities (the last Article IV
weights is represented. consultation took place in 2004), long intervals in receiv-
Data refer to calendar years, except in the case of a ing data with information gaps, incomplete provision of
few countries that use fiscal years; Table F lists the econ- information, and difficulties in interpreting certain reported
omies with exceptional reporting periods for national economic indicators given economic developments. The fis-
accounts and government finance data for each country. cal accounts include the budgetary central government and
For some countries, the figures for 2017 and earlier Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), and data for 2016–
are based on estimates rather than actual outturns; Table 23 are IMF staff estimates. Revenue includes the IMF
G lists the latest actual outturns for the indicators in the staff’s estimate of foreign exchange profits transferred from
national accounts, prices, government finance, and bal- the central bank to the government (buying US dollars at
ance of payments indicators for each country. the most appreciated rate and selling at more depreciated
rates in a multitier exchange rate system) and excludes IMF
Country Notes staff’s estimate of revenue from PDVSA’s sale of PetroCa-
The consumer price data for Argentina before December ribe assets to the central bank. The effects of hyperinflation
2013 reflect the consumer price index (CPI) for the Greater and the noted data gaps mean that IMF staff’s projected
Buenos Aires Area (CPI-GBA), while from December 2013 macroeconomic indicators need to be interpreted with
to October 2015 the data reflect the national CPI (IPCNu). caution. For example, nominal GDP is estimated assuming
The government that took office in December 2015 discon- the GDP deflator rises in line with IMF staff’s projection
tinued the IPCNu, stating that it was flawed, and released of average inflation. Public external debt in relation to
a new CPI for the Greater Buenos Aires Area on June 15, GDP is projected using IMF staff’s estimate of the average
2016 (a new national CPI has been disseminated starting exchange rate for the year. Fiscal accounts for 2010–23 cor-
in June 2017). At its November 9, 2016, meeting, the IMF respond to the budgetary central government and PDVSA.
Executive Board considered the new CPI series to be in line Fiscal accounts before 2010 correspond to the budgetary
with international standards and lifted the declaration of central government, public enterprises (including PDVSA),
censure issued in 2013. Given the differences in geographi- Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales (IVSS - social
cal coverage, weights, sampling, and methodology of these security), and Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos y Protección
series, the average CPI inflation for 2014, 2015, and 2016, Bancaria (FOGADE - deposit insurance).

Venezuela’s consumer prices (CPI) are excluded from States (CIS); emerging and developing Asia; emerging and
all WEO group composites. developing Europe (sometimes also referred to as “central
and eastern Europe”); Latin America and the Caribbean
Classification of Countries (LAC); the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and
Summary of the Country Classification Pakistan (MENAP); and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
Emerging market and developing economies are also
The country classification in the WEO divides the classified according to analytical criteria. The analytical
world into two major groups: advanced economies criteria reflect the composition of export earnings and a
and emerging market and developing economies.4 This distinction between net creditor and net debtor econo-
classification is not based on strict criteria, economic mies. The detailed composition of emerging market
or otherwise, and it has evolved over time. The objec- and developing economies in the regional and analytical
tive is to facilitate analysis by providing a reasonably groups is shown in Tables D and E.
meaningful method of organizing data. Table A pro- The analytical criterion source of export earnings distin-
vides an overview of the country classification, showing guishes between the categories fuel (Standard International
the number of countries in each group by region and Trade Classification [SITC] 3) and nonfuel and then
summarizing some key indicators of their relative size focuses on nonfuel primary products (SITCs 0, 1, 2, 4, and
(GDP valued at purchasing power parity, total exports 68). Economies are categorized into one of these groups
of goods and services, and population). when their main source of export earnings exceeded 50 per-
Some countries remain outside the country classifica- cent of total exports on average between 2013 and 2017.5
tion and therefore are not included in the analysis. Cuba The financial criteria focus on net creditor economies,
and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are net debtor economies, heavily indebted poor countries
examples of countries that are not IMF members, and (HIPCs), and low-income developing countries (LIDCs).
their economies therefore are not monitored by the IMF. Economies are categorized as net debtors when their latest
net international investment position, where available, was
General Features and Composition of Groups in less than zero or their current account balance accumula-
the World Economic Outlook Classification tions from 1972 (or earliest available data) to 2017 were
Advanced Economies negative. Net debtor economies are further differentiated
The 39 advanced economies are listed in Table B. on the basis of experience with debt servicing.
The seven largest in terms of GDP based on market The HIPC group comprises the countries that are or
exchange rates—the United States, Japan, Germany, have been considered by the IMF and the World Bank
France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Canada—con- for participation in their debt initiative known as the
stitute the subgroup of major advanced economies; HIPC Initiative, which aims to reduce the external debt
often referred to as the Group of Seven (G7). The burdens of all the eligible HIPCs to a “sustainable” level
members of the euro area are also distinguished as a in a reasonably short period of time.6 Many of these
subgroup. Composite data shown in the tables for the countries have already benefited from debt relief and
euro area cover the current members for all years, even have graduated from the initiative.
though the membership has increased over time. The LIDCs are countries that have per capita income
Table C lists the member countries of the European levels below a certain threshold (set at $2,700 in 2016 as
Union, not all of which are classified as advanced measured by the World Bank’s Atlas method), structural
economies in the WEO. features consistent with limited development and structural
transformation, and insufficiently close external financial
Emerging Market and Developing Economies linkages to be widely seen as emerging market economies.
The group of emerging market and developing econo-
mies (155) includes all those that are not classified as
advanced economies. 5 During 2013–17, 26 economies incurred external payments
The regional breakdowns of emerging market and arrears or entered into official or commercial bank debt-rescheduling
developing economies are Commonwealth of Independent agreements. This group is referred to as economies with arrears and/or
rescheduling during 2013–17.
4 As used here, the terms “country” and “economy” do not always refer 6 See David Andrews, Anthony R. Boote, Syed S. Rizavi, and
to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and Sukwinder Singh, “Debt Relief for Low-Income Countries: The
practice. Some territorial entities included here are not states, although Enhanced HIPC Initiative,” IMF Pamphlet Series 51 (Washington,
their statistical data are maintained on a separate and independent basis. DC: International Monetary Fund, November 1999).

Table A. Classification by World Economic Outlook Groups and Their Shares in Aggregate GDP, Exports of Goods
and Services, and Population, 20171
(Percent of total for group or world)
Exports of Goods
GDP and Services Population
Number of Advanced Advanced Advanced
Economies Economies World Economies World Economies World
Advanced Economies 39 100.0 41.3 100.0 63.6 100.0 14.4
United States 37.0 15.3 16.3 10.4 30.6 4.4
Euro Area 19 28.1 11.6 41.4 26.3 31.8 4.6
Germany 8.0 3.3 12.1 7.7 7.8 1.1
France 5.4 2.2 5.7 3.7 6.1 0.9
Italy 4.4 1.8 4.2 2.7 5.7 0.8
Spain 3.4 1.4 3.1 2.0 4.4 0.6
Japan 10.3 4.3 6.1 3.9 11.9 1.7
United Kingdom 5.5 2.3 5.5 3.5 6.2 0.9
Canada 3.4 1.4 3.5 2.2 3.4 0.5
Other Advanced Economies 16 15.7 6.5 27.2 17.3 16.0 2.3
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies 7 74.0 30.6 53.4 33.9 71.7 10.3
Emerging Emerging Emerging
Market and Market and Market and
Developing Developing Developing
Economies World Economies World Economies World
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 155 100.0 58.7 100.0 36.4 100.0 85.6
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States2 12 7.6 4.5 7.5 2.7 4.5 3.9
Russia 5.4 3.2 5.0 1.8 2.3 2.0
Emerging and Developing Asia 30 55.2 32.4 49.5 18.0 56.6 48.4
China 31.0 18.2 29.3 10.7 22.0 18.8
India 12.7 7.4 6.1 2.2 20.9 17.8
Excluding China and India 28 11.5 6.7 14.1 5.1 13.7 11.8
Emerging and Developing Europe 12 6.1 3.6 9.9 3.6 2.8 2.4
Latin America and the Caribbean 33 13.1 7.7 14.1 5.1 9.8 8.4
Brazil 4.3 2.5 3.0 1.1 3.3 2.8
Mexico 3.3 1.9 5.3 1.9 2.0 1.7
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan 23 12.8 7.5 14.6 5.3 10.9 9.3
Middle East and North Africa 21 11.3 6.6 14.3 5.2 7.2 6.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 45 5.1 3.0 4.4 1.6 15.3 13.1
Excluding Nigeria and South Africa 43 2.6 1.5 2.6 0.9 11.5 9.8
Analytical Groups3
By Source of Export Earnings
Fuel 28 17.9 10.5 20.9 7.6 11.7 10.1
Nonfuel 126 82.1 48.2 79.1 28.8 88.3 75.5
Of Which, Primary Products 32 5.0 3.0 5.3 1.9 8.4 7.2
By External Financing Source
Net Debtor Economies 123 49.7 29.1 45.9 16.7 66.9 57.3
Net Debtor Economies by Debt-
Servicing Experience
Economies with Arrears and/or Rescheduling
during 2012–16 26 3.5 2.1 2.4 0.9 6.4 5.5
Other Groups
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 39 2.5 1.4 2.0 0.7 11.5 9.8
Low-Income Developing Countries 59 7.2 4.2 6.8 2.5 22.7 19.4
1The GDP shares are based on the purchasing-power-parity valuation of economies’ GDP. The number of economies comprising each group reflects those
for which data are included in the group aggregates.

2Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are included in this group for reasons of geogra-
phy and similarity in economic structure.

3Syria is omitted from the source of export earnings and South Sudan and Syria are omitted from the net external position group composites because of
insufficient data.

Table B. Advanced Economies by Subgroup

Major Currency Areas
United States
Euro Area
Japan
Euro Area
Austria Greece Netherlands
Belgium Ireland Portugal
Cyprus Italy Slovak Republic
Estonia Latvia Slovenia
Finland Lithuania Spain
France Luxembourg
Germany Malta
Major Advanced Economies
Canada Italy United States
France Japan
Germany United Kingdom
Other Advanced Economies
Australia Korea Singapore
Czech Republic Macao SAR2 Sweden
Denmark New Zealand Switzerland
Hong Kong SAR1 Norway Taiwan Province of China
Iceland Puerto Rico
Israel San Marino
1On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was returned to the People’s Republic of China and became a Special
Administrative Region of China.
2On December 20, 1999, Macao was returned to the People’s Republic of China and became a
Special Administrative Region of China.
Table C. European Union

Austria Germany Poland
Belgium Greece Portugal
Bulgaria Hungary Romania
Croatia Ireland Slovak Republic
Cyprus Italy Slovenia
Czech Republic Latvia Spain
Denmark Lithuania Sweden
Estonia Luxembourg United Kingdom
Finland Malta
France Netherlands

Table D. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region and Main Source of Export Earnings
Fuel Nonfuel Primary Products
Commonwealth of Independent States
Azerbaijan Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Russia
Turkmenistan1
Emerging and Developing Asia
Brunei Darussalam Kiribati
Timor-Leste Lao P.D.R.
Marshall Islands
Mongolia
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Latin America and the Caribbean
Bolivia Argentina
Ecuador Chile
Trinidad and Tobago Guyana
Venezuela Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Algeria Afghanistan
Bahrain Mauritania
Iran Sudan
Iraq
Kuwait
Libya
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Sub-Saharan Africa
Angola Burkina Faso
Chad Burundi
Republic of Congo Central African Republic
Equatorial Guinea Democratic Republic of the Congo
Gabon Côte d’Ivoire
Nigeria Eritrea
South Sudan Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Malawi
Mali
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Zambia
1Turkmenistan,which is not a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, is included in this group for reasons of geography and similarity in
economic structure.

Table E. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region, Net External Position, and Status as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
and Low-Income Developing Countries
Low-Income Low-Income
Net External Heavily Indebted Developing Net External Heavily Indebted Developing
Position1 Poor Countries2 Countries Position1 Poor Countries2 Countries
Commonwealth of Independent States Emerging and Developing Europe
Armenia * Albania *
Azerbaijan • Bosnia and Herzegovina *
Belarus * Bulgaria *
Georgia3 * Croatia *
Kazakhstan * Hungary *
Kyrgyz Republic * * Kosovo *
Moldova * * FYR Macedonia *
Russia • Montenegro *
Tajikistan * * Poland *
Turkmenistan3 * Romania *
Ukraine3 * Serbia *
Uzbekistan • * Turkey *
Emerging and Developing Asia Latin America and the Caribbean
Bangladesh * * Antigua and Barbuda *
Bhutan * * Argentina •
Brunei Darussalam • Aruba *
Cambodia * * The Bahamas *
China • Barbados *
Fiji * Belize *
India * Bolivia * •
Indonesia * Brazil *
Kiribati • * Chile *
Lao P.D.R. * * Colombia *
Malaysia * Costa Rica *
Maldives * Dominica *
Marshall Islands * Dominican Republic *
Micronesia • Ecuador *
Mongolia * El Salvador *
Myanmar * * Grenada *
Nauru * Guatemala *
Nepal • * Guyana * •
Palau • Haiti * • *
Papua New Guinea * * Honduras * • *
Philippines * Jamaica *
Samoa * Mexico *
Solomon Islands * * Nicaragua * • *
Sri Lanka * Panama *
Thailand • Paraguay *
Timor-Leste • * Peru *
Tonga * St. Kitts and Nevis *
Tuvalu * St. Lucia *
Vanuatu * St. Vincent and the
Vietnam * * Grenadines *
Suriname *
Trinidad and Tobago •
Uruguay *
134 International Monetary Fund | October 2018 Venezuela •

Table E. Emerging Market and Developing Economies by Region, Net External Position, and Status as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
and Low-Income Developing Countries (continued)
Low-Income Low-Income
Net External Heavily Indebted Developing Net External Heavily Indebted Developing
Position1 Poor Countries2 Countries Position1 Poor Countries2 Countries
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Democratic Republic of
the Congo * • *
Afghanistan • • *
Republic of Congo * • *
Algeria •
Côte d’Ivoire * • *
Bahrain •
Equatorial Guinea *
Djibouti * *
Eritrea * * *
Egypt *
Eswatini •
Iran •
Ethiopia * • *
Iraq •
Gabon •
Jordan *
The Gambia •
Kuwait •
Ghana * • *
Lebanon *
Guinea * • *
Libya •
Guinea-Bissau * • *
Mauritania * • *
Kenya * • *
Morocco *
Lesotho * *
Oman •
Liberia * *
Pakistan *
Madagascar * • *
Qatar •
Malawi * • *
Saudi Arabia •
Mali * • *
Somalia * * *
Mauritius * • *
Sudan * * *
Mozambique •
Syria4 ...
Namibia * • *
Tunisia *
Niger *
United Arab Emirates •
Nigeria * • *
Yemen * *
Rwanda * *
Sub-Saharan Africa
São Tomé and Príncipe * • *
Angola *
Senegal * • *
Benin * • *
Seychelles * • *
Botswana •
Sierra Leone *
Burkina Faso * • *
South Africa * • *
Burundi * • *
South Sudan4 ... *
Cabo Verde *
Tanzania * • *
Cameroon * • *
Togo * • *
Central African Republic * • *
Uganda * • *
Chad * • *
Zambia * • *
Comoros * • *
Zimbabwe * *
1Dot (star) indicates that the country is a net creditor (net debtor).
2Dot instead of star indicates that the country has reached the completion point, which allows it to receive the full debt relief committed to at the decision point.
3Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are included in this group for reasons of geography and similarity in
economic structure.
4South Sudan and Syria are omitted from the net external position group composite for lack of a fully developed database.

Table F. Economies with Exceptional Reporting Periods1

National Accounts Government Finance
The Bahamas Jul/Jun
Barbados Apr/Mar
Belize Apr/Mar
Bhutan Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Botswana Apr/Mar
Dominica Jul/Jun
Egypt Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Eswatini Apr/Mar
Ethiopia Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Haiti Oct/Sep Oct/Sep
Hong Kong SAR Apr/Mar
India Apr/Mar Apr/Mar
Iran Apr/Mar Apr/Mar
Jamaica Apr/Mar
Lesotho Apr/Mar Apr/Mar
Malawi Jul/Jun
Marshall Islands Oct/Sep Oct/Sep
Mauritius Jul/Jun
Micronesia Oct/Sep Oct/Sep
Myanmar Oct/Sep Oct/Sep
Nauru Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Nepal Aug/Jul Aug/Jul
Pakistan Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Palau Oct/Sep Oct/Sep
Puerto Rico Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
St. Lucia Apr/Mar
Samoa Jul/Jun Jul/Jun
Singapore Apr/Mar
Thailand Oct/Sep
Trinidad and Tobago Oct/Sep
1Unless noted otherwise, all data refer to calendar years.

Table G. Key Data Documentation

National Accounts Prices (CPI)
System of Use of Chain- Latest

Historical Data Latest Actual National Weighted Historical Data Actual
Country Currency Source1 Annual Data Base Year2 Accounts Methodology3 Source1 Annual Data
Afghanistan Afghan afghani NSO 2016 2002/03 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Albania Albanian lek IMF staff 2016 1996 SNA 1993 From 1996 NSO 2017
Algeria Algerian dinar NSO 2017 2001 SNA 1993 From 2005 NSO 2017
Angola Angolan kwanza NSO and MEP 2015 2002 ESA 1995 NSO 2015
Antigua and Eastern Caribbean CB 2016 20066 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
Barbuda dollar
Argentina Argentine peso NSO 2017 2004 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Armenia Armenian dram NSO 2016 2005 SNA 2008 NSO 2016
Aruba Aruban florin NSO 2017 2000 SNA 1993 From 2000 NSO 2017
Australia Australian dollar NSO 2017 2015/16 SNA 2008 From 1980 NSO 2017
Austria Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan manat NSO 2016 2005 SNA 1993 From 1994 NSO 2017
The Bahamas Bahamian dollar NSO 2016 2012 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Bahrain Bahrain dinar NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Bangladesh Bangladesh taka NSO 2017 2005/06 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Barbados Barbados dollar NSO and CB 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Belarus Belarusian ruble NSO 2017 2014 SNA 2008 From 2005 NSO 2017
Belgium Euro CB 2017 2015 ESA 2010 From 1995 CB 2017
Belize Belize dollar NSO 2016 2000 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
Benin CFA franc NSO 2015 2007 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Bhutan Bhutanese NSO 2015/16 2000/016 SNA 1993 CB 2016/17
ngultrum
Bolivia Bolivian boliviano NSO 2016 1990 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Bosnia and Bosnia convertible NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2000 NSO 2017
Herzegovina marka
Botswana Botswana pula NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Brazil Brazilian real NSO 2017 1995 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Brunei Darussalam Brunei dollar NSO and GAD 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO and GAD 2017
Bulgaria Bulgarian lev NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1996 NSO 2017
Burkina Faso CFA franc NSO and MEP 2016 1999 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Burundi Burundi franc NSO 2015 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Cabo Verde Cabo Verdean NSO 2017 2007 SNA 2008 From 2011 NSO 2017
escudo
Cambodia Cambodian riel NSO 2017 2000 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Cameroon CFA franc NSO 2016 2005 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Canada Canadian dollar NSO 2017 2007 SNA 2008 From 1980 NSO 2017
Central African CFA franc NSO 2012 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2015
Republic
Chad CFA franc CB 2017 2005 … NSO 2017
Chile Chilean peso CB 2017 20136 SNA 2008 From 2003 NSO 2017
China Chinese yuan NSO 2017 2015 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Colombia Colombian peso NSO 2017 2015 SNA 1993 From 2000 NSO 2017
Comoros Comorian franc MEP 2017 2000 … NSO 2017
Democratic Republic Congolese franc NSO 2016 2005 SNA 1993 CB 2016
of the Congo
Republic of Congo CFA franc NSO 2016 1990 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Costa Rica Costa Rican colón CB 2016 2012 SNA 2008 CB 2016

Table G. Key Data Documentation (continued)

Government Finance Balance of Payments
Statistics
Statistics Manual
Historical Data Latest Actual Manual in Subsectors Accounting Historical Data Latest Actual in Use at
Country Source1 Annual Data Use at Source Coverage4 Practice5 Source1 Annual Data Source
Afghanistan MoF 2017 2001 CG C NSO, MoF, and CB 2017 BPM 5
Albania IMF staff 2016 1986 CG,LG,SS,MPC, … CB 2016 BPM 6
NFPC
Algeria MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Angola MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG … CB 2016 BPM 6
Antigua and MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Barbuda
Argentina MEP 2017 1986 CG,SG,SS C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Armenia MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Aruba MoF 2017 2001 CG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 5
Australia MoF 2016 2014 CG,SG,LG,TG A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Austria NSO 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Azerbaijan MoF 2015 … CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
The Bahamas MoF 2016/17 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Bahrain MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Bangladesh MoF 2017 … CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Barbados MoF 2016/17 1986 BCG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Belarus MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Belgium CB 2017 ESA 2010 CG,SG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Belize MoF 2016/17 1986 CG,MPC Mixed CB 2016 BPM 6
Benin MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Bhutan MoF 2016/17 1986 CG C CB 2015/16 BPM 6
Bolivia MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG,SS,NMPC, C CB 2016 BPM 6
NFPC
Bosnia and MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Herzegovina
Botswana MoF 2017/18 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Brazil MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS, C CB 2017 BPM 6
MPC,NFPC
Brunei Darussalam MoF 2017 … CG, BCG C NSO, MEP, and GAD 2017 BPM 6
Bulgaria MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Burkina Faso MoF 2017 2001 CG CB CB 2016 BPM 6
Burundi MoF 2015 2001 CG A CB 2016 BPM 6
Cabo Verde MoF 2017 2001 CG A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Cambodia MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG A CB 2017 BPM 5
Cameroon MoF 2016 2001 CG,NFPC C MoF 2016 BPM 5
Canada MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS,Other A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Central African MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2015 BPM 5
Republic
Chad MoF 2017 1986 CG,NFPC C CB 2015 BPM 6
Chile MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG A CB 2017 BPM 6
China MoF 2017 … CG,LG C GAD 2017 BPM 6
Colombia MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS … CB and NSO 2017 BPM 6
Comoros MoF 2017 1986 CG Mixed CB and IMF staff 2017 BPM 5
Democratic Republic MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG A CB 2016 BPM 5
of the Congo
Republic of Congo MoF 2017 2001 CG A CB 2016 BPM 6
Costa Rica MoF and CB 2016 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6



Côte d'Ivoire CFA franc NSO 2015 2009 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Croatia Croatian kuna NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 NSO 2017
Cyprus Euro NSO 2017 2005 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Czech Republic Czech koruna NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Denmark Danish krone NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
Djibouti Djibouti franc NSO 2017 1990 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Dominica Eastern Caribbean NSO 2016 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
dollar
Dominican Republic Dominican peso CB 2017 2007 SNA 2008 From 2007 CB 2017
Ecuador US dollar CB 2016 2007 SNA 1993 NSO and CB 2017
Egypt Egyptian pound MEP 2016/17 2011/12 SNA 2008 NSO 2017/18
El Salvador US dollar CB 2017 2005 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Equatorial Guinea CFA franc MEP and CB 2016 2006 SNA 1993 MEP 2017
Eritrea Eritrean nakfa IMF staff 2006 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2009
Estonia Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2010 NSO 2017
Eswatini Swazi lilangeni NSO 2016 2011 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Ethiopia Ethiopian birr NSO 2016/17 2015/16 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Fiji Fijian dollar NSO 2016 20116 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Finland Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
France Euro NSO 2017 2014 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
Gabon CFA franc MoF 2016 2001 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
The Gambia Gambian dalasi NSO 2017 2013 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Georgia Georgian lari NSO 2016 2000 SNA 1993 From 1996 NSO 2017
Germany Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1991 NSO 2017
Ghana Ghanaian cedi NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Greece Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Grenada Eastern Caribbean NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
dollar
Guatemala Guatemalan CB 2017 2001 SNA 1993 From 2001 NSO 2017
quetzal
Guinea Guinean franc NSO 2016 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Guinea-Bissau CFA franc NSO 2016 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Guyana Guyanese dollar NSO 2017 20066 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Haiti Haitian gourde NSO 2016/17 1986/87 SNA 1993 NSO 2016/17
Honduras Honduran lempira CB 2016 2000 SNA 1993 CB 2016
Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong dollar NSO 2017 2016 SNA 2008 From 1980 NSO 2017
Hungary Hungarian forint NSO 2017 2005 ESA 2010 From 2005 IEO 2017
Iceland Icelandic króna NSO 2017 2005 ESA 2010 From 1990 NSO 2017
India Indian rupee NSO 2017/18 2011/12 SNA 2008 NSO 2017/18
Indonesia Indonesian rupiah NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Iran Iranian rial CB 2016/17 2011/12 SNA 1993 CB 2016/17
Iraq Iraqi dinar NSO 2017 2007 SNA 1968/93 NSO 2017
Ireland Euro NSO 2017 2015 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Israel New Israeli shekel NSO 2017 2015 SNA 2008 From 1995 NSO 2017
Italy Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
Jamaica Jamaican dollar NSO 2016 2007 SNA 1993 NSO 2016


Statistics
Statistics Manual
Côte d'Ivoire MoF 2017 1986 CG A CB 2016 BPM 6
Croatia MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG A CB 2017 BPM 6
Cyprus NSO 2017 ESA 2010 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Czech Republic MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Denmark NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Djibouti MoF 2016 2001 CG A CB 2016 BPM 5
Dominica MoF 2016/17 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Dominican Republic MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS, NMPC Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Ecuador CB and MoF 2016 1986 CG,SG,LG,SS, NFPC C CB 2016 BPM 6
Egypt MoF 2016/17 2001 CG,LG,SS,MPC C CB 2016/17 BPM 5
El Salvador MoF and CB 2017 1986 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Equatorial Guinea MoF 2016 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Eritrea MoF 2008 2001 CG C CB 2008 BPM 5
Estonia MoF 2017 1986/2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Eswatini MoF 2017/18 2001 CG A CB 2017 BPM 6
Ethiopia MoF 2015/16 1986 CG,SG,LG,NFPC C CB 2016/17 BPM 5
Fiji MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Finland MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
France NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Gabon IMF staff 2017 2001 CG A CB 2016 BPM 5
The Gambia MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB and IMF staff 2017 BPM 5
Georgia MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG C NSO and CB 2016 BPM 6
Germany NSO 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Ghana MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Greece NSO 2017 2014 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Grenada MoF 2017 2001 CG CB CB 2016 BPM 6
Guatemala MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Guinea MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB and MEP 2017 BPM 6
Guinea-Bissau MoF 2017 2001 CG A CB 2016 BPM 6
Guyana MoF 2017 1986 CG,SS,NFPC C CB 2017 BPM 6
Haiti MoF 2016/17 2001 CG C CB 2016/17 BPM 5
Honduras CB and MoF 2017 2014 CG,LG,SS,Other Mixed CB 2015 BPM 5
Hong Kong SAR NSO 2017/18 2001 CG C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Hungary MEP and NSO 2017 ESA 2010 CG,LG,SS,NMPC A CB 2017 BPM 6
Iceland NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
India MoF and IMF staff 2017/18 1986 CG,SG C CB 2017/18 BPM 6
Indonesia MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Iran MoF 2016/17 2001 CG C CB 2016/17 BPM 5
Iraq MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Ireland MoF and NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Israel MoF and NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS … NSO 2017 BPM 6
Italy NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Jamaica MoF 2016/17 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5



Japan Japanese yen GAD 2017 2011 SNA 2008 From 1980 GAD 2017
Jordan Jordanian dinar NSO 2017 1994 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Kazakhstan Kazakhstani tenge NSO 2017 2007 SNA 1993 From 1994 CB 2017
Kenya Kenya shilling NSO 2016 2009 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Kiribati Australian dollar NSO 2016 2006 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Korea South Korean won CB 2017 2010 SNA 2008 From 1980 NSO 2017
Kosovo Euro NSO 2017 2016 ESA 2010 NSO 2017
Kuwait Kuwaiti dinar MEP and NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO and MEP 2017
Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyz som NSO 2016 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
Lao P.D.R. Lao kip NSO 2016 2012 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
Latvia Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Lebanon Lebanese pound NSO 2016 2010 SNA 2008 From 2010 NSO 2016/17
Lesotho Lesotho loti NSO 2015/16 2012/13 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Liberia US dollar CB 2017 1992 SNA 1993 CB 2017
Libya Libyan dinar MEP 2016 2003 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Lithuania Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2005 NSO 2017
Luxembourg Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Macao SAR Macanese pataca NSO 2017 2016 SNA 2008 From 2001 NSO 2017
FYR Macedonia Macedonian denar NSO 2017 2005 ESA 2010 NSO 2017
Madagascar Malagasy ariary NSO 2016 2000 SNA 1968 NSO 2017
Malawi Malawian kwacha NSO 2011 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Malaysia Malaysian ringgit NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Maldives Maldivian rufiyaa MoF and NSO 2017 2014 SNA 1993 CB 2017
Mali CFA franc NSO 2016 1999 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Malta Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2000 NSO 2017
Marshall Islands US dollar NSO 2016/17 2003/04 SNA 1993 NSO 2016/17
Mauritania Mauritanian NSO 2014 2004 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
ouguiya
Mauritius Mauritian rupee NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 From 1999 NSO 2017
Mexico Mexican peso NSO 2017 2013 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Micronesia US dollar NSO 2014/15 2004 SNA 1993 NSO 2014/15
Moldova Moldovan leu NSO 2017 1995 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Mongolia Mongolian tögrög NSO 2016 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2016/17
Montenegro Euro NSO 2016 2006 ESA 2010 NSO 2016
Morocco Moroccan dirham NSO 2016 2007 SNA 1993 From 1998 NSO 2017
Mozambique Mozambican NSO 2017 2009 SNA 1993/ NSO 2017
metical 2008
Myanmar Myanmar kyat MEP 2016/17 2010/11 … NSO 2017/18
Namibia Namibia dollar NSO 2017 2000 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Nauru Australian dollar … 2015/16 2006/07 SNA 1993 NSO 2016/17
Nepal Nepalese rupee NSO 2017/18 2000/01 SNA 1993 CB 2017/18
Netherlands Euro NSO 2017 2015 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
New Zealand New Zealand dollar NSO 2017 2009/10 SNA 2008 From 1987 NSO 2017
Nicaragua Nicaraguan CB 2017 2006 SNA 1993 From 1994 CB 2017
córdoba
Niger CFA franc NSO 2016 2000 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Nigeria Nigerian naira NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Norway Norwegian krone NSO 2017 2015 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017


Statistics
Statistics Manual
Japan GAD 2016 2014 CG,LG,SS A MoF 2017 BPM 6
Jordan MoF 2017 2001 CG,NFPC C CB 2017 BPM 5
Kazakhstan NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG A CB 2017 BPM 6
Kenya MoF 2017 2001 CG A CB 2017 BPM 6
Kiribati MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG C NSO 2016 BPM 6
Korea MoF 2017 2001 CG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Kosovo MoF 2017 … CG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Kuwait MoF 2016 1986 CG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Kyrgyz Republic MoF 2017 … CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 5
Lao P.D.R. MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Latvia MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Lebanon MoF 2017 2001 CG Mixed CB and IMF staff 2015 BPM 5
Lesotho MoF 2016/17 2001 CG,LG C CB 2016/17 BPM 5
Liberia MoF 2017 2001 CG A CB 2017 BPM 5
Libya MoF 2017 1986 CG,SG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Lithuania MoF 2017 2014 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Luxembourg MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Macao SAR MoF 2016 2014 CG,SS C NSO 2016 BPM 6
FYR Macedonia MoF 2017 1986 CG,SG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Madagascar MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Malawi MoF 2017/18 1986 CG C NSO and GAD 2017 BPM 6
Malaysia MoF 2016 2001 CG,SG,LG C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Maldives MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Mali MoF 2016 2001 CG Mixed CB 2016 BPM 6
Malta NSO 2017 2001 CG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Marshall Islands MoF 2016/17 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2016/17 BPM 6
Mauritania MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Mauritius MoF 2017/18 2001 CG,LG,NFPC C CB 2017 BPM 6
Mexico MoF 2017 2014 CG,SS,NMPC,NFPC C CB 2016 BPM 6
Micronesia MoF 2014/15 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS … NSO 2014/15 BPM 5
Moldova MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 5
Mongolia MoF 2016 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
Montenegro MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
Morocco MEP 2017 2001 CG A GAD 2017 BPM 6
Mozambique MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Myanmar MoF 2016/17 … CG,NFPC C IMF staff 2016/17 BPM 5
Namibia MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Nauru MoF 2016/17 2001 CG Mixed IMF staff 2014/15 BPM 6
Nepal MoF 2017/18 2001 CG C CB 2017/18 BPM 6
Netherlands MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
New Zealand MoF 2016/17 2001 CG A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Nicaragua MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG,SS C IMF staff 2017 BPM 6
Niger MoF 2017 1986 CG A CB 2017 BPM 6
Nigeria MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Norway NSO and MoF 2016 2014 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6



Oman Omani rial NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Pakistan Pakistan rupee NSO 2016/17 2005/066 … NSO 2016/17
Palau US dollar MoF 2016/17 2014/15 SNA 1993 MoF 2016/17
Panama US dollar NSO 2017 2007 SNA 1993 From 2007 NSO 2017
Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea NSO and MoF 2015 2013 SNA 1993 NSO 2015
kina
Paraguay Paraguayan CB 2017 2014 SNA 2008 CB 2017
guaraní
Peru Peruvian nuevo sol CB 2017 2007 SNA 1993 CB 2017
Philippines Philippine peso NSO 2017 2000 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Poland Polish zloty NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Portugal Euro NSO 2017 2011 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
Puerto Rico US dollar NSO 2016/17 1954 SNA1968 NSO 2016/17
Qatar Qatari riyal NSO and MEP 2016 2013 SNA 1993 NSO and MEP 2017
Romania Romanian leu NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2000 NSO 2017
Russia Russian ruble NSO 2017 2016 SNA 2008 From 1995 NSO 2017
Rwanda Rwandan franc NSO 2017 2014 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Samoa Samoa tala NSO 2016/17 2009/10 SNA 1993 NSO 2016/17
San Marino Euro NSO 2016 2007 … NSO 2017
São Tomé and São Tomé and NSO 2016 2008 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Príncipe Príncipe dobra
Saudi Arabia Saudi riyal NSO and MEP 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO and MEP 2017
Senegal CFA franc NSO 2017 2014 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Serbia Serbian dinar NSO 2016 2010 ESA 2010 From 2010 NSO 2016
Seychelles Seychellois rupee NSO 2016 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2016
Sierra Leone Sierra Leonean NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 From 2010 NSO 2017
leone
Singapore Singapore dollar NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Slovak Republic Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1997 NSO 2017
Slovenia Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 2000 NSO 2017
Solomon Islands Solomon Islands CB 2016 2004 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
dollar
Somalia US dollar CB 2016 2012 SNA 1993 CB 2014
South Africa South African rand NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
South Sudan South Sudanese NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
pound
Spain Euro NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1995 NSO 2017
Sri Lanka Sri Lankan rupee NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
St. Kitts and Nevis Eastern Caribbean NSO 2017 20066 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
dollar
St. Lucia Eastern Caribbean NSO 2017 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
dollar
St. Vincent and the Eastern Caribbean NSO 2017 20066 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Grenadines dollar
Sudan Sudanese pound NSO 2014 1982 SNA 1968 NSO 2017
Suriname Surinamese dollar NSO 2016 2007 SNA 1993 NSO 2017


Statistics
Statistics Manual
Oman MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Pakistan MoF 2016/17 1986 CG,SG,LG C CB 2016/17 BPM 6
Palau MoF 2016/17 2001 CG … MoF 2016/17 BPM 6
Panama MoF 2017 1986 CG,SG,LG,SS, NFPC C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Papua New Guinea MoF 2015 1986 CG C CB 2015 BPM 5
Paraguay MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS,MPC, C CB 2017 BPM 6
NFPC
Peru MoF 2017 1986 CG,SG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 5
Philippines MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Poland MoF and NSO 2016 ESA 2010 CG,LG,SS A CB 2016 BPM 6
Portugal NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Puerto Rico MEP 2015/16 2001 … A … … …
Qatar MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB and IMF staff 2017 BPM 5
Romania MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
Russia MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,SS Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Rwanda MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Samoa MoF 2016/17 2001 CG A CB 2016/17 BPM 6
San Marino MoF 2016 … CG … … … …
São Tomé and MoF and Customs 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Príncipe
Saudi Arabia MoF 2017 2014 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Senegal MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB and IMF staff 2017 BPM 6
Serbia MoF 2016 1986/2001 CG,SG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
Seychelles MoF 2017 1986 CG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
Sierra Leone MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Singapore MoF 2016/17 2001 CG C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Slovak Republic NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Slovenia MoF 2017 1986 CG,SG,LG,SS C NSO 2017 BPM 6
Solomon Islands MoF 2016 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Somalia MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5
South Africa MoF 2017 2001 CG,SG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
South Sudan MoF and MEP 2017 … CG C MoF, NSO, and MEP 2017 BPM 6
Spain MoF and NSO 2017 ESA 2010 CG,SG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Sri Lanka MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 5
St. Kitts and Nevis MoF 2017 1986 CG, SG C CB 2016 BPM 6
St. Lucia MoF 2017/18 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
St. Vincent and the MoF 2016 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Grenadines
Sudan MoF 2017 2001 CG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 6
Suriname MoF 2017 1986 CG Mixed CB 2017 BPM 5



Sweden Swedish krona NSO 2017 2017 ESA 2010 From 1993 NSO 2017
Switzerland Swiss franc NSO 2017 2010 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
Syria Syrian pound NSO 2010 2000 SNA 1993 NSO 2011
Taiwan Province of New Taiwan dollar NSO 2017 2011 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
China
Tajikistan Tajik somoni NSO 2017 1995 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Tanzania Tanzania shilling NSO 2016 2007 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Thailand Thai baht MEP 2017 2002 SNA 1993 From 1993 MEP 2017
Timor-Leste US dollar MoF 2016 20156 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Togo CFA franc NSO 2015 2007 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Tonga Tongan pa’anga CB 2017 2010 SNA 1993 CB 2017
Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and NSO 2017 2012 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Tobago dollar
Tunisia Tunisian dinar NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 From 2009 NSO 2016
Turkey Turkish lira NSO 2017 2009 ESA 2010 From 2009 NSO 2017
Turkmenistan New Turkmen NSO 2017 2008 SNA 1993 From 2000 NSO 2017
manat
Tuvalu Australian dollar PFTAC advisors 2015 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Uganda Ugandan shilling NSO 2016 2010 SNA 1993 CB 2016/17
Ukraine Ukrainian hryvnia NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 From 2005 NSO 2017
United Arab U.A.E. dirham NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Emirates
United Kingdom Pound sterling NSO 2017 2016 ESA 2010 From 1980 NSO 2017
United States US dollar NSO 2017 2012 SNA 2008 From 1980 NSO 2017
Uruguay Uruguayan peso CB 2017 2005 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Uzbekistan Uzbek sum NSO 2017 1995 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Vanuatu Vanuatu vatu NSO 2016 2006 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Venezuela Venezuelan bolívar CB 2016 1997 SNA 2008 CB 2016
fuerte
Vietnam Vietnamese dong NSO 2017 2010 SNA 1993 NSO 2017
Yemen Yemeni rial IMF staff 2008 1990 SNA 1993 NSO,CB, and 2009
IMF staff
Zambia Zambian kwacha NSO 2017 2010 SNA 2008 NSO 2017
Zimbabwe US dollar NSO 2015 2009 … NSO 2016


Statistics
Statistics Manual
Sweden MoF 2016 2001 CG,LG,SS A NSO 2017 BPM 6
Switzerland MoF 2016 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Syria MoF 2009 1986 CG C CB 2009 BPM 5
Taiwan Province of MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 6
China
Tajikistan MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
Tanzania MoF 2016 1986 CG,LG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Thailand MoF 2016/17 2001 CG,BCG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Timor-Leste MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Togo MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Tonga MoF 2017 2014 CG C CB and NSO 2017 BPM 6
Trinidad and Tobago MoF 2016/17 1986 CG C CB and NSO 2017 BPM 6
Tunisia MoF 2016 1986 CG C CB 2016 BPM 5
Turkey MoF 2017 2001 CG,LG,SS A CB 2017 BPM 6
Turkmenistan MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG C NSO and IMF staff 2015 BPM 6
Tuvalu MoF 2017 … CG Mixed IMF staff 2012 BPM 6
Uganda MoF 2016 2001 CG C CB 2016 BPM 6
Ukraine MoF 2016 2001 CG,SG,LG,SS C CB 2016 BPM 6
United Arab MoF 2017 2001 CG,BCG,SG,SS C CB 2017 BPM 5
Emirates
United Kingdom NSO 2017 2001 CG,LG A NSO 2017 BPM 6
United States MEP 2017 2014 CG,SG,LG A NSO 2016 BPM 6
Uruguay MoF 2017 1986 CG,LG,SS,MPC, C CB 2017 BPM 6
NFPC
Uzbekistan MoF 2016 … CG,SG,LG,SS C MEP 2017 BPM 6
Vanuatu MoF 2017 2001 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Venezuela MoF 2013 2001 BCG,NFPC C CB 2016 BPM 5
Vietnam MoF 2015 2001 CG,SG,LG C CB 2017 BPM 5
Yemen MoF 2013 2001 CG,LG C IMF staff 2009 BPM 5
Zambia MoF 2017 1986 CG C CB 2017 BPM 6
Zimbabwe MoF 2015 1986 CG C CB and MoF 2016 BPM 6
Note: BPM = Balance of Payments Manual; CPI = consumer price index; ESA = European System of National Accounts; SNA = System of National Accounts.
1CB = central bank; Customs = Customs Authority; GAD = General Administration Department; IEO = international economic organization; MEP = Ministry of Economy, Planning, Com-
merce, and/or Development; MoF = Ministry of Finance and/or Treasury; NSO = National Statistics Office; PFTAC = Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre.
2National accounts base year is the period with which other periods are compared and the period for which prices appear in the denominators of the price relationships used to
calculate the index.

3Use of chain-weighted methodology allows countries to measure GDP growth more accurately by reducing or eliminating the downward biases in volume series built on index numbers
that average volume components using weights from a year in the moderately distant past.
4BCG = budgetary central government; CG = central government; EUA = extrabudgetary units/accounts; LG = local government; MPC = monetary public corporation, including central
bank; NFPC = nonfinancial public corporation; NMPC = nonmonetary financial public corporation; SG = state government; SS = social security fund; TG = territorial governments.
5Accounting standard: A = accrual accounting; C = cash accounting; CB = commitments basis accounting; Mixed = combination of accrual and cash accounting.
6Base year is not equal to 100 because the nominal GDP is not measured in the same way as real GDP or the data are seasonally adjusted.

Box A1. Economic Policy Assumptions Underlying the Projections for Selected Economies
Fiscal Policy Assumptions on the authorities’ fiscal plans, with adjustments for
The short-term fiscal policy assumptions used in the IMF staff’s assumptions.
the World Economic Outlook (WEO) are normally Brazil: Fiscal projections for the end of 2018
based on officially announced budgets, adjusted for account for budget performance through May 2018,
differences between the national authorities and the and the deficit target approved in the budget law.
IMF staff regarding macroeconomic assumptions and Canada: Projections use the baseline forecasts in the
projected fiscal outturns. When no official budget has 2018 federal budget and the latest provincial budget
been announced, projections incorporate policy mea- updates as available. The IMF staff makes some adjust-
sures that are judged likely to be implemented. The ments to these forecasts, including for differences in
medium-term fiscal projections are similarly based on macroeconomic projections. The IMF staff’s forecast
a judgment about the most likely path of policies. For also incorporates the most recent data releases from Sta-
cases in which the IMF staff has insufficient informa- tistics Canada’s Canadian System of National Economic
tion to assess the authorities’ budget intentions and Accounts, including federal, provincial, and territorial
prospects for policy implementation, an unchanged budgetary outturns through the first quarter of 2018.
structural primary balance is assumed unless indicated Chile: Projections are based on the authorities’
otherwise. Specific assumptions used in regard to some budget projections, adjusted to reflect the IMF staff’s
of the advanced economies follow. (See also Tables B5 projections for GDP and copper prices.
to B9 in the online section of the Statistical Appendix China: Projections assume that the pace of fiscal
for data on fiscal net lending/borrowing and structural consolidation is likely to be more gradual, reflect-
balances.)1 ing reforms to strengthen social safety nets and the
Argentina: Fiscal projections are based on the avail- social security system announced as part of the Third
able information regarding budget outturn and budget Plenum reform agenda.
plans for the federal and provincial governments, fiscal Denmark: Estimates for 2017 are aligned with the
measures announced by the authorities, and the IMF latest official budget numbers, adjusted where appro-
staff’s macroeconomic projections. priate for the IMF staff’s macroeconomic assumptions.
Australia: Fiscal projections are based on Australian For 2018, the projections incorporate key features
Bureau of Statistics data, the fiscal year 2018/19 bud- of the medium-term fiscal plan as embodied in the
gets of the commonwealth and states and territories, authorities’ Convergence Programme 2017 submitted
2017/18 mid-year fiscal and economic reviews by to the European Union.
states and territories, and the IMF staff’s estimates. France: Projections for 2018 reflect the 2018 budget
Austria: Fiscal projections are based on data from law. For 2018–23, they are based on the measures in the
Statistics Austria, the authorities’ projections, and the multiyear budget and the 2018 budget laws and addi-
IMF staff’s estimates and projections. tional measures expected in the 2019 budget law adjusted
Belgium: Projections are based on the 2018–21 for differences in assumptions on macro and financial
Stability Programme and other available information variables, and revenue projections. Historical fiscal data
reflect the May 2018 revisions and update of the histori-
1 The output gap is actual minus potential output, as a
cal fiscal accounts, debt data, and national accounts.
percentage of potential output. Structural balances are expressed
Germany: The IMF staff’s projections for 2018 and
as a percentage of potential output. The structural balance is the beyond are based on the 2018 Stability Programme,
actual net lending/borrowing minus the effects of cyclical output revised 2018 federal budget, and data updates from
from potential output, corrected for one-time and other factors, the national statistical agency, adjusted for the differ-
such as asset and commodity prices and output composition ences in the IMF staff’s macroeconomic framework
effects. Changes in the structural balance consequently include
effects of temporary fiscal measures, the impact of fluctuations
and assumptions concerning revenue elasticities. The
in interest rates and debt-service costs, and other noncyclical estimate of gross debt includes portfolios of impaired
fluctuations in net lending/borrowing. The computations of assets and noncore business transferred to institutions
structural balances are based on the IMF staff’s estimates of that are winding up, as well as other financial sector
potential GDP and revenue and expenditure elasticities. (See and EU support operations.
Annex I of the October 1993 WEO.) Net debt is calculated as
gross debt minus financial assets corresponding to debt instru-
Greece: Fiscal projections reflect adjustments in line
ments. Estimates of the output gap and of the structural balance with the primary balance definition under the enhanced
are subject to significant margins of uncertainty. surveillance procedure for Greece.
International Monetary Fund | April 2018 147

Box A1 (continued)
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Projections budget projections, after differences in macroeconomic
are based on the authorities’ medium-term fiscal projec- assumptions are adjusted for. Historical data were revised
tions on expenditures. following the June 2014 Central Bureau of Statistics
Hungary: Fiscal projections include the IMF staff’s release of revised macro data because of the adoption of
projections of the macroeconomic framework and of ESA 2010 and the revisions of data sources.
the impact of recent legislative measures, as well as fiscal New Zealand: Fiscal projections are based on the fiscal
policy plans announced in the 2018 budget. year 2018/19 budget and 2017 Half-Year Economic and
India: Historical data are based on budgetary execu- Fiscal Update, and the IMF staff’s estimates.
tion data. Projections are based on available information Portugal: The projections for the current year are
on the authorities’ fiscal plans, with adjustments for the based on the authorities’ approved budget, adjusted
IMF staff’s assumptions. Subnational data are incorpo- to reflect the IMF staff’s macroeconomic forecast.
rated with a lag of up to one year; general government Projections thereafter are based on the assumption of
data are thus finalized well after central government data. unchanged policies.
IMF and Indian presentations differ, particularly regard- Puerto Rico: Fiscal projections are based on the Puerto
ing divestment and license auction proceeds, net versus Rico Fiscal and Economic Growth Plans (FEGPs),
gross recording of revenues in certain minor categories, which were prepared in April and updated in August
and some public sector lending. of 2018, and is pending certification by the Oversight
Indonesia: IMF projections are based on moderate tax Board. In line with assumptions of this plan, IMF pro-
policy and administration reforms, fuel subsidy pricing jections assume federal aid for rebuilding after Hurricane
reforms introduced since January 2015, and a gradual Maria devastated the island in September 2017. The
increase in social and capital spending over the medium projections also assume revenue losses from the follow-
term in line with fiscal space. ing: elimination of federal funding for the Affordable
Ireland: Fiscal projections are based on the country’s Care Act starting in 2018 for Puerto Rico; elimination
Budget 2018. of federal tax incentives starting in 2018 that had neu-
Israel: Historical data are based on Government tralized the effects of Puerto Rico’s Act 154 on foreign
Finance Statistics data prepared by the Central Bureau firms; and the effects of the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which
of Statistics. The central government deficit is assumed reduce tax advantages of US firms producing in Puerto
to remain at the current ceiling of 2.9 percent of GDP Rico. Given sizable policy uncertainty, some FEGP and
throughout the projection period, rather than declining IMF assumptions may differ, in particular those relating
in line with medium-term fiscal targets, consistent with to the effects of the corporate tax reform, tax compli-
long experience of revisions to those targets. ance, and tax adjustments (fees and rates); reduction of
Italy: The IMF staff’s estimates and projections are subsidies and expenses, freezing of payroll operational
informed by the fiscal plans included in the govern- costs, and improvement of mobility; and increasing
ment’s 2018 budget and April 2018 Economic and health care efficiency. On the expenditure side, measures
Financial Document. IMF staff assumes that the include extension of Act 66, which freezes much govern-
automatic value-added tax hikes for next year will be ment spending, through 2020; reduction of operating
canceled. costs; decreases in government subsidies; and spending
Japan: The projections include fiscal measures already cuts in education. Although IMF policy assumptions are
announced by the government, including the consump- similar to those in the FEGP scenario with full mea-
tion tax hike in October 2019. sures, the IMF’s projections of fiscal revenues, expendi-
Korea: The medium-term forecast incorporates the tures, and balance are different from FEGP’s. This stems
medium-term path for public spending announced by from two main differences in methodologies: first, while
the government. IMF projections are on an accrual basis, FEGP’s are on
Mexico: Fiscal projections for 2018 are broadly in line a cash basis. Second, the IMF and FEGP make very
with the approved budget; projections for 2019 onward different macroeconomic assumptions. Third, the IMF’s
assume compliance with rules established in the Fiscal projections are on a calendar year basis while FEGP’s are
Responsibility Law. on a fiscal year basis.
Netherlands: Fiscal projections for 2017–23 are based Russia: Projections for 2018–21 are the IMF staff’s
on the authorities’ Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis estimates, based on the authorities’ budget. Projections

Box A1 (continued)
for 2022–23 are based on the new oil price rule, with the authorities’ fiscal projections. The IMF staff’s data
adjustments by the IMF staff. exclude public sector banks and the effect of transferring
Saudi Arabia: Staff baseline projections of total assets from the Royal Mail Pension Plan to the public
government revenues reflect the impact of announced sector in April 2012. Real government consumption
policies in the 2018 Budget. Oil revenues are based on and investment are part of the real GDP path, which,
WEO baseline oil prices and the assumption that Saudi according to the IMF staff, may or may not be the same
Arabia continues to meet its commitments under the as projected by the UK Office for Budget Responsibility.
OPEC+ agreement. Expenditure projections take the United States: Fiscal projections are based on the
2018 budget as a starting point and reflect staff esti- August update to the April 2018 Congressional Budget
mates of the effects of the latest changes in policies and Office baseline, adjusted for the IMF staff’s policy and
economic developments. Expenditures in 2018 include macroeconomic assumptions. Projections incorpo-
allowances and other measures announced in the Royal rate the effects of tax reform (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
Decree for one year in January 2018. signed into law end of 2017) as well as the Bipartisan
Singapore: For fiscal year 2018/19, projections are Budget Act of 2018 passed in February 2018. Finally,
based on budget numbers. For the rest of the projection fiscal projections are adjusted to reflect the IMF staff’s
period, the IMF staff assumes unchanged policies. forecasts for key macroeconomic and financial variables
South Africa: Fiscal projections are based on the and different accounting treatment of financial sector
2018 Budget. Nontax revenue excludes transactions in support and defined-benefit pension plans, and are con-
financial assets and liabilities, as they involve primarily verted to a general government basis. Data are compiled
revenues associated with realized exchange rate valuation using SNA 2008, and when translated into government
gains from the holding of foreign currency deposits, sale finance statistics, this is in accordance with the Govern-
of assets, and conceptually similar items. ment Finance Statistics Manual 2014. Because of data
Spain: For 2018 and beyond, fiscal projections are limitations, most series begin in 2001.
based on the information specified in the government’s
2018 Stability Programme and on the IMF staff’s mac-
roeconomic projections. Monetary Policy Assumptions
Sweden: Fiscal projections account for the authori- Monetary policy assumptions are based on the
ties’ projections based on the 2018 Spring Budget. The established policy framework in each country. In
impact of cyclical developments on the fiscal accounts most cases, this implies a nonaccommodative stance
is calculated using the Organisation for Economic over the business cycle: official interest rates will
Co-operation and Development’s 2005 elasticity to take increase when economic indicators suggest that infla-
into account output and employment gaps. tion will rise above its acceptable rate or range; they
Switzerland: The projections assume that fiscal policy will decrease when indicators suggest inflation will
is adjusted as necessary to keep fiscal balances in line not exceed the acceptable rate or range, that output
with the requirements of Switzerland’s fiscal rules. growth is below its potential rate, and that the margin
Turkey: The fiscal projections for 2018 are based on of slack in the economy is significant. On this basis,
the authorities’ Medium Term Programme 2018–20, the London interbank offered rate on six-month US
with adjustments for additionally announced fiscal dollar deposits is assumed to average 2.5 percent in
measures and the IMF staff’s higher inflation forecast. 2018 and 3.4 percent in 2019 (see Table 1.1). The
For the medium term, the fiscal projections assume a rate on three-month euro deposits is assumed to aver-
more gradual fiscal consolidation than envisaged in the age –0.3 percent in 2018 and –0.2 percent in 2019.
Medium Term Programme. The interest rate on six-month Japanese yen deposits
United Kingdom: Fiscal projections are based on the is assumed to average 0.0 percent in 2018 and 0.1
country’s November 2017 Budget and the March 2018 percent in 2019.
update, with expenditure projections based on the Argentina: Monetary policy assumptions are con-
budgeted nominal values and with revenue projections sistent with gradual disinflation of the economy to a
adjusted for differences between the IMF staff’s forecasts single digit.
of macroeconomic variables (such as GDP growth and Australia: Monetary policy assumptions are in line
inflation) and the forecasts of these variables assumed in with market expectations.

Box A1 (continued)
Brazil: Monetary policy assumptions are consistent Korea: Monetary policy assumptions are in line with
with gradual convergence of inflation toward the market expectations.
middle of the target range. Mexico: Monetary policy assumptions are consistent
Canada: Monetary policy assumptions are in line with attaining the inflation target.
with market expectations. Russia: Monetary projections assume that the
China: Monetary policy is expected to tighten with Central Bank of Russia will complete the transition to
a gradual rise in the interest rate. a neutral stance at a slower pace given upside risks to
Denmark: The monetary policy is to maintain the the inflation outlook.
peg to the euro. Saudi Arabia: Monetary policy projections are based
Euro area: Monetary policy assumptions for euro on the continuation of the exchange rate peg to the
area member countries are in line with market US dollar.
expectations. Singapore: Broad money is projected to grow in line
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: The IMF with the projected growth in nominal GDP.
staff assumes that the currency board system remains South Africa: Monetary policy will remain neutral.
intact. Sweden: Monetary projections are in line with Riks-
India: The policy (interest) rate assumption is con- bank projections.
sistent with an inflation rate within the Reserve Bank Switzerland: The projections assume no change in
of India’s targeted band. Consistent with IMF staff’s the policy rate in 2018–19.
estimates of natural rate of inflation and an inflation- Turkey: The outlook for monetary and financial con-
forecast targeting policy rule, an additional increase of ditions assumes no changes to the current policy stance.
policy rate (25–50 basis points) is needed. United Kingdom: The short-term interest rate path is
Indonesia: Monetary policy assumptions are in line based on market interest rate expectations.
with the maintenance of inflation within the central United States: The IMF staff expects continued
bank’s targeted band. gradual normalization of the federal funds target rate
Japan: Monetary policy assumptions are in line with over the medium term, in line with the broader mac-
market expectations. roeconomic outlook.

List of Tables
Output
A1. Summary of World Output
A2. Advanced Economies: Real GDP and Total Domestic Demand
A3. Advanced Economies: Components of Real GDP
A4. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Real GDP
Inflation
A5. Summary of Inflation
A6. Advanced Economies: Consumer Prices
A7. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Consumer Prices
Financial Policies
A8. Major Advanced Economies: General Government Fiscal Balances and Debt
Foreign Trade
A9. Summary of World Trade Volumes and Prices
Current Account Transactions

A10. Summary of Current Account Balances
A11. Advanced Economies: Balance on Current Account
A12. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Balance on Current Account
Balance of Payments and External Financing

A13. Summary of Financial Account Balances
Flow of Funds
A14. Summary of Net Lending and Borrowing
Medium-Term Baseline Scenario

A15. Summary of World Medium-Term Baseline Scenario

Table A1. Summary of World Output1

(Annual percent change)
Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
World 3.9 5.4 4.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6
United States 1.9 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.9 1.6 2.2 2.9 2.5 1.4
Euro Area 1.4 2.1 1.6 –0.9 –0.2 1.4 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.4
Japan 0.5 4.2 –0.1 1.5 2.0 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.5
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 6.1 7.4 6.4 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States3 5.9 4.6 5.3 3.7 2.5 1.1 –1.9 0.4 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1
Latin America and the Caribbean 3.0 6.1 4.6 2.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 –0.6 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.9
and Pakistan 5.2 4.6 4.4 4.8 2.6 2.9 2.5 5.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.0
Middle East and North Africa 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.9 2.4 2.7 2.4 5.2 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 5.6 7.1 5.1 4.6 5.2 5.1 3.3 1.4 2.7 3.1 3.8 4.1
Memorandum
European Union 1.7 2.0 1.8 –0.3 0.3 1.9 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.6
Analytical Groups
Fuel 5.7 5.1 5.2 5.0 2.6 2.2 0.3 1.9 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.0
Nonfuel 6.2 8.0 6.7 5.4 5.7 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3
Of Which, Primary Products 3.8 6.8 4.9 2.3 4.2 2.1 2.8 1.7 2.8 1.6 2.1 3.6
Net Debtor Economies 4.9 6.9 5.4 4.2 4.8 4.6 4.2 3.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 5.2
Net Debtor Economies by
Debt-Servicing Experience
Economies with Arrears and/or
Rescheduling during 2013–17 4.7 4.2 2.7 1.5 3.2 1.9 1.0 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.4 5.0
Memorandum
Median Growth Rate
Output per Capita4
World Growth Rate Based on Market
Exchange Rates 2.6 4.1 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8
Value of World Output (billions of US dollars)
At Market Exchange Rates 46,626 66,011 73,230 74,619 76,750 78,832 74,602 75,653 80,051 84,835 88,081 108,712
At Purchasing Power Parities 66,722 89,402 95,018 99,891 105,088 110,805 115,729 120,693 127,489 135,236 143,089 177,424
1RealGDP.
2Excludes the United States, euro area countries, and Japan.
3Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are included in this group for reasons of geography and similarity in economic structure.
4Output per capita is in international currency at purchasing power parity.

Table A2. Advanced Economies: Real GDP and Total Domestic Demand1
Fourth Quarter2
Average Projections Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023 2017:Q4 2018:Q4 2019:Q4
Real GDP
Advanced Economies 1.8 3.1 1.7 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.5 2.5 2.3 1.9
United States 1.9 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.9 1.6 2.2 2.9 2.5 1.4 2.5 3.1 2.3
Euro Area 1.4 2.1 1.6 –0.9 –0.2 1.4 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.4 2.7 1.7 1.9
Germany 0.8 3.9 3.7 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.5 2.2 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.2 2.8 1.9 1.6
France 1.4 1.9 2.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.8 1.3 1.7
Italy 0.5 1.7 0.6 –2.8 –1.7 0.1 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.6 0.8 1.3
Spain 2.7 0.0 –1.0 –2.9 –1.7 1.4 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.2 1.7 3.0 2.5 2.1
Netherlands 1.6 1.3 1.5 –1.0 –0.1 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.9 2.8 2.6 1.8 3.1 2.4 2.6
Belgium 1.7 2.7 1.8 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.3
Austria 1.7 1.8 2.9 0.7 0.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 3.0 2.8 2.2 1.4 3.5 1.8 2.6
Greece 2.7 –5.5 –9.1 –7.3 –3.2 0.7 –0.3 –0.2 1.4 2.0 2.4 1.2 2.0 2.2 2.5
Portugal 0.9 1.9 –1.8 –4.0 –1.1 0.9 1.8 1.6 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.4 2.4 2.4 1.2
Ireland 3.6 1.9 3.7 0.2 1.3 8.7 25.0 4.9 7.2 4.7 4.0 2.8 5.4 0.3 6.3
Finland 2.0 3.0 2.6 –1.4 –0.8 –0.6 0.1 2.5 2.8 2.6 1.8 1.2 2.6 2.7 1.4
Slovak Republic 4.5 5.0 2.8 1.7 1.5 2.8 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.2 4.2
Lithuania 4.6 1.6 6.0 3.8 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.3 3.9 3.5 2.9 2.0 3.8 3.1 3.0
Slovenia 2.9 1.2 0.6 –2.7 –1.1 3.0 2.3 3.1 5.0 4.5 3.4 2.1 6.0 3.6 3.3
Luxembourg 3.0 4.9 2.5 –0.4 3.7 5.8 2.9 3.1 2.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.8 3.5 4.5
Latvia 4.7 –3.9 6.4 4.0 2.4 1.9 3.0 2.2 4.5 3.7 3.3 3.0 4.8 2.5 4.3
Estonia 4.1 2.3 7.6 4.3 1.9 2.9 1.7 2.1 4.9 3.7 3.2 2.9 5.1 3.5 2.3
Cyprus 3.5 1.3 0.3 –3.1 –5.9 –1.4 2.0 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.2 2.4 4.0 4.2 3.9
Malta 1.6 3.5 1.3 2.7 4.6 8.2 9.5 5.2 6.7 5.7 4.6 3.2 5.6 6.7 3.6
Japan 0.5 4.2 –0.1 1.5 2.0 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 2.0 1.0 –0.3
United Kingdom 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.4
Korea 4.7 6.5 3.7 2.3 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.3
Canada 2.1 3.1 3.1 1.7 2.5 2.9 1.0 1.4 3.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 3.0 2.1 1.9
Australia 3.1 2.4 2.7 3.9 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.8
Taiwan Province of China 3.8 10.6 3.8 2.1 2.2 4.0 0.8 1.4 2.9 2.7 2.4 1.9 3.4 1.9 2.1
Switzerland 1.9 2.9 1.8 1.0 1.9 2.5 1.3 1.6 1.7 3.0 1.8 1.7 2.6 2.6 1.7
Sweden 2.0 6.0 2.7 –0.3 1.2 2.6 4.5 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.7 1.9 2.6
Singapore 5.2 15.2 6.4 4.1 5.1 3.9 2.2 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.5 2.6 3.6 1.9 2.6
Hong Kong SAR 4.2 6.8 4.8 1.7 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.2 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3
Norway 1.8 0.7 1.0 2.7 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.7 1.6
Czech Republic 3.4 2.3 1.8 –0.8 –0.5 2.7 5.3 2.5 4.3 3.1 3.0 2.5 5.0 3.2 2.5
Israel 3.5 5.5 5.2 2.2 4.2 3.5 2.6 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.5
Denmark 1.0 1.9 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 3.2 2.2
New Zealand 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.2 3.2 4.2 4.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.1 3.0
Puerto Rico 1.0 –0.4 –0.4 0.0 –0.3 –1.2 –1.0 –1.3 –2.4 –2.3 –1.1 –0.8 ... ... ...
Macao SAR ... 25.3 21.7 9.2 11.2 –1.2 –21.6 –0.9 9.1 6.3 6.3 4.2 ... ... ...
Iceland 3.5 –3.4 1.9 1.3 4.1 2.1 4.5 7.4 4.0 3.7 2.9 2.5 1.9 2.9 4.7
San Marino ... –4.8 –9.3 –7.6 –3.2 –0.9 0.6 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 ... ... ...
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies 1.4 2.8 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.1 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.2 2.3 2.2 1.7
Real Total Domestic Demand
United States 1.9 3.0 1.5 2.2 1.6 2.6 3.6 1.8 2.5 3.1 3.2 1.2 2.6 3.5 2.8
Euro Area 1.3 1.5 0.7 –2.4 –0.6 1.3 2.4 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 2.4 1.6
Germany 0.3 2.9 3.0 –0.8 1.0 1.6 1.4 3.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.3 1.8
France 1.7 2.1 2.1 –0.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.3 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.3
Italy 0.7 2.0 –0.6 –5.6 –2.6 0.2 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.7
Spain 2.9 –0.5 –3.1 –5.1 –3.2 2.0 4.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.0 1.5 3.3 2.7 1.7
Japan 0.2 2.4 0.7 2.3 2.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.5 1.8 0.9 –0.4
United Kingdom 2.0 2.0 –0.2 1.8 2.1 3.2 2.3 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.6 1.6 1.4
Canada 2.8 5.1 3.4 2.0 2.1 1.7 0.1 0.9 3.8 2.4 1.3 1.5 4.9 1.4 1.2
Other Advanced Economies3 2.9 6.1 3.1 2.0 1.5 2.7 2.4 2.2 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.5 3.7 2.6 3.2
Memorandum
1Inthis and other tables, when countries are not listed alphabetically, they are ordered on the basis of economic size.
2From the fourth quarter of the preceding year.

Table A3. Advanced Economies: Components of Real GDP

Averages Projections
2000–09 2010–19 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Private Consumer Expenditure
United States 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.5 2.9 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.4
Euro Area 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 –1.2 –0.6 0.9 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.6
Germany 0.7 1.3 0.3 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.6
France 2.0 1.0 1.9 0.6 –0.4 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.1 1.0 0.9 1.4
Italy 0.6 0.2 1.2 0.0 –4.0 –2.4 0.2 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.2
Spain 2.5 0.5 0.3 –2.4 –3.5 –3.1 1.5 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.2 1.8
Japan 0.8 0.8 2.4 –0.4 2.0 2.4 –0.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.8
United Kingdom 2.2 1.5 0.7 –0.7 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.6 3.1 1.8 1.1 1.2
Canada 3.2 2.3 3.6 2.3 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.3 3.4 1.7 0.7
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8
Public Consumption
Advanced Economies 2.3 0.8 0.9 –0.6 –0.1 –0.1 0.5 1.7 1.9 0.8 1.6 2.0
United States 2.2 0.0 0.1 –3.0 –1.5 –1.9 –0.8 1.7 1.5 –0.1 1.1 2.7
Euro Area 2.0 0.8 0.8 –0.1 –0.3 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.2
Germany 1.2 1.8 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.9 4.0 1.6 1.4 2.0
France 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.3
Italy 1.3 –0.2 0.6 –1.8 –1.4 –0.3 –0.7 –0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8
Spain 5.1 0.1 1.5 –0.3 –4.7 –2.1 –0.3 2.1 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.0
Japan 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.3 0.4 0.5 1.1
United Kingdom 2.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.2 –0.2 2.2 1.4 0.8 –0.1 1.3 0.9
Canada 2.6 1.4 2.3 1.3 0.7 –0.7 0.5 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.5
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies 2.0 0.6 0.7 –1.1 –0.2 –0.5 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.4 1.1 1.9
Gross Fixed Capital Formation
United States 0.4 4.3 2.2 4.6 6.9 3.6 4.9 3.3 1.7 4.0 5.6 6.0
Euro Area 0.9 1.5 –0.4 1.5 –3.4 –2.3 1.6 4.8 3.9 2.5 4.1 3.5
Germany –0.4 3.0 5.0 7.4 –0.1 –1.2 3.9 1.1 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.5
France 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 0.2 –0.8 0.0 1.0 2.8 4.5 2.9 3.2
Italy 0.8 –0.8 –0.5 –1.9 –9.3 –6.6 –2.3 2.1 3.2 3.8 3.6 1.1
Spain 2.4 0.3 –4.9 –6.9 –8.6 –3.4 4.7 6.7 2.9 4.8 5.6 3.6
Japan –2.0 2.0 –1.6 1.7 3.5 4.9 3.1 1.7 1.1 2.5 1.9 1.2
United Kingdom 0.2 3.2 4.1 2.6 2.1 3.4 7.2 3.4 2.3 3.4 0.9 2.5
Canada 3.1 2.5 11.4 4.6 4.9 1.3 2.4 –5.2 –2.9 2.8 3.7 2.6
Memorandum

Table A3. Advanced Economies: Components of Real GDP (continued)

2000–09 2010–19 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Final Domestic Demand
United States 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.3 2.8 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.2 3.2
Euro Area 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.3 –1.5 –0.8 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.0 2.0
Germany 0.5 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.0 0.5 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.3 1.9 2.1
France 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.5
Italy 0.8 –0.1 0.7 –0.8 –4.5 –2.8 –0.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1
Spain 2.9 0.4 –0.7 –3.0 –4.8 –3.0 1.8 3.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.0
Japan 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.5 2.3 2.8 0.2 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.0 1.1
United Kingdom 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.6 1.7 2.9 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.1 1.4
Canada 3.0 2.2 5.0 2.6 2.4 1.6 2.1 0.3 1.1 3.0 2.3 1.3
Memorandum
Stock Building2
Advanced Economies –0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 –0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 –0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
United States –0.2 0.1 1.4 –0.1 0.2 0.2 –0.1 0.3 –0.5 0.0 –0.1 0.0
Euro Area –0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 –0.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Germany –0.2 0.1 1.4 0.5 –1.7 0.5 –0.2 –0.3 0.3 –0.1 0.1 0.0
France –0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 –0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2 –0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0
Italy –0.1 0.1 1.3 0.2 –1.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 –0.4 –0.1 0.0 0.0
Spain 0.0 0.0 0.2 –0.1 –0.2 –0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Japan 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 –0.4 0.1 0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0.1 0.0
United Kingdom –0.1 0.1 1.0 –0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 –0.2 –0.1 –0.5 0.1 –0.1
Canada 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 –0.3 0.5 –0.4 –0.2 –0.2 0.8 0.1 0.0
Other Advanced Economies1 –0.1 0.1 1.9 0.2 –0.3 –0.8 0.2 0.0 –0.3 0.2 0.0 –0.1
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies –0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 –0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 –0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Foreign Balance2
Advanced Economies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 –0.3 –0.2 0.1 –0.1 –0.2
United States –0.1 –0.3 –0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 –0.3 –0.8 –0.3 –0.3 –0.3 –0.8
Euro Area 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.1 –0.2 –0.3 0.8 0.1 0.0
Germany 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 1.4 –0.3 0.7 0.2 –0.6 0.3 0.0 –0.1
France –0.3 –0.1 –0.2 0.1 0.7 –0.1 –0.5 –0.4 –0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0
Italy –0.2 0.3 –0.3 1.2 2.8 0.8 –0.1 –0.5 –0.3 0.1 –0.2 –0.1
Spain –0.2 0.6 0.5 2.1 2.2 1.5 –0.5 –0.3 0.8 0.1 –0.1 0.2
Japan 0.1 0.1 1.6 –0.9 –0.8 –0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0
United Kingdom –0.1 –0.1 –0.7 1.5 –0.4 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.7 0.6 0.1 0.1
Canada –0.8 –0.1 –2.1 –0.3 –0.4 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 –0.9 –0.4 0.7
Other Advanced Economies1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 –0.2 0.0 –0.5 0.1 0.1
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 –0.1 –0.4 –0.2 0.0 –0.1 –0.4
1Excludesthe G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) and euro area countries.
2Changes expressed as percent of GDP in the preceding period.

Table A4. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Real GDP

Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Commonwealth of Independent States1,2 5.9 4.6 5.3 3.7 2.5 1.1 –1.9 0.4 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1
Russia 5.4 4.5 5.1 3.7 1.8 0.7 –2.5 –0.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.2
Excluding Russia 7.5 5.0 6.0 3.6 4.2 1.9 –0.6 2.0 3.6 3.9 3.6 4.1
Armenia 8.5 2.2 4.7 7.1 3.3 3.6 3.3 0.3 7.5 6.0 4.8 4.5
Azerbaijan 14.6 4.6 –1.6 2.1 5.9 2.7 0.6 –3.1 0.1 1.3 3.6 2.0
Belarus 7.2 7.8 5.5 1.7 1.0 1.7 –3.8 –2.5 2.4 4.0 3.1 2.0
Georgia 5.9 6.2 7.2 6.4 3.4 4.6 2.9 2.8 5.0 5.5 4.8 5.2
Kazakhstan 8.5 7.3 7.5 5.0 6.0 4.3 1.2 1.1 4.0 3.7 3.1 4.6
Kyrgyz Republic 4.6 –0.5 6.0 –0.1 10.9 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.6 2.8 4.5 2.4
Moldova 4.6 7.1 6.8 –0.7 9.4 4.8 –0.4 4.3 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.8
Tajikistan 8.2 6.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 6.7 6.0 6.9 7.1 5.0 5.0 4.0
Turkmenistan 14.2 9.2 14.7 11.1 10.2 10.3 6.5 6.2 6.5 6.2 5.6 5.7
Ukraine3 4.5 0.3 5.5 0.2 0.0 –6.6 –9.8 2.4 2.5 3.5 2.7 3.4
Uzbekistan 6.4 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 5.3 5.0 5.0 6.0
Bangladesh 5.8 6.0 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.0
Bhutan 8.2 9.3 9.7 6.4 3.6 4.0 6.2 7.3 7.4 5.8 4.8 7.5
Brunei Darussalam 1.4 2.7 3.7 0.9 –2.1 –2.5 –0.4 –2.5 1.3 2.3 5.1 3.9
Cambodia 8.4 6.0 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.0
China 10.3 10.6 9.5 7.9 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.2 5.6
Fiji 0.9 3.0 2.7 1.4 4.7 5.6 3.8 0.7 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.2
India4 6.9 10.3 6.6 5.5 6.4 7.4 8.2 7.1 6.7 7.3 7.4 7.7
Indonesia 5.3 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.6 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4
Kiribati 1.4 –0.9 1.6 4.6 4.3 –0.6 10.3 1.1 3.1 2.3 2.4 1.8
Lao P.D.R. 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 6.9 6.8 7.0 6.8
Malaysia 4.7 7.5 5.3 5.5 4.7 6.0 5.1 4.2 5.9 4.7 4.6 4.8
Maldives 6.3 7.1 8.4 2.3 7.1 7.6 2.2 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.4
Marshall Islands 2.0 0.5 3.0 2.8 –0.5 –0.6 2.0 3.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.2
Micronesia 0.5 3.3 1.0 –1.7 –3.0 –2.5 3.9 2.9 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.6
Mongolia 5.6 7.3 17.3 12.3 11.6 7.9 2.4 1.2 5.1 6.2 6.3 5.7
Myanmar 11.1 5.3 5.6 7.3 8.4 8.0 7.0 5.9 6.8 6.4 6.8 7.2
Nauru ... 13.6 11.7 10.1 34.2 36.5 2.8 10.4 4.0 –2.4 –1.0 1.7
Nepal 4.1 4.8 3.4 4.8 4.1 6.0 3.3 0.6 7.9 6.3 5.0 4.3
Palau ... –0.9 6.3 3.9 –1.6 2.7 10.1 0.0 –3.7 0.8 2.2 2.0
Papua New Guinea 2.8 10.1 1.1 4.6 3.8 15.4 5.3 1.6 2.5 –1.1 3.8 3.8
Philippines 4.4 7.6 3.7 6.7 7.1 6.1 6.1 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.6 6.9
Samoa 3.2 –2.0 5.6 0.4 –1.9 1.2 1.6 7.1 2.5 1.8 3.2 2.2
Solomon Islands 1.2 6.8 13.2 4.6 3.0 2.3 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.8
Sri Lanka 5.1 8.0 8.4 9.1 3.4 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.3 3.7 4.3 5.0
Thailand 4.3 7.5 0.8 7.2 2.7 1.0 3.0 3.3 3.9 4.6 3.9 3.6
Timor-Leste5 ... 8.5 7.7 5.5 2.5 4.1 4.0 5.3 –4.6 0.8 5.0 4.8
Tonga 1.1 3.2 1.8 –1.1 –0.6 2.9 3.5 4.2 2.5 2.9 5.5 1.8
Tuvalu ... –3.1 7.9 –3.8 4.6 1.3 9.1 3.0 3.2 4.3 4.1 3.9
Vanuatu 3.3 1.6 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.3 0.2 3.5 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.0
Vietnam 6.9 6.4 6.2 5.2 5.4 6.0 6.7 6.2 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.5
Albania 5.9 3.7 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.8 2.2 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.7 4.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.2 0.8 0.9 –0.7 2.4 1.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.5 4.0
Bulgaria 5.0 1.3 1.9 0.0 0.9 1.3 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.1 2.8
Croatia 3.0 –1.5 –0.3 –2.3 –0.5 –0.1 2.4 3.5 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1
Hungary 2.4 0.7 1.7 –1.6 2.1 4.2 3.4 2.2 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2
Kosovo ... 3.3 4.4 2.8 3.4 1.2 4.1 4.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0
FYR Macedonia 3.1 3.4 2.3 –0.5 2.9 3.6 3.9 2.9 0.0 1.6 2.6 3.4
Montenegro ... 2.7 3.2 –2.7 3.5 1.8 3.4 2.9 4.3 3.7 2.5 3.0
Poland 3.9 3.6 5.0 1.6 1.4 3.3 3.8 3.0 4.6 4.4 3.5 2.8
Romania 4.8 –2.8 2.0 1.2 3.5 3.4 3.9 4.8 6.9 4.0 3.4 3.1
Serbia 5.1 0.6 1.4 –1.0 2.6 –1.8 0.8 2.8 1.9 4.0 3.5 4.0
Turkey 3.8 8.5 11.1 4.8 8.5 5.2 6.1 3.2 7.4 3.5 0.4 2.6

Table A4. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Real GDP (continued)
Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Latin America and the Caribbean 3.0 6.1 4.6 2.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 –0.6 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.9
Antigua and Barbuda 2.8 –7.2 –2.1 3.5 –0.1 5.1 4.1 5.3 2.8 3.5 3.0 2.0
Argentina 2.3 10.1 6.0 –1.0 2.4 –2.5 2.7 –1.8 2.9 –2.6 –1.6 3.2
Aruba 0.3 –3.3 3.5 –1.4 4.2 0.9 –0.4 –0.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2
The Bahamas 1.0 1.5 0.6 3.1 –0.4 –0.1 1.0 –1.7 1.4 2.3 2.1 1.5
Barbados 1.4 –2.2 –0.8 –0.1 –1.4 –0.2 2.2 2.3 –0.2 –0.5 –0.1 1.8
Belize 4.9 3.3 2.1 3.7 0.7 4.0 3.8 –0.5 0.8 1.8 2.0 1.7
Bolivia 3.7 4.1 5.2 5.1 6.8 5.5 4.9 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.7
Brazil 3.4 7.5 4.0 1.9 3.0 0.5 –3.5 –3.5 1.0 1.4 2.4 2.2
Chile 4.2 5.8 6.1 5.3 4.1 1.8 2.3 1.3 1.5 4.0 3.4 3.0
Colombia 3.9 4.3 7.4 3.9 4.6 4.7 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.8 3.6 3.5
Costa Rica 4.2 5.0 4.3 4.8 2.3 3.5 3.6 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4
Dominica 2.6 0.7 –0.2 –1.1 0.8 4.2 –3.7 2.6 –4.7 –14.1 9.4 1.5
Dominican Republic 4.2 8.3 3.1 2.7 4.9 7.6 7.0 6.6 4.6 6.4 5.0 5.1
Ecuador 3.9 3.5 7.9 5.6 4.9 3.8 0.1 –1.2 2.4 1.1 0.7 1.8
El Salvador 1.5 2.1 3.8 2.8 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2
Grenada 2.3 –0.5 0.8 –1.2 2.4 7.3 6.4 3.7 5.1 3.6 3.6 2.7
Guatemala 3.3 2.9 4.2 3.0 3.7 4.2 4.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.5
Guyana 1.8 4.4 5.4 5.0 5.0 3.9 3.1 3.4 2.1 3.4 4.8 27.9
Haiti 0.8 –5.5 5.5 2.9 4.2 2.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 2.0 2.5 3.0
Honduras 4.5 3.7 3.8 4.1 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.8 4.8 3.5 3.6 3.7
Jamaica 0.9 –1.4 1.4 –0.5 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.7 1.2 1.5 2.2
Mexico 1.4 5.1 3.7 3.6 1.4 2.8 3.3 2.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0
Nicaragua 2.9 4.4 6.3 6.5 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 –4.0 –1.0 4.2
Panama 5.5 5.8 11.8 9.2 6.6 6.0 5.8 5.0 5.4 4.6 6.8 5.5
Paraguay 2.3 11.1 4.2 –0.5 8.4 4.9 3.1 4.3 4.8 4.4 4.2 4.1
Peru 5.0 8.5 6.5 6.0 5.8 2.4 3.3 4.0 2.5 4.1 4.1 4.0
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.2 –2.9 –0.8 –0.8 6.6 9.5 2.7 2.9 2.1 2.7 3.5 2.7
St. Lucia 2.2 –1.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 3.6 –0.9 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 1.5
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3.1 –2.3 0.2 1.3 2.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.3 2.5
Suriname 4.5 5.2 5.8 2.7 2.9 0.3 –2.6 –5.1 1.9 2.0 2.2 3.0
Trinidad and Tobago 6.0 3.5 –0.2 –1.8 2.7 –1.2 1.7 –6.1 –2.6 1.0 0.9 2.2
Uruguay 2.2 7.8 5.2 3.5 4.6 3.2 0.4 1.7 2.7 2.0 3.2 3.0
Venezuela 3.7 –1.5 4.2 5.6 1.3 –3.9 –6.2 –16.5 –14.0 –18.0 –5.0 –1.5
and Pakistan 5.2 4.6 4.4 4.8 2.6 2.9 2.5 5.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.0
Afghanistan ... 8.4 6.5 14.0 5.7 2.7 1.0 2.2 2.7 2.3 3.0 5.0
Algeria 3.9 3.6 2.8 3.4 2.8 3.8 3.7 3.2 1.4 2.5 2.7 0.5
Bahrain 5.6 4.3 2.0 3.7 5.4 4.4 2.9 3.5 3.8 3.2 2.6 2.6
Djibouti 3.2 4.1 7.3 4.8 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.0
Egypt 5.0 5.1 1.8 2.2 3.3 2.9 4.4 4.3 4.2 5.3 5.5 6.0
Iran 4.8 5.7 3.1 –7.7 –0.3 3.2 –1.6 12.5 3.7 –1.5 –3.6 2.3
Iraq 10.9 6.4 7.5 13.9 7.6 0.7 2.5 13.1 –2.1 1.5 6.5 2.2
Jordan 6.5 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0
Kuwait 5.3 –2.4 10.9 7.9 0.4 0.6 –1.0 2.2 –3.3 2.3 4.1 2.9
Lebanon 5.0 8.0 0.9 2.8 2.7 2.0 0.2 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.9
Libya4 4.2 3.2 –66.7 124.7 –36.8 –53.0 –13.0 –7.4 64.0 10.9 10.8 1.5
Mauritania 4.3 4.8 4.7 5.8 6.1 5.6 0.4 1.8 3.5 2.5 5.2 5.3
Morocco 4.8 3.8 5.2 3.0 4.5 2.7 4.5 1.1 4.1 3.2 3.2 4.5
Oman 3.5 2.0 2.6 9.1 5.1 1.4 4.7 5.0 –0.9 1.9 5.0 1.5
Pakistan 4.7 2.6 3.6 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.6 5.4 5.8 4.0 3.0
Qatar 12.1 18.1 13.4 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.7 2.1 1.6 2.7 2.8 2.7
Saudi Arabia 3.4 5.0 10.0 5.4 2.7 3.7 4.1 1.7 –0.9 2.2 2.4 2.3
Somalia ... ... ... 1.2 1.4 0.4 3.9 4.4 2.3 3.1 3.5 3.5
Sudan6 5.7 1.4 –2.4 –17.9 3.7 4.8 1.3 3.0 1.4 –2.3 –1.9 0.4
Syria7 4.4 3.4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Tunisia 4.3 3.5 –1.9 4.0 2.9 3.0 1.2 1.1 2.0 2.4 2.9 4.2
United Arab Emirates 4.9 1.6 6.9 4.5 5.1 4.4 5.1 3.0 0.8 2.9 3.7 2.9
Yemen 4.1 7.7 –12.7 2.4 4.8 –0.2 –16.7 –13.6 –5.9 –2.6 14.7 6.6

Table A4. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Real GDP (continued)
Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Angola 8.6 4.9 3.5 8.5 5.0 4.8 0.9 –2.6 –2.5 –0.1 3.1 3.8
Benin 4.2 2.1 3.0 4.8 7.2 6.4 2.1 4.0 5.6 6.0 6.3 6.1
Botswana 3.4 8.6 6.0 4.5 11.3 4.1 –1.7 4.3 2.4 4.6 3.6 5.5
Burkina Faso 5.3 8.4 6.6 6.5 5.8 4.3 3.9 5.9 6.4 5.9 6.0 5.3
Burundi 3.4 5.1 4.0 4.4 5.9 4.5 –4.0 –1.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5
Cabo Verde 6.0 1.5 4.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.0 4.7 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.0
Cameroon 3.9 3.4 4.1 4.5 5.4 5.9 5.7 4.6 3.5 3.8 4.4 5.4
Central African Republic 1.0 3.0 3.3 4.1 –36.7 1.0 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 5.0 5.0
Chad 8.3 13.6 0.1 8.8 5.8 6.9 1.8 –6.4 –3.1 3.5 3.6 4.2
Comoros 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.3
Democratic Republic of the Congo 3.1 7.1 6.9 7.1 8.5 9.5 6.9 2.4 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.7
Republic of Congo 4.6 8.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 6.8 2.6 –2.8 –3.1 2.0 3.7 0.4
Côte d’Ivoire 0.7 2.0 –4.2 10.1 9.3 8.8 8.8 8.3 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.5
Equatorial Guinea 25.3 –8.9 6.5 8.3 –4.1 0.4 –9.1 –8.6 –3.2 –7.7 –2.6 3.4
Eritrea –0.7 2.2 8.7 7.0 4.6 2.9 2.6 1.9 5.0 4.2 3.8 4.3
Eswatini 3.3 3.8 2.2 4.7 6.4 1.9 0.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 0.4 2.0
Ethiopia 8.4 10.6 11.4 8.7 9.9 10.3 10.4 8.0 10.9 7.5 8.5 7.5
Gabon 0.6 6.3 7.1 5.3 5.5 4.4 3.9 2.1 0.5 2.0 3.4 4.5
The Gambia 3.7 6.5 –4.3 5.6 4.8 –0.9 5.9 0.4 4.6 5.4 5.4 4.8
Ghana 5.4 7.9 14.0 9.3 7.3 4.0 3.8 3.7 8.4 6.3 7.6 5.1
Guinea 2.9 4.2 5.6 5.9 3.9 3.7 3.8 10.5 8.2 5.8 5.9 5.0
Guinea-Bissau 2.0 4.6 8.1 –1.7 3.3 1.0 6.1 6.3 5.9 4.5 5.0 5.0
Kenya 3.4 8.4 6.1 4.6 5.9 5.4 5.7 5.9 4.9 6.0 6.1 6.0
Lesotho 3.7 6.3 6.7 4.9 2.2 3.0 2.5 3.1 –1.6 0.8 1.2 1.3
Liberia ... 6.4 7.7 8.4 8.8 0.7 0.0 –1.6 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.3
Madagascar 3.0 0.3 1.5 3.0 2.3 3.3 3.1 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.4 4.9
Malawi 4.2 6.9 4.9 1.9 5.2 5.7 2.9 2.3 4.0 3.3 4.7 6.5
Mali 5.2 5.4 3.2 –0.8 2.3 7.1 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.8
Mauritius 4.4 4.4 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0
Mozambique 7.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.4 6.6 3.8 3.7 3.5 4.0 11.1
Namibia 3.8 6.0 5.1 5.1 5.6 6.4 6.1 0.7 –0.8 1.1 3.1 3.4
Niger 4.3 8.4 2.2 11.8 5.3 7.5 4.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.4 6.0
Nigeria 8.3 11.3 4.9 4.3 5.4 6.3 2.7 –1.6 0.8 1.9 2.3 2.4
Rwanda 8.3 7.3 7.8 8.8 4.7 7.6 8.9 6.0 6.1 7.2 7.8 7.5
São Tomé and Príncipe 4.5 6.7 4.4 3.1 4.8 6.5 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.5 5.0
Senegal 4.0 3.6 1.5 5.1 2.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.4
Seychelles 1.9 5.9 5.4 3.7 6.0 4.5 4.9 4.5 5.3 3.6 3.3 3.3
Sierra Leone 8.7 5.3 6.3 15.2 20.7 4.6 –20.5 6.3 3.7 3.7 5.5 4.6
South Africa 3.6 3.0 3.3 2.2 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.6 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.8
South Sudan ... ... ... –52.4 29.3 2.9 –0.2 –13.9 –5.1 –3.2 –4.6 –5.8
Tanzania 6.2 6.4 7.9 5.1 7.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.8 6.6 6.4
Togo 1.5 6.1 6.4 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.4
Uganda 7.5 7.7 6.8 2.2 4.7 4.6 5.7 2.3 4.8 5.9 6.1 6.5
Zambia 6.8 10.3 5.6 7.6 5.1 4.7 2.9 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.5 4.5
Zimbabwe8 –6.1 15.4 16.3 13.6 5.3 2.8 1.4 0.7 3.7 3.6 4.2 5.0
1Data for some countries refer to real net material product (NMP) or are estimates based on NMP. The figures should be interpreted only as indicative of broad orders of magnitude because
reliable, comparable data are not generally available. In particular, the growth of output of new private enterprises of the informal economy is not fully reflected in the recent figures.
2Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are included in this group for reasons of geography and similarity in economic
structure.
3Data are based on the 2008 System of National Accounts. The revised national accounts data are available beginning in 2000 and exclude Crimea and Sevastopol from 2010 onward.
4See country-specific notes for India and Libya in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
5In this table only, the data for Timor-Leste are based on non-oil GDP.
6Data for 2011 exclude South Sudan after July 9. Data for 2012 and onward pertain to the current Sudan.
7Data for Syria are excluded for 2011 onward owing to the uncertain political situation.
8The Zimbabwe dollar ceased circulating in early 2009. Data are based on IMF staff estimates of price and exchange rate developments in US dollars. IMF staff estimates of US dollar values
may differ from authorities’ estimates. Real GDP is in constant 2009 prices.

Table A5. Summary of Inflation

(Percent)
Average Projections
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
GDP Deflators
United States 2.2 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.9
Euro Area 2.0 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.6 2.0
Japan –1.1 –1.9 –1.7 –0.8 –0.3 1.7 2.1 0.3 –0.2 0.8 1.5 1.0
Consumer Prices
United States 2.6 1.6 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.6 0.1 1.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2
Euro Area2 2.1 1.6 2.7 2.5 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.1
Japan –0.3 –0.7 –0.3 –0.1 0.3 2.8 0.8 –0.1 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3
Emerging Market and Developing Economies3 6.8 5.6 7.1 5.8 5.5 4.7 4.7 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.2 4.1
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States4 13.7 7.2 9.8 6.2 6.5 8.1 15.5 8.3 5.5 4.5 5.7 4.5
Latin America and the Caribbean 6.2 4.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.1 5.9 3.5
Pakistan 6.7 6.6 9.3 9.8 9.2 6.7 5.4 4.7 6.4 10.8 10.2 6.0
Middle East and North Africa 6.6 6.3 8.8 9.7 9.4 6.5 5.5 4.9 6.7 11.8 10.6 6.2
Memorandum
European Union 2.5 2.0 3.1 2.6 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.1
Analytical Groups
Fuel 10.3 6.7 8.6 8.0 8.1 6.4 8.6 6.9 5.4 7.5 8.3 5.7
Nonfuel 5.9 5.3 6.7 5.3 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.6 4.6 3.9
Of Which, Primary Products5 6.8 4.7 6.2 6.5 6.2 6.5 4.9 6.0 11.4 13.3 12.5 6.2
Net Debtor Economies 8.0 6.8 7.7 7.0 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.3 5.7 5.9 5.8 4.7
Rescheduling during 2013–17 8.9 9.5 10.3 7.9 6.7 10.1 13.8 8.5 16.8 16.7 11.9 7.8
Memorandum
Median Inflation Rate
Emerging Market and Developing Economies3 5.2 4.1 5.4 4.5 3.8 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.0
1Excludes the United States, euro area countries, and Japan.
2Based on Eurostat’s harmonized index of consumer prices.
3Excludes Venezuela but includes Argentina starting from 2017 onward. See country-specific notes for Argentina and Venezuela in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
structure.
5Includes Argentina starting from 2017 onward. See country-specific note for Argentina in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.

Table A6. Advanced Economies: Consumer Prices1

End of Period2
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023 2017 2018 2019
United States 2.6 1.6 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.6 0.1 1.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3
Euro Area3 2.1 1.6 2.7 2.5 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.7
Germany 1.6 1.2 2.5 2.1 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.4 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.9
France 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.6 2.2
Italy 2.3 1.6 2.9 3.3 1.2 0.2 0.1 –0.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.9 1.4
Spain 3.0 1.8 3.2 2.4 1.4 –0.1 –0.5 –0.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.1 2.2 1.7
Netherlands 2.3 0.9 2.5 2.8 2.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.2 1.5 1.7
Belgium 2.1 2.3 3.4 2.6 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.6
Austria 1.9 1.7 3.5 2.6 2.1 1.5 0.8 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.1
Greece 3.2 4.7 3.1 1.0 –0.9 –1.4 –1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.9 1.3
Portugal 2.6 1.4 3.6 2.8 0.4 –0.2 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.6 4.7 –2.5
Ireland 2.9 –1.6 1.2 1.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 –0.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.0 –0.1 1.8 1.3
Finland 1.8 1.7 3.3 3.2 2.2 1.2 –0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.0 0.5 1.6 1.7
Slovak Republic 5.2 0.7 4.1 3.7 1.5 –0.1 –0.3 –0.5 1.3 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0
Lithuania 3.0 1.2 4.1 3.2 1.2 0.2 –0.7 0.7 3.7 2.5 2.2 2.5 3.8 2.2 2.2
Slovenia 4.9 1.8 1.8 2.6 1.8 0.2 –0.5 –0.1 1.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.0
Luxembourg 2.7 2.8 3.7 2.9 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.7 3.7
Latvia 5.8 –1.2 4.2 2.3 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.4
Estonia 4.3 2.7 5.1 4.2 3.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 3.7 3.0 2.5 2.1 3.8 3.0 2.5
Cyprus 2.6 2.6 3.5 3.1 0.4 –0.3 –1.5 –1.2 0.7 0.8 1.8 2.0 –0.4 2.4 2.0
Malta 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.3 2.1 2.1
Japan –0.3 –0.7 –0.3 –0.1 0.3 2.8 0.8 –0.1 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.7
United Kingdom 1.8 3.3 4.5 2.8 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.1
Korea 3.1 2.9 4.0 2.2 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.9
Canada 2.1 1.8 2.9 1.5 0.9 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.7 2.1
Australia 3.2 2.9 3.3 1.7 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.4
Taiwan Province of China 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.0 1.3 –0.6 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.3
Switzerland 1.0 0.7 0.2 –0.7 –0.2 0.0 –1.1 –0.4 0.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.1
Sweden 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.6
Singapore 1.5 2.8 5.2 4.6 2.4 1.0 –0.5 –0.5 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.3 0.4 2.0 1.3
Hong Kong SAR –0.2 2.3 5.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.0 2.4 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.1
Norway 2.1 2.4 1.3 0.7 2.1 2.0 2.2 3.6 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.0
Czech Republic 2.8 1.5 1.9 3.3 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1
Israel 2.0 2.7 3.5 1.7 1.5 0.5 –0.6 –0.5 0.2 0.9 1.3 2.0 0.4 1.2 1.5
Denmark 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.6 1.8
New Zealand 2.7 2.3 4.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.9
Puerto Rico 2.8 2.5 2.9 1.3 1.1 0.6 –0.8 –0.3 1.8 2.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.7 1.2
Macao SAR ... 2.8 5.8 6.1 5.5 6.0 4.6 2.4 1.2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Iceland 6.2 5.4 4.0 5.2 3.9 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.9 2.6 2.6
San Marino ... 2.6 2.0 2.8 1.6 1.1 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.5 1.6
Memorandum
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages.
2Monthly year-over-year changes and, for several countries, on a quarterly basis.

Table A7. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Consumer Prices1

End of Period2
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023 2017 2018 2019
Commonwealth of Independent
States3,4 13.7 7.2 9.8 6.2 6.5 8.1 15.5 8.3 5.5 4.5 5.7 4.5 4.7 4.8 6.0
Russia 13.9 6.9 8.4 5.1 6.8 7.8 15.5 7.1 3.7 2.8 5.1 4.6 2.5 3.6 5.7
Excluding Russia 13.3 8.1 13.3 9.2 5.7 8.8 15.5 11.3 9.9 8.6 7.0 4.4 10.1 7.9 6.4
Armenia 3.6 7.3 7.7 2.5 5.8 3.0 3.7 –1.4 0.9 3.0 4.4 4.0 2.7 4.7 4.2
Azerbaijan 7.0 5.7 7.8 1.1 2.5 1.5 4.1 12.6 13.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 10.0 3.5 3.3
Belarus 31.6 7.7 53.2 59.2 18.3 18.1 13.5 11.8 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.6 5.5 5.5
Georgia 7.3 7.1 8.5 –0.9 –0.5 3.1 4.0 2.1 6.0 2.8 2.7 3.0 6.7 2.5 3.0
Kazakhstan 9.2 7.1 8.3 5.1 5.8 6.7 6.7 14.6 7.4 6.4 5.6 2.1 7.1 6.0 5.2
Kyrgyz Republic 8.5 8.0 16.6 2.8 6.6 7.5 6.5 0.4 3.2 2.9 4.6 5.0 3.7 4.1 5.0
Moldova 11.7 7.4 7.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 9.6 6.4 6.6 3.6 4.9 5.0 7.3 3.0 5.7
Tajikistan 16.0 6.5 12.4 5.8 5.0 6.1 5.8 5.9 7.3 5.8 5.5 6.0 6.7 5.0 6.0
Turkmenistan 7.6 4.4 5.3 5.3 6.8 6.0 7.4 3.6 8.0 9.4 8.2 6.0 10.4 9.4 8.2
Ukraine5 12.9 9.4 8.0 0.6 –0.3 12.1 48.7 13.9 14.4 10.9 7.3 5.2 13.7 9.0 6.2
Uzbekistan 15.8 12.3 12.4 11.9 11.7 9.1 8.5 8.0 12.5 19.2 14.9 7.6 18.9 17.5 13.1
Emerging and Developing Asia 4.0 5.1 6.5 4.6 4.6 3.4 2.7 2.8 2.4 3.0 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.4 3.0
Bangladesh 5.6 9.4 11.5 6.2 7.5 7.0 6.2 5.7 5.6 6.0 6.1 5.5 5.7 5.8 6.1
Bhutan 4.8 5.7 7.3 9.3 11.3 9.5 7.6 7.6 5.8 4.6 4.9 4.7 3.0 4.5 4.6
Brunei Darussalam 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 –0.2 –0.4 –0.7 –0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5
Cambodia 4.6 4.0 5.5 2.9 3.0 3.9 1.2 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.2 3.5 3.2
China 1.8 3.3 5.4 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.6 2.2 2.4 3.0 1.8 2.5 2.3
Fiji 3.4 3.7 7.3 3.4 2.9 0.5 1.4 3.9 3.4 3.9 3.2 3.0 2.8 4.5 3.0
India 5.8 9.5 9.5 10.0 9.4 5.8 4.9 4.5 3.6 4.7 4.9 4.0 4.6 5.1 3.9
Indonesia 8.5 5.1 5.3 4.0 6.4 6.4 6.4 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.0 3.6 3.6 4.0
Kiribati 3.5 –3.9 1.5 –3.0 –1.5 2.1 0.6 1.9 0.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lao P.D.R. 7.8 6.0 7.6 4.3 6.4 4.1 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.9 4.5 3.1 0.1 2.6 2.9
Malaysia 2.2 1.7 3.2 1.7 2.1 3.1 2.1 2.1 3.8 1.0 2.3 2.3 3.5 3.0 2.5
Maldives 3.2 6.2 11.3 10.9 3.8 2.1 1.9 0.8 2.3 1.7 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.1
Marshall Islands ... 1.8 5.4 4.3 1.9 1.1 –2.2 –1.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 2.0 0.0 1.4 1.5
Micronesia 3.1 3.7 4.1 6.3 2.2 0.7 –0.2 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
Mongolia 8.9 10.3 7.7 15.0 8.6 12.9 5.9 0.5 4.6 7.6 8.0 6.8 7.2 8.0 8.1
Myanmar 18.9 8.2 2.8 2.8 5.7 5.1 10.0 6.8 4.0 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.4 6.3 5.9
Nauru ... –2.0 –3.4 0.3 –1.1 0.3 9.8 8.2 5.1 3.8 2.5 2.0 1.6 3.0 2.8
Nepal 5.5 9.6 9.6 8.3 9.9 9.0 7.2 9.9 4.5 4.2 5.0 5.5 2.7 4.6 5.6
Palau ... 1.4 4.7 3.6 3.4 4.1 0.9 –1.0 0.9 2.5 2.3 2.0 0.5 2.5 2.3
Papua New Guinea 7.5 5.1 4.4 4.5 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.7 5.4 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.7 4.2 3.8
Philippines 5.2 4.1 4.8 3.0 2.6 3.6 0.7 1.3 2.9 4.9 4.0 3.0 2.9 5.2 3.7
Samoa 5.7 –0.2 2.9 6.2 –0.2 –1.2 1.9 0.1 1.3 3.4 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.9
Solomon Islands 9.1 1.0 7.4 5.9 5.4 5.2 –0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 4.2 2.1 3.4 3.3
Sri Lanka 9.7 6.2 6.7 7.5 6.9 2.8 2.2 4.0 6.5 4.8 4.8 4.9 7.1 4.7 4.8
Thailand 2.4 3.3 3.8 3.0 2.2 1.9 –0.9 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 2.0 0.8 0.5 1.1
Timor-Leste ... 5.2 13.2 10.9 9.5 0.7 0.6 –1.3 0.6 1.8 2.7 4.0 0.8 2.5 2.8
Tonga 8.0 3.5 6.3 1.1 2.1 1.2 –1.1 2.6 7.4 5.2 5.3 2.5 5.6 9.4 1.5
Tuvalu ... –1.9 0.5 1.4 2.0 1.1 3.1 3.5 4.1 4.2 3.7 2.9 4.4 4.0 3.4
Vanuatu 2.9 2.8 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.8 2.5 0.8 3.1 4.8 3.4 3.0 3.3 4.6 3.4
Vietnam 6.5 9.2 18.7 9.1 6.6 4.1 0.6 2.7 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.0 2.6 4.0 4.0
Emerging and Developing Europe 12.7 5.7 5.4 6.1 4.5 4.1 3.2 3.2 6.2 8.3 9.0 7.2 6.8 10.5 8.5
Albania 2.7 3.6 3.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.0 1.8 2.5 2.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.4 2.2 3.7 2.1 –0.1 –0.9 –1.0 –1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8
Bulgaria6 6.7 3.0 3.4 2.4 0.4 –1.6 –1.1 –1.3 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.8 3.0 2.3
Croatia 3.2 1.0 2.3 3.4 2.2 –0.2 –0.5 –1.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.5
Hungary 6.1 4.9 3.9 5.7 1.7 –0.2 –0.1 0.4 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.1 3.1 3.1
Kosovo ... 3.5 7.3 2.5 1.8 0.4 –0.5 0.3 1.5 0.8 2.1 2.2 0.5 2.4 2.0
FYR Macedonia 2.6 1.5 3.9 3.3 2.8 –0.3 –0.3 –0.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.0
Montenegro 10.1 0.4 3.5 4.1 2.2 –0.7 1.5 –0.3 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.9 1.9
Poland 3.5 2.6 4.3 3.7 0.9 0.0 –0.9 –0.6 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.9
Romania 15.7 6.1 5.8 3.3 4.0 1.1 –0.6 –1.6 1.3 4.7 2.7 2.5 3.3 3.5 2.8
Serbia 20.2 6.1 11.1 7.3 7.7 2.1 1.4 1.1 3.1 2.1 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.5
Turkey 21.7 8.6 6.5 8.9 7.5 8.9 7.7 7.8 11.1 15.0 16.7 13.0 11.9 20.0 15.5

Table A7. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Consumer Prices1 (continued)
End of Period2
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023 2017 2018 2019
Latin America and the
Caribbean7 6.2 4.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.1 5.9 3.5 5.9 6.8 4.9
Antigua and Barbuda 1.8 3.4 3.5 3.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 –0.5 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.0
Argentina8 8.4 10.5 9.8 10.0 10.6 ... ... ... 25.7 31.8 31.7 4.9 24.8 40.5 20.2
Aruba 3.6 2.1 4.4 0.6 –2.4 0.4 0.5 –0.9 –0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 –0.3 0.5 1.6
The Bahamas 2.3 1.6 3.1 1.9 0.4 1.2 1.9 –0.3 1.4 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.8
Barbados 3.7 5.8 9.4 4.5 1.8 1.8 –1.1 1.5 4.4 4.2 0.8 2.3 6.6 0.0 1.4
Belize 2.5 0.9 1.7 1.2 0.5 1.2 –0.9 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.6 2.1
Bolivia 4.8 2.5 9.9 4.5 5.7 5.8 4.1 3.6 2.8 3.2 4.2 4.5 2.7 3.7 4.5
Brazil 6.9 5.0 6.6 5.4 6.2 6.3 9.0 8.7 3.4 3.7 4.2 4.0 2.9 4.2 4.2
Chile 3.5 1.4 3.3 3.0 1.9 4.4 4.3 3.8 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.0
Colombia 6.3 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.0 2.9 5.0 7.5 4.3 3.2 3.4 3.0 4.1 3.1 3.0
Costa Rica 10.9 5.7 4.9 4.5 5.2 4.5 0.8 0.0 1.6 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.2 3.0
Dominica 2.0 2.8 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.8 –0.8 0.0 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.8
Dominican Republic 12.2 6.3 8.5 3.7 4.8 3.0 0.8 1.6 3.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.1
Ecuador 15.3 3.6 4.5 5.1 2.7 3.6 4.0 1.7 0.4 –0.2 0.5 1.2 –0.2 0.7 0.1
El Salvador 3.5 1.2 5.1 1.7 0.8 1.1 –0.7 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0
Grenada 2.8 3.4 3.0 2.4 0.0 –1.0 –0.6 1.7 0.9 2.6 1.8 2.0 0.5 3.0 1.9
Guatemala 7.0 3.9 6.2 3.8 4.3 3.4 2.4 4.4 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 5.7 3.2 3.9
Guyana 6.1 4.3 4.4 2.4 1.9 0.7 –0.9 0.8 2.0 1.3 2.9 3.3 1.5 2.2 3.0
Haiti 14.8 4.1 7.4 6.8 6.8 3.9 7.5 13.4 14.7 13.3 11.6 5.5 15.4 13.0 10.0
Honduras 8.2 4.7 6.8 5.2 5.2 6.1 3.2 2.7 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.7 4.5
Jamaica 10.9 12.6 7.5 6.9 9.4 8.3 3.7 2.3 4.4 3.4 4.2 5.0 5.2 3.5 5.0
Mexico 5.2 4.2 3.4 4.1 3.8 4.0 2.7 2.8 6.0 4.8 3.6 3.0 6.8 4.3 3.1
Nicaragua 8.9 5.5 8.1 7.2 7.1 6.0 4.0 3.5 3.9 5.9 8.0 7.0 5.7 7.0 7.0
Panama 2.4 3.5 5.9 5.7 4.0 2.6 0.1 0.7 0.9 2.0 2.4 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.4
Paraguay 8.2 4.6 8.2 3.7 2.7 5.0 3.1 4.1 3.6 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.1 4.0
Peru 2.6 1.5 3.4 3.7 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.6 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.4 2.0
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.4 0.9 5.8 0.8 1.1 0.2 –2.3 –0.3 0.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 0.8 2.0 2.0
St. Lucia 2.8 3.3 2.8 4.2 1.5 3.5 –1.0 –3.1 0.1 1.9 1.9 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.5
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines 2.9 0.8 3.2 2.6 0.8 0.2 –1.7 –0.2 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Suriname 15.3 6.9 17.7 5.0 1.9 3.4 6.9 55.5 22.0 7.8 6.0 3.4 9.3 6.8 6.0
Trinidad and Tobago 6.3 10.5 5.1 9.3 5.2 5.7 4.7 3.1 1.9 2.3 3.1 3.8 1.3 2.3 3.1
Uruguay 8.5 6.7 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.9 8.7 9.6 6.2 7.6 6.7 6.1 6.6 7.9 6.5
Venezuela8 20.8 28.2 26.1 21.1 43.5 57.3 111.8 254.4 1,087.5 1,370,000.0 10,000,000.0 10,000,000.0 2,818.2 2,500,000.0 10,000,000.0
Middle East, North
Africa, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan 6.7 6.6 9.3 9.8 9.2 6.7 5.4 4.7 6.4 10.8 10.2 6.0 7.1 13.0 9.0
Afghanistan ... 2.2 11.8 6.4 7.4 4.7 –0.7 4.4 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Algeria 3.2 3.9 4.5 8.9 3.3 2.9 4.8 6.4 5.6 6.5 6.7 12.0 4.9 9.0 4.8
Bahrain 1.6 2.0 –0.4 2.8 3.3 2.7 1.8 2.8 1.4 3.0 4.8 1.5 1.4 2.9 4.3
Djibouti 3.4 4.0 5.1 3.7 2.4 2.9 2.1 2.7 0.7 1.0 2.5 2.5 –1.0 1.5 2.5
Egypt 7.0 11.7 11.1 8.6 6.9 10.1 11.0 10.2 23.5 20.9 14.0 7.0 29.8 14.4 11.1
Iran 14.7 12.3 21.5 30.6 34.7 15.6 11.9 9.1 9.6 29.6 34.1 12.0 8.3 47.8 27.7
Iraq ... 2.4 5.6 6.1 1.9 2.2 1.4 0.5 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.2 2.0 2.0
Jordan 3.6 4.8 4.2 4.5 4.8 2.9 –0.9 –0.8 3.3 4.5 2.3 2.5 3.2 4.2 2.5
Kuwait 2.9 4.5 4.9 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.5 1.5 0.8 3.0 2.7 1.5 0.8 3.0
Lebanon 2.4 4.0 5.0 6.6 4.8 1.9 –3.7 –0.8 4.5 6.5 3.5 2.4 5.0 5.4 2.4
Libya8 –0.1 2.5 15.9 6.1 2.6 2.4 9.8 25.9 28.5 28.1 17.9 12.3 34.0 23.7 13.4
Mauritania 6.2 6.3 5.7 4.9 4.1 3.8 0.5 1.5 2.3 3.8 3.9 4.2 1.2 4.1 3.9
Morocco 1.9 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.9 0.4 1.5 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.4 2.0 1.9 2.4 1.4
Oman 2.5 3.3 4.0 2.9 1.2 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 3.2 3.0 1.6 1.5 3.2
Pakistan 7.5 10.1 13.7 11.0 7.4 8.6 4.5 2.9 4.1 3.9 7.5 5.0 3.9 5.2 7.7
Qatar 5.5 –2.4 2.0 1.8 3.2 3.4 1.8 2.7 0.4 3.7 3.5 2.0 ... ... ...
Saudi Arabia 1.6 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.5 2.2 1.3 2.0 –0.9 2.6 2.0 2.1 –1.1 2.6 2.0
Somalia ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5.3 2.8 2.5
Sudan9 10.2 13.0 18.1 35.6 36.5 36.9 16.9 17.8 32.4 61.8 49.2 61.1 25.2 64.3 56.8
Syria10 4.8 4.4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Tunisia 3.2 4.4 3.5 5.1 5.8 4.9 4.9 3.7 5.3 8.1 7.5 4.0 6.4 8.9 6.8
United Arab Emirates 5.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.1 2.3 4.1 1.6 2.0 3.5 1.9 1.9 2.0 3.5 1.9
Yemen 10.9 11.2 19.5 9.9 11.0 8.2 12.0 –12.6 24.7 41.8 20.0 5.0 53.5 30.0 10.0

Table A7. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Consumer Prices1 (continued)
End of Period2
2000–09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023 2017 2018 2019
Sub-Saharan Africa 10.7 8.1 9.3 9.2 6.5 6.3 6.9 11.2 11.0 8.6 8.5 7.6 10.1 8.8 8.2
Angola 62.4 14.5 13.5 10.3 8.8 7.3 9.2 30.7 29.8 20.5 15.8 6.5 23.7 20.0 12.0
Benin 3.2 2.2 2.7 6.7 1.0 –1.1 0.3 –0.8 0.1 2.3 2.3 1.9 3.0 1.7 2.8
Botswana 8.7 6.9 8.5 7.5 5.9 4.4 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.2 4.4 3.6
Burkina Faso 2.8 –0.6 2.8 3.8 0.5 –0.3 0.9 –0.2 0.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Burundi 10.7 6.5 9.6 18.2 7.9 4.4 5.6 5.5 16.6 1.2 7.3 9.0 10.5 5.3 9.0
Cabo Verde 2.0 2.1 4.5 2.5 1.5 –0.2 0.1 –1.4 0.8 1.0 1.6 2.0 0.3 1.0 1.6
Cameroon 2.6 1.3 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.7 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.1 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.1
Central African Republic 3.4 1.5 1.2 5.9 6.6 11.6 4.5 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.4 3.0 4.2 3.6 3.4
Chad 3.5 –2.1 1.9 7.7 0.2 1.7 6.8 –1.1 –0.9 2.1 2.6 3.0 7.2 –2.3 5.4
Comoros 4.4 3.9 2.2 5.9 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 6.2 2.8
Democratic Republic of the Congo 61.5 23.5 14.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.0 18.2 41.5 23.0 13.5 4.9 55.0 20.0 14.8
Republic of Congo 2.9 0.4 1.8 5.0 4.6 0.9 3.2 3.2 0.5 1.2 2.0 3.0 1.8 2.1 2.4
Côte d’Ivoire 3.0 1.4 4.9 1.3 2.6 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.1 2.0 2.0
Equatorial Guinea 5.6 5.3 4.8 3.4 3.2 4.3 1.7 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.4 3.0 –0.2 1.3 1.5
Eritrea 18.7 11.2 3.9 6.0 6.5 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Eswatini 7.9 4.5 6.1 8.9 5.6 5.7 5.0 7.8 6.2 5.0 5.3 5.5 4.7 5.5 4.9
Ethiopia 10.3 8.1 33.2 24.1 8.1 7.4 10.1 7.3 9.9 12.7 9.5 8.0 13.6 10.5 8.0
Gabon 1.1 1.4 1.3 2.7 0.5 4.5 –0.1 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 1.1 2.8 2.5
The Gambia 6.6 5.0 4.8 4.6 5.2 6.3 6.8 7.2 8.0 6.2 5.3 4.8 6.9 5.5 5.0
Ghana 17.7 6.7 7.7 7.1 11.7 15.5 17.2 17.5 12.4 9.5 8.0 6.0 11.8 8.0 8.0
Guinea 15.1 15.5 21.4 15.2 11.9 9.7 8.2 8.2 8.9 8.2 8.0 7.8 9.5 8.0 8.0
Guinea-Bissau 3.0 1.1 5.1 2.1 0.8 –1.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.8 –1.3 2.0 2.3
Kenya 7.3 4.3 14.0 9.4 5.7 6.9 6.6 6.3 8.0 5.0 5.6 5.0 4.5 6.9 5.0
Lesotho 7.3 3.3 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 6.2 5.3 6.3 5.3 5.0 4.9 7.0 5.0
Liberia 9.8 7.3 8.5 6.8 7.6 9.9 7.7 8.8 12.4 21.3 24.5 8.5 13.9 27.0 22.0
Madagascar 10.4 9.2 9.5 5.7 5.8 6.1 7.4 6.7 8.3 7.8 7.2 5.0 9.0 7.7 6.4
Malawi 10.1 7.4 7.6 21.3 28.3 23.8 21.9 21.7 12.2 9.2 8.4 5.0 7.1 9.0 7.8
Mali 2.5 1.3 3.1 5.3 –0.6 0.9 1.4 –1.8 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.1 2.0 2.1
Mauritius 5.9 2.9 6.5 3.9 3.5 3.2 1.3 1.0 3.7 5.1 4.5 3.7 4.2 5.9 4.7
Mozambique 10.5 12.7 10.4 2.1 4.2 2.3 2.4 19.2 15.3 6.0 5.7 5.0 7.2 6.5 5.5
Namibia 7.6 4.9 5.0 6.7 5.6 5.3 3.4 6.7 6.1 3.5 5.8 5.8 5.2 2.9 5.8
Niger 3.1 –2.8 2.9 0.5 2.3 –0.9 1.0 0.2 2.4 3.9 2.0 2.0 4.8 2.4 2.0
Nigeria 12.3 13.7 10.8 12.2 8.5 8.0 9.0 15.7 16.5 12.4 13.5 14.5 15.4 12.9 13.0
Rwanda 8.1 2.3 5.7 6.3 4.2 1.8 2.5 5.7 4.8 3.3 5.5 5.0 0.7 5.0 6.0
São Tomé and Príncipe 15.9 13.3 14.3 10.6 8.1 7.0 5.3 5.4 5.7 6.8 5.5 3.0 7.7 6.0 5.0
Senegal 2.0 1.2 3.4 1.4 0.7 –1.1 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.9 1.5 –0.7 0.8 1.7
Seychelles 8.6 –2.4 2.6 7.1 4.3 1.4 4.0 –1.0 2.9 4.4 3.7 3.0 3.5 5.2 3.8
Sierra Leone 7.4 7.9 6.1 6.6 5.5 4.6 6.7 10.9 18.2 15.6 13.1 8.7 15.3 15.0 13.0
South Africa 6.0 4.3 5.0 5.6 5.8 6.1 4.6 6.3 5.3 4.8 5.3 5.5 4.7 5.3 5.3
South Sudan ... ... ... 45.1 0.0 1.7 52.8 379.8 187.9 106.4 91.4 48.5 117.7 99.4 92.7
Tanzania 6.5 7.2 12.7 16.0 7.9 6.1 5.6 5.2 5.3 3.8 4.7 5.0 4.0 4.3 5.0
Togo 3.0 1.4 3.6 2.6 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.9 –0.7 0.4 1.2 2.0 –1.6 1.5 2.0
Uganda 6.4 3.7 15.0 12.7 4.9 3.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 3.8 4.2 5.0 3.3 4.3 4.5
Zambia 17.2 8.5 8.7 6.6 7.0 7.8 10.1 17.9 6.6 8.5 8.2 8.0 6.1 8.5 8.0
Zimbabwe11 –5.5 3.0 3.5 3.7 1.6 –0.2 –2.4 –1.6 0.9 3.9 9.6 3.9 3.5 6.3 10.9
1Movements in consumer prices are shown as annual averages.
2Monthly year-over-year changes and, for several countries, on a quarterly basis.
3For many countries, inflation for the earlier years is measured on the basis of a retail price index. Consumer price index (CPI) inflation data with broader and more up-to-date coverage are
typically used for more recent years.

4Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, which are not members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, are included in the group for reasons of geography and similarity in economic
structure.
5Starting in 2014 data exclude Crimea and Sevastopol.
7Excludes Venezuela but includes Argentina starting from 2017 onward.
8See country-specific notes for Argentina, Libya, and Venezuela in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
11The Zimbabwe dollar ceased circulating in early 2009. Data are based on IMF staff estimates of price and exchange rate developments in US dollars. IMF staff estimates of US dollar values may
differ from authorities’ estimates.

Table A8. Major Advanced Economies: General Government Fiscal Balances and Debt1
(Percent of GDP unless noted otherwise)
Average Projections
2000–09 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Major Advanced Economies
Net Lending/Borrowing –4.0 –6.3 –4.1 –3.4 –2.8 –3.1 –3.0 –3.2 –3.3 –2.9
Output Gap2 0.0 –2.0 –1.7 –1.3 –0.6 –0.6 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.6
Structural Balance2 –3.8 –5.2 –3.7 –3.0 –2.7 –3.1 –3.0 –3.5 –3.7 –3.2
United States
Net Lending/Borrowing3 –4.2 –7.6 –4.1 –3.7 –3.2 –3.9 –3.8 –4.7 –5.0 –4.5
Output Gap2 0.2 –2.3 –1.9 –1.2 –0.1 –0.2 0.2 1.1 1.6 0.9
Net Debt 45.3 80.3 80.8 80.4 80.1 81.2 78.8 77.7 77.9 83.7
Gross Debt 65.4 103.3 104.9 104.6 104.8 106.8 105.2 106.1 107.8 117.0
Euro Area
Output Gap2 0.7 –1.8 –2.6 –2.3 –1.7 –1.2 –0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4
Net Debt 55.2 72.1 74.6 74.8 73.8 73.7 71.8 69.5 67.7 61.8
Gross Debt 68.8 89.6 91.5 91.7 89.8 88.8 86.6 84.4 82.0 74.5
Germany
Net Lending/Borrowing –2.2 0.0 –0.1 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.8
Output Gap2 –0.3 0.5 –0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.7
Structural Balance2 –2.2 –0.1 0.2 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.4
Net Debt 52.3 58.4 57.6 54.1 51.1 48.2 44.9 41.5 38.3 29.4
Gross Debt 63.9 79.8 77.5 74.6 70.9 67.9 63.9 59.8 56.0 44.6
France
Output Gap2 0.5 –0.6 –0.9 –0.9 –0.9 –0.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3
Net Debt 56.7 80.0 83.0 85.5 86.4 87.5 87.5 87.4 87.2 84.6
Gross Debt 65.6 90.6 93.4 94.9 95.6 96.6 96.8 96.7 96.5 93.9
Italy
Output Gap2 0.1 –2.8 –4.1 –4.1 –3.2 –2.6 –1.5 –0.8 –0.3 0.0
Structural Balance2,4 –4.0 –1.5 –0.6 –1.0 –0.7 –1.3 –1.6 –1.3 –1.5 –2.2
Net Debt 94.9 111.6 116.7 118.8 119.5 119.5 119.5 118.3 117.0 114.4
Gross Debt 103.2 123.4 129.0 131.8 131.5 132.0 131.8 130.3 128.7 125.1
Japan
Output Gap2 –1.3 –3.7 –2.2 –2.6 –2.0 –1.8 –0.8 –0.3 0.1 0.0
Net Debt 93.6 146.7 146.4 148.5 147.6 152.8 154.9 155.7 154.8 153.8
Gross Debt5 168.9 229.0 232.5 236.1 231.3 235.6 237.6 238.2 236.6 235.4
United Kingdom
Output Gap2 0.9 –2.0 –1.8 –0.7 –0.1 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Debt 36.7 75.5 76.8 78.8 79.3 78.8 77.9 78.0 77.6 74.5
Gross Debt 41.6 84.1 85.2 87.0 87.9 87.9 87.5 87.4 87.2 84.0
Canada
Net Lending/Borrowing 0.5 –2.5 –1.5 0.2 –0.1 –1.1 –1.1 –1.2 –1.1 –0.9
Output Gap2 0.5 –0.5 0.0 0.8 –0.2 –0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0
Structural Balance2 0.2 –2.3 –1.5 –0.5 0.0 –0.7 –1.2 –1.4 –1.3 –0.9
Net Debt6 31.3 28.3 29.3 28.0 27.7 28.5 27.7 27.7 27.2 25.3
Gross Debt 74.6 84.8 85.8 85.0 90.5 91.1 89.7 87.3 84.7 76.6
Note: The methodology and specific assumptions for each country are discussed in Box A1. The country group composites for fiscal data are calculated as the sum of the US dollar values
for the relevant individual countries.
1Debt data refer to the end of the year and are not always comparable across countries. Gross and net debt levels reported by national statistical agencies for countries that have adopted the
System of National Accounts (SNA) 2008 (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong SAR, United States) are adjusted to exclude unfunded pension liabilities of government employees’ defined-benefit
pension plans. Fiscal data for the aggregated major advanced economies and the United States start in 2001, and the average for the aggregate and the United States is therefore for the
period 2001–07.
2Percent of potential GDP.
3Figures reported by the national statistical agency are adjusted to exclude items related to the accrual-basis accounting of government employees’ defined-benefit pension plans.
4Excludes one-time measures based on the authorities’ data and, if unavailable, on receipts from the sale of assets.
5Nonconsolidated basis.
6Includes equity shares.

Table A9. Summary of World Trade Volumes and Prices

2000–09 2010–19 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Trade in Goods and Services
World Trade1
Volume 5.0 4.8 12.5 7.2 3.0 3.6 3.8 2.8 2.2 5.2 4.2 4.0
Price Deflator
In US Dollars 3.4 0.3 5.5 11.0 –1.7 –0.7 –1.8 –13.2 –4.1 4.2 5.4 0.4
In SDRs 2.1 1.2 6.6 7.3 1.3 0.1 –1.7 –5.8 –3.5 4.5 2.9 1.3
Volume of Trade
Exports
Imports
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 9.1 5.8 14.2 11.6 5.3 5.1 4.2 –0.9 1.8 7.0 6.0 4.8
Terms of Trade
Advanced Economies –0.2 0.1 –0.8 –1.5 –0.7 0.9 0.3 1.9 1.0 –0.2 –0.1 0.1
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 1.4 0.1 1.7 4.0 0.6 –0.6 –0.6 –4.3 –1.4 0.6 1.6 –0.2
Trade in Goods
World Trade1
Volume 4.9 4.8 14.4 7.4 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.1 5.4 4.4 4.1
Price Deflator
In US Dollars 3.3 0.3 6.5 12.2 –1.9 –1.2 –2.3 –14.2 –4.9 5.0 5.8 0.3
In SDRs 2.0 1.2 7.6 8.4 1.1 –0.4 –2.3 –6.9 –4.2 5.2 3.3 1.2
World Trade Prices in US Dollars2
Manufactures 1.7 0.3 2.2 4.1 2.7 –3.0 –0.5 –2.3 –5.2 1.7 2.5 1.6
Oil 13.1 1.1 27.9 31.6 1.0 –0.9 –7.5 –47.2 –15.7 23.3 31.4 –0.9
Nonfuel Primary Commodities 5.3 1.2 26.7 18.1 –10.2 –1.5 –3.9 –17.6 –1.5 6.8 2.7 –0.7
Food 5.5 1.3 12.3 20.5 –2.9 0.4 –4.1 –17.4 2.7 2.2 2.3 1.7
Beverages 5.2 –1.2 14.1 16.6 –18.6 –11.9 20.7 –3.1 –5.0 –9.3 –5.7 –2.7
Agricultural Raw Materials 0.1 2.1 33.2 22.7 –12.7 1.6 2.0 –13.5 –5.7 2.3 1.5 –1.5
Metal 9.4 0.8 48.2 13.5 –16.8 –4.3 –10.1 –23.0 –5.4 22.2 5.3 –3.6
World Trade Prices in SDRs2
Manufactures 0.5 1.3 3.2 0.6 5.9 –2.2 –0.4 6.1 –4.6 1.9 0.2 2.5
Oil 11.8 2.0 29.3 27.2 4.1 –0.1 –7.5 –42.7 –15.1 23.6 28.3 0.1
Nonfuel Primary Commodities 4.1 2.1 28.0 14.2 –7.4 –0.7 –3.9 –10.5 –0.9 7.0 0.3 0.3
Food 4.2 2.3 13.5 16.5 0.1 1.2 –4.1 –10.3 3.4 2.5 0.0 2.7
Beverages 4.0 –0.3 15.3 12.7 –16.1 –11.2 20.8 5.2 –4.4 –9.0 –7.9 –1.8
Agricultural Raw Materials –1.1 3.1 34.6 18.5 –10.0 2.4 2.0 –6.1 –5.1 2.5 –0.8 –0.6
Metal 8.1 1.8 49.8 9.7 –14.3 –3.5 –10.1 –16.4 –4.8 22.5 2.9 –2.7
World Trade Prices in Euros2
Manufactures –1.0 2.1 7.2 –0.7 11.2 –6.1 –0.5 17.0 –4.9 –0.4 –2.4 2.9
Oil 10.2 2.9 34.3 25.5 9.3 –4.1 –7.6 –36.8 –15.4 20.8 25.1 0.4
Nonfuel Primary Commodities 2.6 2.9 32.9 12.7 –2.8 –4.6 –4.0 –1.3 –1.3 4.6 –2.3 0.6
Food 2.7 3.1 17.9 14.9 5.1 –2.8 –4.2 –1.1 3.0 0.2 –2.6 3.1
Beverages 2.5 0.5 19.8 11.2 –11.9 –14.7 20.7 16.1 –4.8 –11.1 –10.2 –1.4
Agricultural Raw Materials –2.6 3.9 39.8 17.0 –5.5 –1.7 1.9 3.6 –5.5 0.2 –3.4 –0.2
Metal 6.6 2.6 55.5 8.3 –10.0 –7.3 –10.2 –7.8 –5.1 19.8 0.2 –2.3

Table A9. Summary of World Trade Volumes and Prices (continued)

2000–09 2010–19 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Trade in Goods
Volume of Trade
Exports
Fuel Exporters 5.1 2.3 6.2 5.7 2.7 2.0 –0.2 3.4 2.2 0.7 –0.4 1.3
Nonfuel Exporters 9.0 6.4 19.1 8.7 4.3 5.8 3.8 0.4 3.1 8.1 5.8 5.7
Imports
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 9.1 5.8 15.4 11.3 5.1 4.7 2.5 –0.8 2.2 7.2 6.3 4.8
Fuel Exporters 11.0 2.7 7.8 11.8 8.5 3.7 1.0 –7.5 –5.2 2.9 4.6 0.6
Nonfuel Exporters 8.7 6.4 17.3 11.2 4.4 4.9 2.9 0.7 3.7 8.1 6.6 5.5
Price Deflators in SDRs
Exports
Advanced Economies 1.3 1.0 4.7 6.1 –0.4 0.3 –1.8 –6.0 –2.1 4.7 3.4 1.3
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 4.6 1.8 12.3 13.1 3.1 –1.2 –3.1 –8.9 –7.3 6.6 4.1 1.1
Fuel Exporters 9.0 1.8 21.9 25.7 4.4 –2.5 –6.9 –30.1 –13.5 16.6 16.0 0.8
Nonfuel Exporters 2.8 1.6 8.6 8.1 2.4 –0.6 –1.4 –0.7 –5.5 4.1 1.0 1.1
Imports
Advanced Economies 1.6 0.9 6.1 8.0 0.7 –0.5 –2.0 –7.8 –3.5 4.6 3.2 1.2
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 2.7 1.6 11.1 8.2 2.5 –0.7 –2.6 –4.5 –5.7 5.6 2.6 1.3
Fuel Exporters 3.3 1.5 8.5 6.4 3.2 0.0 –2.3 –3.1 –3.8 3.3 1.4 1.7
Nonfuel Exporters 2.6 1.7 11.7 8.6 2.4 –0.9 –2.7 –4.9 –6.1 6.0 2.8 1.3
Terms of Trade
Advanced Economies –0.3 0.1 –1.3 –1.8 –1.1 0.9 0.2 2.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.1
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 1.8 0.1 1.2 4.5 0.5 –0.5 –0.4 –4.5 –1.7 1.0 1.5 –0.3
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States3 3.6 0.5 12.7 20.9 1.6 –6.6 –1.9 –22.0 –13.5 10.7 12.3 –1.1
Emerging and Developing Asia –0.9 –0.1 –6.6 –2.7 1.4 1.1 2.5 8.7 0.1 –3.4 –1.6 0.5
Emerging and Developing Europe 1.6 –0.8 –5.4 0.0 –1.1 2.1 0.9 –0.4 0.6 –2.8 –1.2 –0.3
Latin America and the Caribbean 2.3 0.0 7.2 5.2 –1.8 –1.3 –2.4 –9.0 1.2 4.5 –1.0 –1.7
Pakistan 5.0 –0.1 8.5 12.7 –0.1 –0.1 –4.6 –25.8 –6.2 10.0 11.5 –0.7
Middle East and North Africa 5.3 –0.1 8.4 12.9 0.5 –0.1 –4.7 –26.5 –6.8 10.3 11.9 –0.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 3.6 0.9 12.3 12.3 –1.4 –2.0 –3.3 –15.4 –0.1 7.0 4.0 –1.4
Analytical Groups
Fuel 5.6 0.4 12.4 18.1 1.2 –2.5 –4.7 –27.9 –10.1 12.9 14.4 –0.9
Nonfuel 0.3 0.0 –2.8 –0.5 0.1 0.3 1.3 4.4 0.6 –1.8 –1.7 –0.1
Memorandum
World Exports in Billions of US Dollars
Goods and Services 12,367 22,609 18,728 22,307 22,608 23,323 23,749 21,097 20,692 22,713 24,921 25,947
Goods 9,794 17,666 14,900 17,929 18,130 18,546 18,629 16,200 15,732 17,400 19,208 19,985
Average Oil Price4 13.1 1.1 27.9 31.6 1.0 –0.9 –7.5 –47.2 –15.7 23.3 31.4 –0.9
In US Dollars a Barrel 49.17 77.29 79.03 104.01 105.01 104.07 96.25 50.79 42.84 52.81 69.38 68.76
Export Unit Value of Manufactures5 1.7 0.3 2.2 4.1 2.7 –3.0 –0.5 –2.3 –5.2 1.7 2.5 1.6
1Average of annual percent change for world exports and imports.
2As represented, respectively, by the export unit value index for manufactures of the advanced economies and accounting for 83 percent of the advanced economies’ trade (export of goods)
weights; the average of UK Brent, Dubai Fateh, and West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices; and the average of world market prices for nonfuel primary commodities weighted by their 2002–04
shares in world commodity exports.
structure.
4Percent change of average of UK Brent, Dubai Fateh, and West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices.
5Percent change for manufactures exported by the advanced economies.

Table A10. Summary of Current Account Balances

(Billions of US dollars)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Advanced Economies –1.7 –35.9 23.3 218.9 244.7 299.0 333.7 439.8 380.4 259.8 219.1
United States –431.3 –445.7 –426.8 –348.8 –365.2 –407.8 –432.9 –449.1 –515.7 –652.1 –809.6
Euro Area –7.7 –12.4 174.1 293.1 331.8 377.1 429.4 436.5 417.9 407.3 439.0
Germany 192.3 229.7 248.9 252.5 291.0 301.2 297.5 291.0 326.9 323.6 359.2
France –16.7 –24.6 –25.9 –14.3 –27.3 –9.0 –18.5 –14.8 –25.6 –19.9 –3.3
Italy –72.6 –68.3 –7.0 21.3 41.3 27.8 47.6 53.4 41.3 33.6 18.8
Spain –56.2 –47.4 –3.1 20.7 14.9 13.5 23.8 24.7 16.6 17.3 25.4
Japan 221.0 129.8 59.7 45.9 36.8 136.4 194.9 196.1 183.7 196.2 245.0
United Kingdom –82.9 –51.6 –100.9 –141.9 –149.6 –142.4 –139.3 –99.2 –99.2 –90.3 –93.0
Canada –58.2 –49.6 –65.7 –59.4 –43.2 –55.9 –49.3 –48.8 –52.2 –45.6 –48.0
Other Advanced Economies1 283.4 266.0 272.2 347.5 360.4 366.6 348.3 356.8 370.4 367.2 394.3
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 278.5 375.8 355.3 178.7 173.9 –58.3 –72.8 –14.0 –7.4 –4.2 –340.8
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States2 68.9 107.3 67.5 17.9 57.6 53.1 0.8 23.5 86.4 73.9 49.7
Russia 67.5 97.3 71.3 33.4 57.5 67.7 24.4 35.4 97.1 85.6 61.0
Excluding Russia 1.4 10.0 –3.8 –15.5 0.1 –14.6 –23.6 –12.0 –10.7 –11.7 –11.3
Emerging and Developing Asia 232.6 97.4 121.2 99.3 231.8 312.1 228.7 151.2 28.2 32.3 –104.8
China 237.8 136.1 215.4 148.2 236.0 304.2 202.2 164.9 97.5 98.4 17.5
India –47.9 –78.2 –87.8 –32.3 –26.8 –22.1 –14.4 –48.7 –80.4 –74.0 –112.3
ASEAN-53 45.4 49.6 6.3 –3.5 22.5 30.9 43.2 45.9 31.2 26.0 3.2
Emerging and Developing Europe –86.8 –119.4 –81.8 –71.9 –59.7 –35.2 –32.7 –49.4 –53.2 –26.1 –49.4
Latin America and the Caribbean –96.0 –111.6 –136.7 –163.4 –184.9 –173.3 –95.0 –82.1 –85.6 –92.9 –127.1
Brazil –75.8 –77.0 –74.2 –74.8 –104.2 –59.4 –23.5 –9.8 –24.8 –30.9 –44.7
Mexico –5.2 –12.5 –18.6 –31.0 –24.0 –29.8 –23.3 –19.4 –15.3 –16.0 –24.0
Pakistan 170.2 410.7 411.8 332.5 191.8 –123.1 –119.5 –21.4 62.9 67.3 –27.6
Sub-Saharan Africa –10.4 –8.7 –26.7 –35.7 –62.6 –91.8 –55.1 –35.8 –46.1 –58.8 –81.6
South Africa –5.6 –9.2 –20.3 –21.2 –17.8 –14.6 –8.2 –8.6 –12.1 –13.5 –16.5
Analytical Groups
Fuel 309.5 619.9 597.0 465.5 311.6 –78.1 –76.5 74.8 228.7 220.6 99.0
Nonfuel –29.4 –244.0 –241.7 –286.7 –137.7 19.8 3.7 –88.8 –236.1 –224.8 –439.8
Of Which, Primary Products –11.5 –28.6 –64.6 –82.9 –55.4 –62.5 –41.3 –55.3 –55.5 –57.2 –63.3
Net Debtor Economies –262.6 –348.5 –401.9 –374.5 –369.8 –339.9 –257.9 –276.3 –351.7 –340.9 –457.2
Rescheduling during 2013–17 –23.3 –37.0 –55.0 –54.4 –39.2 –49.0 –52.7 –44.2 –40.1 –44.5 –59.1
Memorandum
World 276.7 339.9 378.6 397.6 418.7 240.6 260.8 425.8 373.0 255.6 –121.7
European Union –9.4 77.0 206.6 287.1 304.4 310.8 324.9 433.3 429.0 424.4 459.6
Low-Income Developing Countries –16.6 –22.8 –32.8 –39.7 –43.9 –77.5 –42.5 –35.5 –53.8 –65.0 –88.4
Middle East and North Africa 169.7 405.8 414.3 335.0 193.7 –120.9 –116.1 –9.9 80.1 83.0 –1.2

Table A10. Summary of Current Account Balances (continued)

(Percent of GDP)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Advanced Economies 0.0 –0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4
United States –2.9 –2.9 –2.6 –2.1 –2.1 –2.2 –2.3 –2.3 –2.5 –3.0 –3.3
Euro Area –0.1 –0.1 1.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.6
Germany 5.6 6.1 7.0 6.7 7.5 8.9 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.3
France –0.6 –0.9 –1.0 –0.5 –1.0 –0.4 –0.8 –0.6 –0.9 –0.7 –0.1
Italy –3.4 –3.0 –0.3 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.6 2.8 2.0 1.6 0.8
Spain –3.9 –3.2 –0.2 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4
Japan 3.9 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 3.1 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.8 4.1
United Kingdom –3.4 –2.0 –3.8 –5.1 –4.9 –4.9 –5.2 –3.8 –3.5 –3.2 –2.9
Canada –3.6 –2.8 –3.6 –3.2 –2.4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.9 –3.0 –2.5 –2.1
Economies 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.6 0.6 –0.2 –0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.7
Regional Groups
Russia 4.1 4.7 3.2 1.5 2.8 4.9 1.9 2.2 6.2 5.2 3.4
China 3.9 1.8 2.5 1.5 2.2 2.7 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.1
India –2.8 –4.3 –4.8 –1.7 –1.3 –1.1 –0.6 –1.9 –3.0 –2.5 –2.6
ASEAN-53 2.7 2.6 0.3 –0.2 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.1
Brazil –3.4 –2.9 –3.0 –3.0 –4.2 –3.3 –1.3 –0.5 –1.3 –1.6 –1.9
Mexico –0.5 –1.1 –1.5 –2.4 –1.8 –2.5 –2.2 –1.7 –1.3 –1.3 –1.6
and Pakistan 6.1 12.7 12.5 9.8 5.5 –4.0 –3.9 –0.7 1.8 1.9 –0.6
South Africa –1.5 –2.2 –5.1 –5.8 –5.1 –4.6 –2.8 –2.5 –3.2 –3.5 –3.6
Analytical Groups
Fuel 6.4 10.5 9.6 7.3 5.0 –1.6 –1.7 1.5 4.3 4.1 1.5
Nonfuel –0.2 –1.2 –1.1 –1.2 –0.6 0.1 0.0 –0.3 –0.8 –0.8 –1.1
Memorandum
World 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 –0.1
European Union –0.1 0.4 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0
Middle East and North Africa 6.6 13.5 13.5 10.7 6.0 –4.3 –4.2 –0.3 2.6 2.6 0.0

Table A10. Summary of Current Account Balances (continued)

(Percent of exports of goods and services)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
United States –23.3 –21.0 –19.2 –15.2 –15.4 –18.0 –19.5 –19.1 –20.4 –24.9 –27.8
Euro Area –0.3 –0.4 5.4 8.6 9.3 11.7 13.3 12.3 ... ... ...
Germany 13.3 13.6 15.3 14.8 16.3 19.0 18.5 16.7 17.3 16.5 15.0
France –2.3 –3.0 –3.2 –1.7 –3.1 –1.2 –2.4 –1.8 –2.9 –2.1 –0.3
Italy –13.5 –11.1 –1.2 3.5 6.5 5.1 8.6 8.8 6.2 4.9 2.4
Spain –15.3 –11.0 –0.8 4.7 3.3 3.4 5.8 5.5 3.4 3.4 3.9
Japan 25.4 13.9 6.5 5.5 4.3 17.4 24.0 22.4 19.5 20.3 23.6
United Kingdom –12.0 –6.4 –12.6 –17.3 –17.5 –17.9 –18.5 –12.5 –11.7 –10.7 –10.2
Canada –12.4 –9.1 –11.9 –10.7 –7.6 –11.4 –10.4 –9.5 –9.6 –8.0 –7.1
Economies 4.0 4.5 3.9 2.0 2.2 –0.6 –0.9 –0.2 –0.1 –0.1 –2.9
Regional Groups
Russia 15.3 17.0 12.1 5.6 10.2 17.2 7.3 8.6 19.5 16.9 11.2
China 14.8 6.8 9.9 6.3 9.6 12.9 9.2 6.8 3.7 3.6 0.6
India –12.6 –17.2 –19.4 –6.9 –5.6 –5.3 –3.2 –9.7 –14.4 –12.0 –12.8
ASEAN-53 6.1 5.5 0.7 –0.4 2.3 3.4 4.7 4.4 2.7 2.1 0.2
Brazil –32.7 –26.3 –26.4 –26.8 –39.5 –26.5 –10.8 –3.9 –9.2 –11.1 –13.7
Mexico –1.7 –3.4 –4.8 –7.8 –5.7 –7.4 –5.8 –4.4 –3.2 –3.1 –3.7
Pakistan 13.6 26.8 24.3 20.9 13.7 –9.9 –10.6 –2.0 4.5 4.6 –1.8
South Africa –5.2 –7.3 –17.3 –18.7 –16.1 –15.2 –9.1 –8.3 –11.0 –12.0 –12.5
Analytical Groups
Fuel 16.5 25.3 22.6 18.4 13.8 –4.2 –4.9 4.2 11.2 10.7 4.8
Nonfuel –0.6 –4.2 –4.0 –4.5 –2.1 0.3 0.1 –1.4 –3.3 –3.0 –4.6
Memorandum
World 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 –0.4
European Union –0.1 1.0 2.8 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.5 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.2
Middle East and North Africa 13.9 27.1 25.0 21.5 14.1 –10.0 –10.6 –1.1 5.8 5.9 0.0
structure.

Table A11. Advanced Economies: Balance on Current Account

(Percent of GDP)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
United States –2.9 –2.9 –2.6 –2.1 –2.1 –2.2 –2.3 –2.3 –2.5 –3.0 –3.3
Euro Area1 –0.1 –0.1 1.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.6
Germany 5.6 6.1 7.0 6.7 7.5 8.9 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.3
France –0.6 –0.9 –1.0 –0.5 –1.0 –0.4 –0.8 –0.6 –0.9 –0.7 –0.1
Italy –3.4 –3.0 –0.3 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.6 2.8 2.0 1.6 0.8
Spain –3.9 –3.2 –0.2 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4
Netherlands 7.3 9.0 10.7 9.7 8.5 6.3 8.0 10.5 9.9 9.7 8.3
Belgium 1.8 –1.1 –0.1 –0.3 –0.9 –0.1 0.1 –0.2 0.1 –0.1 0.2
Austria 2.9 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.0
Greece –11.4 –10.0 –3.8 –2.0 –1.6 –0.2 –1.1 –0.8 –0.8 –0.4 0.0
Portugal –10.1 –6.0 –1.8 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 –0.3 –1.5
Ireland –1.2 –1.6 –2.6 1.5 1.1 4.4 –4.2 8.5 7.4 6.7 5.0
Finland 1.1 –1.7 –2.3 –1.9 –1.5 –0.9 –0.3 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1
Slovak Republic –4.7 –5.0 0.9 1.9 1.1 –1.7 –1.5 –2.1 –1.8 –0.9 0.2
Lithuania –1.3 –4.5 –1.4 0.8 3.2 –2.8 –1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 –2.3
Slovenia –0.1 0.2 2.1 4.4 5.8 4.5 5.5 7.1 6.3 5.5 2.6
Luxembourg 6.7 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.6
Latvia 2.0 –3.2 –3.6 –2.7 –1.7 –0.5 1.4 –0.8 –2.0 –2.6 –3.4
Estonia 1.8 1.3 –1.9 0.5 0.3 2.0 1.9 3.1 2.2 1.1 –2.4
Cyprus –11.3 –4.1 –6.0 –4.9 –4.3 –1.5 –4.9 –6.7 –3.1 –5.2 –3.6
Malta –4.7 –0.2 1.7 2.7 8.8 4.5 7.0 13.6 11.6 11.1 10.6
Japan 3.9 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 3.1 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.8 4.1
United Kingdom –3.4 –2.0 –3.8 –5.1 –4.9 –4.9 –5.2 –3.8 –3.5 –3.2 –2.9
Korea 2.6 1.6 4.2 6.2 6.0 7.7 7.0 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.1
Canada –3.6 –2.8 –3.6 –3.2 –2.4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.9 –3.0 –2.5 –2.1
Australia –3.7 –3.1 –4.3 –3.4 –3.1 –4.6 –3.3 –2.6 –2.8 –3.1 –2.7
Taiwan Province of China 8.3 7.8 8.9 10.0 11.5 14.2 13.7 14.5 13.8 13.6 10.5
Switzerland 14.8 7.9 10.3 11.3 8.5 10.8 9.4 9.8 10.2 9.8 9.3
Sweden 6.0 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.5 4.5 4.3 3.3 2.6 2.8 3.0
Singapore 23.4 22.1 17.0 16.5 18.7 18.6 19.0 18.8 18.5 18.3 15.9
Hong Kong SAR 7.0 5.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 3.3 4.0 4.3 3.4 3.1 3.4
Norway 10.9 12.4 12.5 10.3 10.5 7.9 3.8 5.5 7.8 7.8 7.1
Czech Republic –3.6 –2.1 –1.6 –0.5 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.1 –0.4 –0.9 –1.9
Israel 3.9 2.1 0.5 3.0 4.4 5.3 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.9
Denmark 6.6 6.6 6.3 7.8 8.9 8.8 7.3 7.6 7.7 7.5 6.3
New Zealand –2.3 –2.8 –3.9 –3.2 –3.2 –3.1 –2.3 –2.7 –3.6 –3.8 –3.8
Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Macao SAR 39.4 40.9 39.3 40.2 34.2 25.3 27.0 33.3 35.9 38.1 41.0
Iceland –6.4 –5.1 –3.8 5.8 3.9 5.2 7.5 3.5 2.4 2.0 2.2
San Marino ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Memorandum
Major Advanced Economies –0.8 –0.8 –0.9 –0.7 –0.6 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.4 –0.6 –0.7
Euro Area2 0.5 0.8 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.2
1Data corrected for reporting discrepancies in intra-area transactions.
2Data calculated as the sum of the balances of individual euro area countries.

Table A12. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Balance on Current Account
(Percent of GDP)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Russia 4.1 4.7 3.2 1.5 2.8 4.9 1.9 2.2 6.2 5.2 3.4
Armenia –13.6 –10.4 –10.0 –7.3 –7.6 –2.6 –2.3 –2.8 –3.8 –3.8 –4.7
Azerbaijan 28.4 26.0 21.4 16.6 13.9 –0.4 –3.6 4.1 6.6 8.1 9.6
Belarus –14.5 –8.2 –2.8 –10.0 –6.6 –3.3 –3.5 –1.7 –2.5 –4.2 –2.0
Georgia –10.3 –12.8 –11.7 –5.8 –10.7 –12.0 –12.8 –8.9 –10.5 –10.2 –8.6
Kazakhstan 0.9 5.3 0.5 0.5 2.8 –2.8 –6.5 –3.4 –0.2 0.2 0.6
Kyrgyz Republic –2.2 –2.9 3.7 –13.3 –16.0 –16.0 –11.6 –4.0 –12.3 –11.8 –12.6
Moldova –6.4 –10.0 –6.5 –4.2 –4.5 –4.9 –3.4 –6.3 –7.4 –6.3 –5.7
Tajikistan –9.6 –7.3 –9.2 –7.8 –2.8 –6.0 –5.2 –0.5 –4.7 –4.3 –3.3
Turkmenistan –12.9 –0.8 –0.9 –7.3 –6.1 –15.6 –19.9 –11.5 –8.2 –6.4 –5.9
Ukraine2 –2.2 –6.3 –8.1 –9.2 –3.9 1.7 –1.5 –1.9 –3.1 –3.9 –3.1
Uzbekistan 7.0 5.7 1.2 2.8 1.7 0.7 0.6 3.5 –0.5 –1.5 –2.6
Bangladesh 0.4 –1.0 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.9 0.6 –2.0 –3.2 –2.7 –0.9
Bhutan –22.2 –29.8 –21.4 –25.4 –26.4 –28.3 –29.4 –22.8 –22.8 –15.0 2.9
Brunei Darussalam 36.6 34.7 29.8 20.9 31.9 16.7 12.9 16.7 7.8 17.4 15.7
Cambodia –14.9 –11.9 –14.0 –13.4 –10.1 –9.0 –8.6 –8.5 –10.8 –10.6 –7.0
China 3.9 1.8 2.5 1.5 2.2 2.7 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.1
Fiji –4.5 –5.1 –1.4 –9.7 –6.2 –2.2 –2.9 –5.7 –4.7 –4.0 –3.3
India –2.8 –4.3 –4.8 –1.7 –1.3 –1.1 –0.6 –1.9 –3.0 –2.5 –2.6
Indonesia 0.7 0.2 –2.7 –3.2 –3.1 –2.0 –1.8 –1.7 –2.4 –2.4 –2.2
Kiribati –2.2 –13.1 –4.4 8.3 25.0 46.7 19.4 9.0 16.9 7.1 –15.7
Lao P.D.R. –16.5 –15.3 –26.0 –28.4 –20.0 –18.0 –13.0 –12.1 –13.9 –12.3 –8.7
Malaysia 10.1 10.9 5.2 3.5 4.4 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.9 2.3 1.7
Maldives –7.3 –14.8 –6.6 –4.3 –3.2 –7.4 –24.5 –19.5 –18.2 –15.2 –9.5
Marshall Islands –17.8 –2.1 –6.2 –9.2 –1.2 15.0 7.6 –0.3 –0.6 –1.0 –3.1
Micronesia –15.4 –18.8 –13.4 –10.1 1.2 4.2 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2
Mongolia –13.0 –26.5 –27.4 –25.4 –11.3 –4.0 –6.3 –10.4 –8.3 –10.8 0.7
Myanmar –1.1 –1.8 –4.0 –4.9 –2.2 –5.1 –3.9 –4.3 –5.3 –5.7 –5.8
Nauru 46.3 26.1 38.1 18.8 –13.5 –9.5 1.7 4.1 –7.7 –7.5 –6.0
Nepal –2.4 –1.0 4.8 3.3 4.5 5.0 6.3 –0.4 –8.2 –6.3 –3.4
Palau –9.3 –11.5 –11.5 –12.0 –15.2 –7.7 –11.7 –18.1 –17.5 –17.2 –13.3
Papua New Guinea –20.4 –24.0 –36.1 –30.8 1.3 12.0 24.1 24.5 23.4 23.6 19.9
Philippines 3.6 2.5 2.8 4.2 3.8 2.5 –0.4 –0.8 –1.5 –1.5 –1.3
Samoa –6.7 –6.9 –9.0 –1.7 –8.1 –3.1 –4.7 –2.3 –3.1 –4.5 –4.5
Solomon Islands –32.9 –8.3 1.7 –3.4 –4.3 –3.0 –3.9 –4.2 –6.4 –8.3 –6.8
Sri Lanka –1.9 –7.1 –5.8 –3.4 –2.5 –2.3 –2.1 –2.6 –2.9 –2.7 –2.1
Thailand 3.4 2.5 –0.4 –1.2 3.7 8.0 11.7 11.2 9.1 8.1 4.2
Timor-Leste 39.7 39.1 39.7 42.3 27.0 6.6 –21.6 –10.2 –1.2 –2.6 –12.6
Tonga –18.5 –13.2 –7.9 –11.5 –14.7 –12.0 –6.9 –11.6 –17.1 –14.1 –6.3
Tuvalu –12.0 –37.1 18.2 –6.6 2.9 –52.8 23.2 4.2 3.5 –2.0 –11.3
Vanuatu –5.9 –7.8 –6.5 –3.3 2.4 –10.7 –4.6 –1.5 –8.5 –7.6 –6.4
Vietnam –3.8 0.2 6.0 4.5 4.9 –0.1 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.5
Albania –11.3 –13.2 –10.1 –9.3 –10.8 –8.6 –7.6 –6.9 –7.1 –6.6 –6.2
Bosnia and Herzegovina –6.1 –9.5 –8.7 –5.3 –7.4 –5.4 –4.9 –4.8 –6.0 –6.6 –5.0
Bulgaria –1.7 0.3 –0.9 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.3 4.5 2.4 1.6 0.1
Croatia –1.1 –0.7 –0.1 0.9 2.0 4.5 2.6 3.9 2.7 2.3 0.5
Hungary 0.3 0.7 1.8 3.8 1.5 3.5 6.0 3.2 2.3 2.1 1.0
Kosovo –11.7 –12.7 –5.8 –3.4 –6.9 –8.6 –7.9 –6.6 –7.2 –6.6 –5.2
FYR Macedonia –2.0 –2.5 –3.2 –1.6 –0.5 –2.0 –2.7 –1.3 –1.1 –1.6 –2.6
Montenegro –20.3 –14.8 –15.3 –11.4 –12.4 –11.0 –16.2 –16.3 –16.8 –16.0 –8.3
Poland –5.4 –5.2 –3.7 –1.3 –2.1 –0.6 –0.3 0.3 –0.8 –1.3 –1.5
Romania –5.1 –5.0 –4.8 –1.1 –0.7 –1.2 –2.1 –3.4 –3.5 –3.4 –3.0
Serbia –6.4 –8.6 –11.5 –6.1 –6.0 –4.7 –3.1 –5.7 –5.7 –5.6 –4.1
Turkey –5.8 –8.9 –5.5 –6.7 –4.7 –3.7 –3.8 –5.6 –5.7 –1.4 –2.4

Table A12. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Balance on Current Account (continued)
(Percent of GDP)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Antigua and Barbuda ... ... ... ... 2.0 6.8 0.2 –7.3 –13.8 –4.4 –2.1
Argentina –0.4 –1.0 –0.4 –2.1 –1.6 –2.7 –2.7 –4.9 –3.7 –3.2 –3.5
Aruba –19.4 –10.5 3.5 –12.9 –5.2 4.1 5.0 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8
The Bahamas –7.9 –10.9 –14.3 –14.3 –20.0 –13.7 –7.3 –15.7 –12.7 –8.0 –3.3
Barbados –5.6 –11.8 –8.5 –8.4 –9.2 –6.1 –4.3 –3.8 –3.1 –3.4 –2.7
Belize –2.9 –1.1 –1.2 –4.5 –7.8 –9.8 –9.0 –7.7 –6.0 –5.8 –5.0
Bolivia 3.9 0.3 7.2 3.4 1.7 –5.8 –5.6 –6.3 –5.2 –5.1 –4.7
Brazil –3.4 –2.9 –3.0 –3.0 –4.2 –3.3 –1.3 –0.5 –1.3 –1.6 –1.9
Chile 1.4 –1.6 –3.9 –4.0 –1.7 –2.3 –1.4 –1.5 –2.5 –2.7 –1.8
Colombia –3.1 –2.9 –3.1 –3.3 –5.2 –6.3 –4.3 –3.3 –2.4 –2.4 –2.4
Costa Rica –3.2 –5.3 –5.1 –4.8 –4.8 –3.5 –2.3 –2.9 –3.3 –3.5 –4.5
Dominica ... ... ... ... –7.1 –1.9 0.8 –12.5 –32.7 –23.4 –12.6
Dominican Republic –7.5 –7.5 –6.5 –4.1 –3.3 –1.9 –1.1 –0.2 –1.6 –2.1 –2.7
Ecuador –2.3 –0.5 –0.2 –1.0 –0.5 –2.1 1.4 –0.3 –0.5 0.7 1.2
El Salvador –2.9 –5.5 –5.8 –6.9 –5.4 –3.2 –2.1 –2.0 –3.9 –4.3 –4.7
Grenada ... ... ... ... –4.4 –3.8 –3.2 –6.8 –7.5 –7.5 –6.8
Guatemala –1.4 –3.4 –2.6 –2.5 –2.1 –0.2 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.4 –1.2
Guyana –8.4 –12.2 –11.3 –13.3 –9.5 –5.1 0.4 –6.7 –6.1 –4.3 40.7
Haiti –1.5 –4.3 –5.7 –6.6 –8.5 –3.1 –1.0 –4.0 –4.0 –2.9 –2.7
Honduras –4.3 –8.0 –8.5 –9.5 –6.9 –4.7 –2.7 –1.7 –3.2 –3.4 –3.8
Jamaica –8.0 –12.2 –11.1 –9.2 –7.5 –3.2 –2.7 –4.6 –4.9 –4.2 –1.2
Mexico –0.5 –1.1 –1.5 –2.4 –1.8 –2.5 –2.2 –1.7 –1.3 –1.3 –1.6
Nicaragua –8.9 –11.9 –10.7 –10.9 –7.1 –9.1 –7.5 –5.0 –6.2 –6.4 –6.8
Panama –10.3 –12.6 –10.0 –9.4 –13.1 –7.9 –5.5 –4.9 –7.0 –6.1 –5.1
Paraguay 0.2 0.6 –0.9 1.6 –0.1 –0.8 1.2 –0.8 –1.3 –0.9 –0.2
Peru –2.4 –1.8 –2.8 –4.6 –4.4 –4.8 –2.7 –1.1 –1.8 –2.2 –2.1
St. Kitts and Nevis ... ... ... ... –4.5 –9.1 –10.7 –10.1 –9.9 –15.8 –16.0
St. Lucia ... ... ... ... 3.4 6.9 –1.9 1.3 –1.6 –3.0 –1.8
St. Vincent and the Grenadines ... ... ... ... –25.7 –14.9 –15.8 –14.8 –13.3 –12.3 –9.1
Suriname 14.9 9.8 3.3 –3.8 –7.9 –16.3 –5.2 –0.1 –3.3 –2.4 –0.9
Trinidad and Tobago 18.5 16.9 13.0 20.1 14.7 7.6 –2.9 10.2 10.7 7.3 5.1
Uruguay ... ... –4.0 –3.6 –3.2 –1.0 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.2 –1.3
Venezuela 1.9 4.9 0.8 2.0 2.3 –6.6 –1.6 2.0 6.1 4.0 0.0
and Pakistan 6.1 12.7 12.5 9.8 5.5 –4.0 –3.9 –0.7 1.8 1.9 –0.6
Afghanistan 29.4 26.6 10.9 0.3 5.8 2.9 7.3 5.0 5.1 0.8 –5.2
Algeria 7.5 9.9 5.9 0.4 –4.4 –16.4 –16.5 –13.2 –9.0 –7.9 –3.0
Bahrain 3.0 8.8 8.4 7.4 4.6 –2.4 –4.6 –4.5 –2.5 –2.3 –3.6
Djibouti 2.8 –13.1 –18.8 –23.3 –25.1 –31.8 –9.4 –13.8 –14.3 –14.8 –9.3
Egypt –1.9 –2.5 –3.6 –2.2 –0.9 –3.7 –6.0 –6.3 –2.6 –2.4 –1.2
Iran 4.2 10.4 6.0 6.7 3.2 0.3 4.0 2.2 1.3 0.3 –0.4
Iraq 1.6 10.9 5.1 1.1 2.6 –6.5 –7.8 2.3 6.9 3.1 –4.9
Jordan –7.1 –10.3 –15.2 –10.4 –7.3 –9.1 –9.5 –10.6 –9.6 –8.6 –6.3
Kuwait 31.8 42.9 45.5 40.3 33.4 3.5 –4.6 5.9 11.3 11.0 4.4
Lebanon –20.2 –15.2 –23.6 –26.1 –26.0 –18.3 –21.7 –22.8 –25.6 –25.5 –21.3
Libya3 21.1 9.9 29.9 0.0 –78.4 –54.4 –24.7 8.4 1.5 2.9 –1.3
Mauritania –8.2 –5.0 –24.1 –22.0 –27.3 –19.8 –15.1 –14.4 –16.0 –17.2 –6.5
Morocco –4.4 –7.6 –9.3 –7.6 –5.9 –2.1 –4.2 –3.6 –4.3 –4.5 –2.3
Oman 8.6 13.0 10.2 6.6 5.2 –15.9 –18.7 –15.2 –3.3 –0.5 –4.4
Pakistan –2.2 0.1 –2.1 –1.1 –1.3 –1.0 –1.7 –4.1 –5.9 –5.3 –6.1
Qatar 19.1 31.1 33.2 30.4 24.0 8.5 –5.5 3.8 4.8 6.6 6.6
Saudi Arabia 12.6 23.6 22.4 18.1 9.8 –8.7 –3.7 2.2 8.4 8.8 2.4
Somalia ... ... ... –3.4 –5.2 –4.7 –6.3 –6.6 –6.3 –5.7 –6.4
Sudan4 –2.6 –4.0 –12.8 –11.0 –5.8 –8.3 –7.6 –10.5 –14.2 –13.1 –10.4
Syria5 –2.8 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Tunisia –4.8 –7.4 –8.3 –8.4 –9.1 –8.9 –8.8 –10.5 –9.6 –8.5 –6.0
United Arab Emirates 4.2 12.6 19.7 19.0 13.5 4.9 3.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 4.2
Yemen -3.4 -3.0 -1.7 -3.1 -1.7 -6.2 -5.1 -4.0 -9.3 -7.4 -7.4

Table A12. Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Balance on Current Account (continued)
(Percent of GDP)
Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2023
Angola 9.0 11.7 10.8 6.1 –2.6 –8.8 –4.8 –1.0 –2.1 –1.9 –0.7
Benin –8.2 –7.3 –7.4 –7.4 –8.6 –9.0 –9.4 –11.1 –10.6 –8.9 –6.5
Botswana –2.8 3.1 0.3 8.9 15.4 7.8 13.7 12.3 8.7 7.7 10.0
Burkina Faso –2.2 –4.0 –6.7 –11.3 –8.1 –8.5 –7.2 –8.1 –8.6 –7.6 –6.3
Burundi –12.2 –14.4 –18.6 –19.3 –18.5 –17.7 –13.1 –12.3 –13.4 –12.6 –9.5
Cabo Verde –12.4 –16.3 –12.6 –4.9 –9.1 –3.2 –2.4 –6.2 –9.1 –10.0 –8.9
Cameroon –2.5 –2.7 –3.3 –3.6 –4.0 –3.8 –3.2 –2.7 –3.2 –3.0 –3.0
Central African Republic –10.2 –7.6 –6.5 –3.3 –14.8 –9.7 –5.5 –8.4 –8.9 –8.4 –5.3
Chad –8.5 –5.8 –7.8 –9.1 –8.9 –13.6 –9.2 –5.7 –4.2 –5.5 –4.3
Comoros –0.4 –6.0 –5.5 –7.0 –6.3 –0.4 –7.4 –4.1 –9.2 –10.1 –8.8
Democratic Republic of the Congo –10.5 –5.2 –4.6 –5.0 –4.6 –3.7 –3.1 –0.5 0.0 –1.8 –2.9
Republic of Congo 7.3 14.0 17.7 13.8 1.4 –54.1 –73.6 –12.9 9.1 12.4 –5.1
Côte d’Ivoire 1.9 10.4 –1.2 –1.4 1.4 –0.6 –1.1 –4.6 –4.6 –4.2 –2.8
Equatorial Guinea –20.2 –5.7 –1.1 –2.4 –4.3 –16.2 –12.9 –5.9 –3.1 –3.6 –6.0
Eritrea –6.1 3.2 2.7 3.6 4.0 –1.4 –2.1 –2.4 –1.6 –2.3 –2.7
Eswatini –8.7 1.0 12.5 18.7 21.2 26.1 17.2 13.7 10.3 9.8 14.0
Ethiopia –1.4 –2.5 –6.9 –5.9 –6.4 –10.2 –9.0 –8.1 –6.2 –6.2 –4.4
Gabon 14.9 24.0 17.9 7.3 7.6 –5.6 –9.9 –4.9 –1.6 –0.5 3.7
The Gambia –9.5 –7.5 –4.5 –6.8 –7.2 –9.8 –5.9 –13.1 –12.5 –13.6 –11.8
Ghana –8.6 –9.0 –11.7 –11.9 –9.5 –7.7 –6.7 –4.5 –4.1 –4.0 –3.6
Guinea –6.4 –18.4 –20.0 –12.5 –13.4 –12.5 –31.1 –6.9 –21.2 –16.4 –10.9
Guinea-Bissau –13.5 –1.3 –8.4 –4.6 0.5 1.9 1.3 –2.0 –3.6 –4.1 –3.1
Kenya –5.9 –9.2 –8.4 –8.8 –10.4 –6.7 –5.2 –6.3 –5.6 –5.3 –4.1
Lesotho –8.9 –13.4 –8.4 –5.1 –4.8 –3.9 –8.2 –3.7 –6.0 –12.5 –6.9
Liberia –17.6 –12.8 –11.4 –17.0 –19.4 –20.8 –14.1 –19.1 –18.3 –21.4 –20.6
Madagascar –10.2 –7.0 –7.6 –5.9 –0.3 –1.9 0.6 –0.3 –2.2 –3.4 –4.4
Malawi –8.6 –8.6 –9.2 –8.4 –8.3 –9.4 –13.6 –9.5 –9.3 –8.1 –7.6
Mali –10.7 –5.1 –2.2 –2.9 –4.7 –5.3 –7.2 –5.8 –7.2 –7.8 –7.1
Mauritius –10.0 –13.5 –7.1 –6.2 –5.6 –4.8 –4.3 –6.6 –8.2 –10.4 –4.0
Mozambique –16.1 –25.3 –44.7 –42.9 –38.2 –40.3 –39.3 –22.4 –18.2 –44.7 –105.8
Namibia –3.5 –3.0 –5.7 –4.0 –10.8 –12.4 –13.8 –3.3 –6.0 –7.6 –5.5
Niger –19.8 –25.1 –16.1 –16.8 –15.4 –20.5 –15.7 –14.1 –16.2 –18.3 –12.1
Nigeria 3.6 2.6 3.8 3.7 0.2 –3.2 0.7 2.8 2.0 1.0 0.1
Rwanda –7.2 –7.4 –11.2 –8.7 –10.3 –14.5 –15.8 –6.8 –8.9 –9.4 –5.3
São Tomé and Príncipe –22.9 –27.7 –21.9 –15.2 –21.9 –13.0 –6.5 –8.2 –7.0 –10.2 –7.4
Senegal –3.5 –6.5 –8.7 –8.2 –7.0 –5.4 –4.0 –7.3 –7.7 –7.1 –6.1
Seychelles –19.4 –23.0 –21.1 –11.9 –23.1 –18.6 –20.1 –20.5 –18.4 –18.0 –17.0
Sierra Leone –22.7 –65.0 –31.8 –17.5 –18.2 –17.4 –2.3 –11.3 –13.4 –14.1 –9.3
South Africa –1.5 –2.2 –5.1 –5.8 –5.1 –4.6 –2.8 –2.5 –3.2 –3.5 –3.6
South Sudan ... 18.2 –15.9 –3.9 –1.5 –7.1 1.3 –5.0 –8.8 2.7 –1.8
Tanzania –7.7 –10.8 –11.6 –10.6 –10.1 –8.4 –4.5 –2.8 –4.3 –5.5 –4.5
Togo –5.8 –7.8 –7.6 –13.2 –10.0 –11.0 –9.3 –8.0 –9.2 –8.0 –5.9
Uganda –8.0 –9.9 –6.8 –7.1 –8.1 –7.1 –2.9 –4.6 –6.9 –8.9 –3.6
Zambia 7.5 4.7 5.4 –0.6 2.1 –3.9 –4.5 –3.9 –4.0 –3.4 –1.8
Zimbabwe6 –14.3 –20.1 –13.1 –16.6 –14.2 –9.5 –3.4 –4.1 –5.8 –5.6 –5.0
structure.
2Starting in 2014 data exclude Crimea and Sevastopol.
3See country-specific note for Libya in the “Country Notes” section of the Statistical Appendix.
6The Zimbabwe dollar ceased circulating in early 2009. Data are based on IMF staff estimates of price and exchange rate developments in US dollars. IMF staff estimates of US dollar
values may differ from authorities’ estimates.

Table A13. Summary of Financial Account Balances

Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Advanced Economies
Financial Account Balance –123.6 –260.6 –149.4 229.5 363.3 349.7 436.4 512.0 337.0 269.6
Direct Investment, Net 340.7 358.9 111.9 154.3 235.9 69.5 –146.5 292.9 –28.6 156.0
Portfolio Investment, Net –969.0 –1,111.5 –246.3 –540.9 71.8 175.9 505.1 151.3 389.5 125.3
Financial Derivatives, Net –114.1 –6.4 –98.3 73.9 –11.5 –107.6 14.5 –13.9 1.8 –18.8
Other Investment, Net 265.8 148.9 –189.9 389.2 –67.8 –14.8 –116.6 –167.2 –110.0 –66.4
Change in Reserves 352.9 349.8 273.2 153.1 134.9 226.7 179.7 248.9 84.0 73.5
United States
Financial Account Balance –446.4 –526.0 –448.2 –400.3 –297.3 –325.9 –385.1 –331.9 –567.1 –643.2
Direct Investment, Net 85.8 173.1 126.9 104.7 135.7 –202.0 –181.5 24.4 –341.3 –171.2
Portfolio Investment, Net –620.8 –226.3 –498.3 –30.7 –114.9 –53.5 –195.1 –212.5 –170.4 –398.7
Financial Derivatives, Net –14.1 –35.0 7.1 2.2 –54.3 –27.0 7.8 23.1 23.4 16.8
Other Investment, Net 100.9 –453.7 –88.4 –473.4 –260.1 –37.1 –18.4 –165.2 –78.8 –90.1
Change in Reserves 1.8 15.9 4.5 –3.1 –3.6 –6.3 2.1 –1.7 0.0 0.0
Euro Area
Financial Account Balance –16.9 –40.9 184.3 443.7 350.9 296.5 384.1 467.7 ... ...
Direct Investment, Net 82.3 124.9 59.4 23.8 90.3 276.1 187.0 49.7 ... ...
Portfolio Investment, Net –81.4 –383.3 –175.8 –156.9 40.8 79.7 552.5 355.7 ... ...
Financial Derivatives, Net –4.4 5.5 38.9 42.1 66.2 96.6 19.6 28.7 ... ...
Other Investment, Net –27.1 197.7 242.9 528.5 147.8 –167.7 –392.4 35.1 ... ...
Change in Reserves 13.7 14.3 19.0 6.2 5.8 11.8 17.4 –1.5 ... ...
Germany
Financial Account Balance 123.7 167.7 194.3 300.0 317.8 264.9 284.3 316.3 326.9 323.6
Direct Investment, Net 60.6 10.3 33.6 26.0 95.3 74.8 33.2 47.1 59.5 50.7
Portfolio Investment, Net 154.1 –51.4 66.8 209.6 177.7 213.5 228.8 228.1 253.4 247.9
Financial Derivatives, Net 17.6 39.8 30.9 31.8 43.3 29.0 35.8 10.3 28.5 26.1
Other Investment, Net –110.7 165.1 61.1 31.4 4.8 –49.9 –15.4 32.3 –14.4 –1.1
Change in Reserves 2.1 3.9 1.7 1.2 –3.3 –2.4 1.9 –1.5 0.0 0.0
France
Direct Investment, Net 34.3 19.8 19.4 –13.9 47.2 7.9 28.1 8.3 13.2 17.6
Portfolio Investment, Net –155.0 –335.1 –50.6 –79.3 –23.8 43.2 23.8 22.4 34.4 43.1
Financial Derivatives, Net –4.1 –19.4 –18.4 –22.3 –31.8 14.5 –17.6 –1.4 –8.7 –16.3
Other Investment, Net 115.5 263.8 –3.6 98.2 –2.9 –74.2 –51.1 –61.9 –65.8 –65.6
Change in Reserves 7.7 –7.7 5.2 –1.9 1.0 8.0 2.5 –3.4 2.6 2.6
Italy
Financial Account Balance –107.1 –79.9 –4.1 29.0 68.5 39.1 72.4 53.3 43.4 35.7
Direct Investment, Net 21.3 17.2 6.8 0.9 3.1 2.7 –4.5 –12.7 2.6 3.0
Portfolio Investment, Net 62.5 25.6 –22.4 –5.4 5.5 108.2 176.5 111.1 72.2 28.7
Financial Derivatives, Net 6.6 –10.1 7.5 4.0 –4.8 2.6 –3.3 –6.5 –2.7 –0.6
Other Investment, Net –198.9 –113.9 2.1 27.5 65.9 –75.0 –95.1 –41.7 –28.7 4.6
Change in Reserves 1.4 1.3 1.9 2.0 –1.3 0.6 –1.3 3.0 0.0 0.0

Table A13. Summary of Financial Account Balances (continued)

Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spain
Financial Account Balance –58.9 –43.4 0.5 41.6 14.8 23.1 27.9 27.3 19.8 20.6
Direct Investment, Net –1.9 12.8 –27.2 –24.6 8.6 31.0 18.5 22.9 19.9 20.3
Portfolio Investment, Net –46.6 43.1 53.7 –83.6 –12.1 10.2 55.1 26.3 6.7 6.2
Financial Derivatives, Net –11.4 2.9 –10.7 1.4 1.7 –1.1 –2.9 –2.5 0.0 0.0
Other Investment, Net 0.0 –116.2 –18.2 147.8 11.5 –22.6 –51.8 –23.4 –6.7 –5.9
Japan
Financial Account Balance 247.3 158.4 53.9 –4.3 58.9 180.9 263.7 158.0 180.4 193.0
Direct Investment, Net 72.5 117.8 117.5 144.7 118.6 133.3 134.4 149.7 132.5 144.6
Portfolio Investment, Net 147.9 –162.9 28.8 –280.6 –42.2 131.5 276.5 –53.5 –47.0 –44.0
Financial Derivatives, Net –11.9 –17.1 6.7 58.1 34.0 17.7 –16.1 30.5 31.7 32.6
Other Investment, Net –5.5 43.4 –61.1 34.8 –60.1 –106.7 –125.4 7.7 52.8 48.8
Change in Reserves 44.3 177.3 –37.9 38.7 8.5 5.1 –5.7 23.6 10.5 11.0
United Kingdom
Direct Investment, Net –10.1 53.4 –34.8 –11.2 –176.1 –106.0 –219.5 81.7 64.6 53.4
Portfolio Investment, Net –201.0 –215.5 275.0 –284.2 16.4 –201.8 –195.4 –86.3 0.0 0.0
Financial Derivatives, Net –69.3 7.4 –65.8 63.4 31.2 –128.6 29.3 12.7 1.8 –8.4
Other Investment, Net 162.9 103.4 –279.1 91.8 –37.5 261.6 231.0 –94.8 –180.5 –150.7
Canada
Direct Investment, Net 6.3 12.5 12.8 –12.0 1.3 22.2 36.3 54.4 30.2 28.3
Financial Derivatives, Net ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Other Investment, Net 41.4 34.3 –13.4 –22.5 –15.9 –43.8 25.8 –14.2 –19.8 –7.2
Other Advanced Economies 1
Direct Investment, Net 93.5 –6.5 –34.8 26.3 –7.3 –108.1 –79.0 –52.7 –47.0 –24.8
Portfolio Investment, Net –57.1 46.8 148.7 138.4 180.7 333.5 275.2 163.4 203.2 208.0
Financial Derivatives, Net –15.2 31.1 –28.3 –33.5 –23.5 –14.2 –0.8 –29.6 –40.4 –37.1
Other Investment, Net –16.8 88.5 –104.0 143.1 96.0 –83.4 –8.6 43.8 202.0 172.2
Economies
Financial Account Balance 150.3 239.6 119.4 33.9 15.9 –275.3 –420.7 –257.0 23.6 33.9
Direct Investment, Net –456.7 –530.6 –486.7 –480.2 –416.6 –340.5 –271.5 –343.6 –326.1 –323.9
Portfolio Investment, Net –223.7 –145.4 –234.4 –155.7 –113.2 114.5 –46.3 –174.8 –31.0 –19.4
Other Investment, Net –18.8 163.2 399.0 83.0 409.4 460.1 385.6 95.4 370.7 321.2
Change in Reserves 848.4 747.0 442.3 590.9 128.8 –513.7 –476.8 162.7 10.7 56.0


Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States2
Direct Investment, Net –8.5 –15.2 –27.6 –3.6 19.2 0.6 –34.3 –1.6 2.6 1.9
Portfolio Investment, Net –14.2 17.9 3.5 –0.2 28.8 12.0 –2.4 –17.4 –0.6 –2.9
Other Investment, Net 36.0 64.3 44.4 27.5 73.0 38.8 29.9 18.8 19.9 9.3
Change in Reserves 72.4 34.2 40.9 –21.5 –114.1 –4.9 10.1 28.8 66.0 67.5
Financial Account Balance 146.5 65.7 7.4 31.7 150.4 87.1 –31.6 –91.2 30.5 41.3
Portfolio Investment, Net –93.3 –58.0 –115.5 –64.7 –123.9 82.3 31.5 –45.9 14.2 –16.8
Financial Derivatives, Net 0.2 –0.3 1.5 –2.0 0.8 –1.3 –10.0 2.6 2.0 2.0
Other Investment, Net –97.3 –28.6 207.4 –78.7 281.3 462.4 356.6 –98.2 234.5 238.1
Change in Reserves 562.9 431.7 139.2 451.3 196.2 –316.1 –381.9 196.5 –80.7 –52.7
Emerging and Developing Europe
Portfolio Investment, Net –45.8 –53.5 –70.2 –40.0 –19.3 24.6 –4.2 –24.0 5.4 –0.6
Financial Derivatives, Net 0.0 1.6 –3.0 –1.4 0.3 –1.8 0.1 –3.2 –0.7 –0.9
Other Investment, Net –52.4 –30.1 6.4 –13.3 8.0 12.8 –2.9 18.0 –1.0 15.0
Change in Reserves 35.9 14.6 27.8 18.5 –0.2 –10.4 23.5 –11.7 –7.3 –2.3
Financial Derivatives, Net 0.7 5.5 2.5 1.8 4.4 1.2 –1.1 4.7 0.6 0.7
Change in Reserves 91.0 108.1 59.1 11.7 39.1 –28.9 20.9 17.5 –8.7 –1.2
Middle East, North Africa,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Financial Account Balance 127.1 320.6 284.1 304.4 180.5 –134.5 –207.8 –21.0 62.5 75.0
Direct Investment, Net –48.1 –20.5 –25.5 –7.9 –28.9 0.5 –7.4 –6.6 4.2 1.6
Portfolio Investment, Net 26.0 74.4 57.0 72.5 132.6 69.8 –6.4 –27.1 –23.7 9.4
Other Investment, Net 63.5 128.3 98.4 112.0 61.0 –65.6 –55.0 93.7 50.9 23.5
Change in Reserves 85.9 137.8 154.3 128.1 16.3 –138.9 –138.5 –80.7 31.2 40.7
Sub-Saharan Africa
Financial Derivatives, Net –0.2 –1.7 –1.7 –0.8 –1.5 –0.4 0.9 0.3 –0.2 –0.2
Other Investment, Net 31.2 17.5 20.5 –9.3 –15.8 –17.0 –3.0 –0.2 5.7 0.1
Change in Reserves 0.3 20.7 21.0 2.8 –8.5 –14.4 –10.8 12.1 10.3 4.0


Projections
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Analytical Groups
Fuel
Financial Account Balance 250.8 511.8 445.7 376.1 226.2 –85.8 –158.5 67.2 226.7 223.2
Direct Investment, Net –32.5 –24.0 –29.3 13.0 5.4 6.9 –29.3 11.7 21.6 15.8
Portfolio Investment, Net 20.4 88.9 50.2 79.1 164.6 80.9 –9.3 –38.9 –14.4 3.0
Change in Reserves 115.1 194.7 234.5 100.2 –106.5 –189.7 –154.6 –53.5 102.5 114.3
Nonfuel
Portfolio Investment, Net –244.1 –234.3 –284.7 –234.8 –277.7 33.5 –37.0 –135.9 –16.6 –22.3
Financial Derivatives, Net 0.7 5.8 –0.9 –2.4 3.9 –2.2 –10.0 4.3 1.8 1.5
Other Investment, Net –164.4 –87.1 210.4 –100.5 251.7 451.6 351.2 –52.0 254.3 231.6
Change in Reserves 732.2 552.3 207.7 490.7 235.3 –324.0 –322.1 216.2 –91.8 –58.3
Net Debtor Economies
Other Investment, Net –54.3 –78.7 –31.1 –27.3 –13.8 36.3 18.9 28.2 31.8 15.1
Change in Reserves 219.3 175.2 127.4 73.2 104.6 –4.3 77.5 81.2 –28.7 29.5
Rescheduling during 2013-17
Financial Account Balance 0.9 –28.3 –46.3 –48.2 –31.9 –41.9 –54.3 –38.8 –33.0 –34.1
Portfolio Investment, Net –11.1 0.8 –1.7 –10.5 –4.1 1.9 –1.0 –23.0 –21.0 –2.7
Other Investment, Net 7.3 2.1 –5.7 –16.8 0.0 –24.9 –23.7 8.8 8.0 –1.6
Change in Reserves 25.3 –9.8 –13.3 4.1 –7.0 7.3 –2.1 0.8 7.2 3.6
Memorandum
World
Financial Account Balance 26.6 –21.0 –30.0 263.4 379.1 74.4 15.7 255.1 360.6 303.5
Note: The estimates in this table are based on individual countries’ national accounts and balance of payments statistics. Country group composites are calculated as the sum of the US dollar
values for the relevant individual countries. Some group aggregates for the financial derivatives are not shown because of incomplete data. Projections for the euro area are not available because
of data constraints.
structure.

Table A14. Summary of Net Lending and Borrowing

(Percent of GDP)
Projections
Averages Average
2000–09 2004–11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020–23
Advanced Economies
Net Lending and Borrowing –0.8 –0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4
Current Account Balance –0.9 –0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4
Savings 22.0 21.5 21.7 21.9 22.5 22.7 22.2 22.8 22.8 22.9 23.0
Investment 22.7 22.2 21.2 21.1 21.4 21.5 21.3 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.7
Capital Account Balance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
United States
Net Lending and Borrowing –4.5 –4.3 –2.6 –2.1 –2.1 –2.2 –2.3 –2.2 –2.5 –3.0 –3.2
Current Account Balance –4.5 –4.3 –2.6 –2.1 –2.1 –2.2 –2.3 –2.3 –2.5 –3.0 –3.3
Savings 17.8 16.7 18.7 19.2 20.3 20.1 18.6 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.8
Investment 22.0 21.1 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.0 20.3 20.6 21.1 21.8 22.1
Euro Area
Net Lending and Borrowing –0.1 0.0 1.5 2.4 2.6 3.1 3.6 3.3 ... ... ...
Current Account Balance –0.2 –0.1 1.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8
Savings 22.8 22.7 22.3 22.4 22.9 23.7 24.1 24.7 24.9 25.1 25.4
Investment 22.5 22.2 20.0 19.6 19.9 20.3 20.7 20.8 21.3 21.6 22.0
Capital Account Balance 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 –0.1 0.0 –0.2 ... ... ...
Germany
Net Lending and Borrowing 3.4 5.5 7.0 6.7 7.6 8.9 8.6 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.5
Current Account Balance 3.4 5.6 7.0 6.7 7.5 8.9 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.5
Savings 23.7 25.3 26.3 26.2 27.1 28.1 28.2 28.0 28.5 28.7 28.9
Investment 20.3 19.8 19.3 19.5 19.6 19.2 19.7 20.1 20.4 20.8 21.4
France
Net Lending and Borrowing 1.0 0.0 –1.1 –0.5 –1.0 –0.4 –0.7 –0.5 –0.9 –0.7 –0.3
Current Account Balance 1.0 –0.1 –1.0 –0.5 –1.0 –0.4 –0.8 –0.6 –0.9 –0.7 –0.3
Savings 23.4 22.7 21.7 21.8 21.8 22.3 21.9 22.9 22.7 22.9 23.4
Investment 22.4 22.8 22.6 22.3 22.7 22.7 22.7 23.5 23.7 23.6 23.7
Capital Account Balance 0.0 0.0 –0.2 0.0 –0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Italy
Net Lending and Borrowing –0.8 –1.8 –0.1 1.0 2.1 1.7 2.4 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.2
Current Account Balance –0.9 –1.9 –0.3 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.6 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.1
Savings 20.2 19.2 17.5 18.0 19.0 18.8 19.7 20.3 20.1 19.9 19.4
Investment 21.1 21.1 17.9 17.0 17.0 17.3 17.1 17.5 18.1 18.4 18.3
Capital Account Balance 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 –0.2 –0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Spain
Net Lending and Borrowing –5.5 –6.0 0.3 2.2 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.6
Current Account Balance –6.2 –6.5 –0.2 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4
Savings 22.2 21.1 19.8 20.2 20.5 21.5 22.4 23.0 22.9 23.1 23.4
Investment 28.3 27.6 20.0 18.7 19.5 20.4 20.5 21.1 21.8 22.0 22.0
Japan
Savings 27.9 26.9 23.6 24.1 24.7 27.1 27.5 28.0 28.1 28.4 28.7
Investment 24.7 23.5 22.7 23.2 23.9 24.0 23.6 24.0 24.5 24.6 24.5
Capital Account Balance –0.1 –0.1 0.0 –0.1 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1
United Kingdom
Savings 14.7 13.7 12.1 11.1 12.3 12.3 12.0 13.6 13.7 14.0 14.7
Investment 17.5 16.7 15.9 16.2 17.3 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.2 17.2 17.7
Capital Account Balance 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1

Table A14. Summary of Net Lending and Borrowing (continued)

(Percent of GDP)
Projections
Averages Average
2000–09 2004–11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020–23
Canada
Net Lending and Borrowing 1.1 –0.4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.4 –3.6 –3.2 –3.0 –3.0 –2.5 –2.1
Current Account Balance 1.1 –0.4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.9 –3.0 –2.5 –2.1
Savings 23.0 22.8 21.3 21.7 22.5 20.5 20.0 20.8 20.8 21.5 22.2
Investment 21.9 23.2 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.1 23.2 23.7 23.8 24.0 24.3
Other Advanced Economies1
Savings 29.7 30.3 30.2 30.3 30.5 30.8 30.1 30.5 30.6 30.5 30.0
Investment 25.6 25.9 26.0 25.1 25.2 24.8 24.7 25.3 25.5 25.6 25.4
Capital Account Balance –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 –0.1 –0.4 0.1 –0.2 0.0 –0.1 –0.1
Economies
Net Lending and Borrowing 2.6 2.8 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.0 –0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 –0.4
Current Account Balance 2.5 2.8 1.3 0.6 0.6 –0.2 –0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.5
Savings 29.5 32.2 33.5 32.8 33.0 32.7 32.0 32.2 32.7 32.6 32.1
Investment 27.3 29.6 32.4 32.4 32.6 32.9 32.2 32.2 32.8 32.8 32.7
Regional Groups
Commonwealth of Independent States2
Savings 27.4 27.1 27.1 24.3 25.1 26.0 24.8 25.8 26.3 26.7 26.6
Investment 21.1 22.0 24.7 23.6 22.9 22.8 24.3 24.5 22.0 23.2 24.2
Capital Account Balance –0.5 –0.3 –0.2 0.0 –1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Lending and Borrowing 3.7 3.9 1.0 0.8 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 –0.1
Current Account Balance 3.6 3.8 0.9 0.7 1.5 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 –0.1
Savings 38.4 42.4 43.7 43.0 43.6 42.4 41.1 40.7 40.3 39.9 38.9
Investment 35.2 38.8 42.6 42.3 42.0 40.4 39.7 39.9 40.1 39.8 39.0
Emerging and Developing Europe
Savings 19.7 19.9 20.5 21.5 22.1 22.9 22.4 23.0 22.7 22.2 21.3
Investment 24.2 25.7 24.9 25.0 24.9 24.7 24.1 25.5 25.4 23.7 23.0
Savings 20.3 21.3 20.0 19.3 17.9 18.2 17.5 17.9 18.0 17.9 18.4
Investment 20.4 21.3 22.4 22.3 21.6 21.8 19.3 19.0 20.0 20.7 21.5
and Pakistan
Net Lending and Borrowing 7.8 9.5 12.0 10.0 6.3 –3.6 –3.7 –0.7 2.0 2.0 0.1
Current Account Balance 8.3 10.1 12.5 9.8 5.5 –4.0 –3.9 –0.7 1.8 1.9 0.0
Savings 34.6 37.3 38.0 36.2 32.9 25.0 24.7 26.5 29.7 29.4 27.0
Investment 27.0 28.0 25.9 25.9 26.7 28.3 27.6 26.8 27.2 26.6 25.9
Sub-Saharan Africa
Net Lending and Borrowing 1.9 2.3 –0.6 –1.7 –3.3 –5.6 –3.4 –1.9 –2.4 –3.0 –3.1
Current Account Balance 0.7 0.9 –1.7 –2.2 –3.6 –6.0 –3.9 –2.3 –2.8 –3.4 –3.4
Savings 20.2 21.5 19.5 18.7 18.8 16.7 17.4 19.0 17.8 17.6 17.9
Investment 19.7 20.6 21.0 20.9 22.0 22.0 20.8 21.1 20.5 20.9 21.2

Table A14. Summary of Net Lending and Borrowing (continued)

(Percent of GDP)
Projections
Averages Average
2000–09 2004–11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020–23
Analytical Groups
Fuel
Net Lending and Borrowing 9.1 10.0 9.3 7.4 4.7 –1.5 –1.6 1.4 4.4 4.1 2.3
Current Account Balance 9.6 10.4 9.6 7.3 5.0 –1.6 –1.7 1.5 4.3 4.1 2.2
Savings 33.9 35.0 34.6 32.0 30.2 26.6 25.4 27.4 29.7 29.5 27.5
Investment 24.7 25.0 25.4 24.9 25.3 28.2 26.5 25.6 24.8 24.7 24.5
Capital Account Balance –0.1 0.0 –0.1 0.0 –0.6 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Nonfuel
Net Lending and Borrowing 0.8 0.8 –0.9 –1.0 –0.4 0.3 0.1 –0.2 –0.7 –0.6 –0.8
Current Account Balance 0.6 0.6 –1.1 –1.2 –0.6 0.1 0.0 –0.3 –0.8 –0.8 –0.9
Savings 28.4 31.4 33.2 33.1 33.7 33.9 33.2 33.1 33.3 33.2 32.8
Investment 28.0 30.9 34.2 34.2 34.2 33.7 33.1 33.4 34.2 34.2 34.0
Net Debtor Economies
Savings 22.3 23.6 23.1 22.5 22.5 22.0 22.2 22.5 22.4 22.7 23.2
Investment 23.6 25.2 26.1 25.2 25.1 24.6 24.1 24.5 24.8 24.9 25.5
Rescheduling during 2013–17
Savings 20.2 20.1 14.5 13.1 14.1 12.5 12.6 13.9 14.8 15.3 16.8
Investment 21.7 22.3 20.7 19.2 18.6 17.7 18.3 18.9 19.3 19.9 21.3
Memorandum
World
Savings 23.9 24.7 26.2 26.2 26.7 26.7 26.0 26.5 26.7 26.8 26.8
Investment 23.9 24.4 25.4 25.5 25.8 26.0 25.5 25.8 26.2 26.5 26.8
Note: The estimates in this table are based on individual countries’ national accounts and balance of payments statistics. Country group composites are calculated as the sum of the
US dollar values for the relevant individual countries. This differs from the calculations in the April 2005 and earlier issues of the World Economic Outlook, in which the composites
were weighted by GDP valued at purchasing power parities as a share of total world GDP. The estimates of gross national savings and investment (or gross capital formation) are
from individual countries’ national accounts statistics. The estimates of the current account balance, the capital account balance, and the financial account balance (or net lending/net
borrowing) are from the balance of payments statistics. The link between domestic transactions and transactions with the rest of the world can be expressed as accounting identities.
Savings (S ) minus investment (I ) is equal to the current account balance (CAB ) (S − I = CAB ). Also, net lending/net borrowing (NLB ) is the sum of the current account balance and the
capital account balance (KAB ) (NLB = CAB + KAB ). In practice, these identities do not hold exactly; imbalances result from imperfections in source data and compilation as well as from
asymmetries in group composition due to data availability.
structure.

Table A15. Summary of World Medium-Term Baseline Scenario

Projections
Averages Averages
2000–09 2010–19 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–19 2020–23
Annual Percent Change
World Real GDP 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6
Memorandum
Potential Output
Major Advanced Economies 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
World Trade, Volume1 5.0 4.8 2.2 5.2 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8
Imports
Exports
Terms of Trade
Advanced Economies –0.2 0.1 1.0 –0.2 –0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 1.4 0.1 –1.4 0.6 1.6 –0.2 0.1 –0.1
World Prices in US Dollars
Manufactures 1.7 0.3 –5.2 1.7 2.5 1.6 0.1 0.1
Oil 13.1 1.1 –15.7 23.3 31.4 –0.9 7.9 –3.2
Nonfuel Primary Commodities 5.3 1.2 –1.5 6.8 2.7 –0.7 1.7 0.2
Consumer Prices
Interest Rates Percent
Real Six-Month LIBOR2 1.2 –0.6 0.0 –0.4 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.5
World Real Long-Term Interest Rate3 2.1 0.5 0.4 –0.2 –0.1 0.5 0.2 0.9
Current Account Balances Percent of GDP
Advanced Economies –0.9 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.4
Emerging Market and Developing Economies 2.5 0.5 –0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –0.5
Total External Debt
Debt Service
1Data refer to trade in goods and services.
2London interbank offered rate on US dollar deposits minus percent change in US GDP deflator.
3GDP-weighted average of 10-year (or nearest-maturity) government bond rates for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.


1
CHAPTER
WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

SELECTED TOPICS
World Economic Outlook Archives

World Economic Outlook: Financial Systems and Economic Cycles September 2006
World Economic Outlook: Spillovers and Cycles in the Global Economy April 2007
World Economic Outlook: Globalization and Inequality October 2007
World Economic Outlook: Housing and the Business Cycle April 2008
World Economic Outlook: Financial Stress, Downturns, and Recoveries October 2008
World Economic Outlook: Crisis and Recovery April 2009
World Economic Outlook: Sustaining the Recovery October 2009
World Economic Outlook: Rebalancing Growth April 2010
World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing October 2010
World Economic Outlook: Tensions from the Two-Speed Recovery—Unemployment, Commodities,
and Capital Flows April 2011
World Economic Outlook: Slowing Growth, Rising Risks September 2011
World Economic Outlook: Growth Resuming, Dangers Remain April 2012
World Economic Outlook: Coping with High Debt and Sluggish Growth October 2012
World Economic Outlook: Hopes, Realities, Risks April 2013
World Economic Outlook: Transitions and Tensions October 2013
World Economic Outlook: Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven April 2014
World Economic Outlook: Legacies, Clouds, Uncertainties October 2014
World Economic Outlook: Uneven Growth—Short- and Long-Term Factors April 2015
World Economic Outlook: Adjusting to Lower Commodity Prices October 2015
World Economic Outlook: Too Slow for Too Long April 2016
World Economic Outlook: Subdued Demand—Symptoms and Remedies October 2016
World Economic Outlook: Gaining Momentum? April 2017
World Economic Outlook: Seeking Sustainable Growth: Short-Term Recovery, Long-Term Challenges October 2017
World Economic Outlook: Cyclical Upswing, Structural Change April 2018
World Economic Outlook: Challenges to Steady Growth October 2018
I. Methodology—Aggregation, Modeling, and Forecasting

Measuring Inequality: Conceptual, Methodological, and Measurement Issues October 2007, Box 4.1
New Business Cycle Indices for Latin America: A Historical Reconstruction October 2007, Box 5.3
Implications of New PPP Estimates for Measuring Global Growth April 2008, Appendix 1.1
Measuring Output Gaps October 2008, Box 1.3
Assessing and Communicating Risks to the Global Outlook October 2008, Appendix 1.1
Fan Chart for Global Growth April 2009, Appendix 1.2
Indicators for Tracking Growth October 2010, Appendix 1.2
Inferring Potential Output from Noisy Data: The Global Projection Model View October 2010, Box 1.3
Uncoordinated Rebalancing October 2010, Box 1.4
World Economic Outlook Downside Scenarios April 2011, Box 1.2

Fiscal Balance Sheets: The Significance of Nonfinancial Assets and Their Measurement October 2014, Box 3.3
Tariff Scenarios October 2016, Scenario Box
World Growth Projections over the Medium Term October 2016, Box 1.1
II. Historical Surveys

Historical Perspective on Growth and the Current Account October 2008, Box 6.3
A Historical Perspective on International Financial Crises October 2009, Box 4.1
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 100 Years of Dealing with Public Debt Overhangs October 2012, Chapter 3
What Is the Effect of Recessions? October 2015, Box 1.1
III. Economic Growth—Sources and Patterns

Asia Rising: Patterns of Economic Development and Growth September 2006, Chapter 3
Japan’s Potential Output and Productivity Growth September 2006, Box 3.1
The Evolution and Impact of Corporate Governance Quality in Asia September 2006, Box 3.2
Decoupling the Train? Spillovers and Cycles in the Global Economy April 2007, Chapter 4
Spillovers and International Business Cycle Synchronization: A Broader Perspective April 2007, Box 4.3
The Discounting Debate October 2007, Box 1.7
Taxes versus Quantities under Uncertainty (Weitzman, 1974) October 2007, Box 1.8
Experience with Emissions Trading in the European Union October 2007, Box 1.9
Climate Change: Economic Impact and Policy Responses October 2007, Appendix 1.2
What Risks Do Housing Markets Pose for Global Growth? October 2007, Box 2.1
The Changing Dynamics of the Global Business Cycle October 2007, Chapter 5
Major Economies and Fluctuations in Global Growth October 2007, Box 5.1
Improved Macroeconomic Performance—Good Luck or Good Policies? October 2007, Box 5.2
House Prices: Corrections and Consequences October 2008, Box 1.2
Global Business Cycles April 2009, Box 1.1
How Similar Is the Current Crisis to the Great Depression? April 2009, Box 3.1
Is Credit a Vital Ingredient for Recovery? Evidence from Industry-Level Data April 2009, Box 3.2
From Recession to Recovery: How Soon and How Strong? April 2009, Chapter 3
What’s the Damage? Medium-Term Output Dynamics after Financial Crises October 2009, Chapter 4
Will the Recovery Be Jobless? October 2009, Box 1.3
Unemployment Dynamics during Recessions and Recoveries: Okun’s Law and Beyond April 2010, Chapter 3
Does Slow Growth in Advanced Economies Necessarily Imply Slow Growth in Emerging Economies? October 2010, Box 1.1
The Global Recovery: Where Do We Stand? April 2012, Box 1.2
How Does Uncertainty Affect Economic Performance? October 2012, Box 1.3
Resilience in Emerging Market and Developing Economies: Will It Last? October 2012, Chapter 4
Jobs and Growth: Can’t Have One without the Other? October 2012, Box 4.1
Spillovers from Policy Uncertainty in the United States and Europe April 2013, Chapter 2,
Spillover Feature
Breaking through the Frontier: Can Today’s Dynamic Low-Income Countries Make It? April 2013, Chapter 4
What Explains the Slowdown in the BRICS? October 2013, Box 1.2
Dancing Together? Spillovers, Common Shocks, and the Role of Financial and Trade Linkages October 2013, Chapter 3
Output Synchronicity in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and in the
Caucasus and Central Asia October 2013, Box 3.1
Spillovers from Changes in U.S. Monetary Policy October 2013, Box 3.2

SELECTED TOPICS
Saving and Economic Growth April 2014, Box 3.1

On the Receiving End? External Conditions and Emerging Market Growth before, during,
and after the Global Financial Crisis April 2014, Chapter 4
The Impact of External Conditions on Medium-Term Growth in Emerging Market Economies April 2014, Box 4.1
The Origins of IMF Growth Forecast Revisions since 2011 October 2014, Box 1.2
Underlying Drivers of U.S. Yields Matter for Spillovers October 2014, Chapter 2,
Spillover Feature
Is It Time for an Infrastructure Push? The Macroeconomic Effects of Public Investment October 2014, Chapter 3
The Macroeconomic Effects of Scaling Up Public Investment in Developing Economies October 2014, Box 3.4
Where Are We Headed? Perspectives on Potential Output April 2015, Chapter 3
Steady As She Goes—Estimating Sustainable Output April 2015, Box 3.1
Macroeconomic Developments and Outlook in Low-Income Developing Countries—
The Role of External Factors April 2016, Box 1.2
Time for a Supply-Side Boost? Macroeconomic Effects of Labor and Product Market
Reforms in Advanced Economies April 2016, Chapter 3
Road Less Traveled: Growth in Emerging Market and Developing Economies in a Complicated
External Environment April 2017, Chapter 3
Growing with Flows: Evidence from Industry-Level Data April 2017, Box 2.2
Emerging Market and Developing Economy Growth: Heterogeneity and Income Convergence
Over the Forecast Horizon October 2017, Box 1.3
Manufacturing Jobs: Implications for Productivity and Inequality April 2018, Chapter 3
Is Productivity Growth Shared in a Globalized Economy? April 2018, Chapter 4
Recent Dynamics of Potential Growth April 2018, Box 1.3
Growth Outlook: Advanced Economies October 2018, Box 1.2
Growth Outlook: Emerging Market and Developing Economies October 2018, Box 1.3
The Global Recovery 10 Years after the 2008 October 2018, Chapter 2
IV. Inflation and Deflation and Commodity Markets

The Boom in Nonfuel Commodity Prices: Can It Last? September 2006, Chapter 5
International Oil Companies and National Oil Companies in a Changing Oil Sector Environment September 2006, Box 1.4
Commodity Price Shocks, Growth, and Financing in Sub-Saharan Africa September 2006, Box 2.2
Has Speculation Contributed to Higher Commodity Prices? September 2006, Box 5.1
Agricultural Trade Liberalization and Commodity Prices September 2006, Box 5.2
Recent Developments in Commodity Markets September 2006,
Appendix 2.1
Who Is Harmed by the Surge in Food Prices? October 2007, Box 1.1
Refinery Bottlenecks October 2007, Box 1.5
Making the Most of Biofuels October 2007, Box 1.6
Commodity Market Developments and Prospects April 2008, Appendix 1.2
Dollar Depreciation and Commodity Prices April 2008, Box 1.4
Why Hasn’t Oil Supply Responded to Higher Prices? April 2008, Box 1.5
Oil Price Benchmarks April 2008, Box 1.6
Globalization, Commodity Prices, and Developing Countries April 2008, Chapter 5
The Current Commodity Price Boom in Perspective April 2008, Box 5.2
Is Inflation Back? Commodity Prices and Inflation October 2008, Chapter 3
Does Financial Investment Affect Commodity Price Behavior? October 2008, Box 3.1
Fiscal Responses to Recent Commodity Price Increases: An Assessment October 2008, Box 3.2

Monetary Policy Regimes and Commodity Prices October 2008, Box 3.3
Assessing Deflation Risks in the G3 Economies April 2009, Box 1.3
Will Commodity Prices Rise Again When the Global Economy Recovers? April 2009, Box 1.5
Commodity Market Developments and Prospects October 2009, Appendix 1.1
What Do Options Markets Tell Us about Commodity Price Prospects? October 2009, Box 1.6
What Explains the Rise in Food Price Volatility? October 2009, Box 1.7
How Unusual Is the Current Commodity Price Recovery? April 2010, Box 1.2
Commodity Futures Price Curves and Cyclical Market Adjustment April 2010, Box 1.3
Commodity Market Developments and Prospects October 2010, Appendix 1.1
Dismal Prospects for the Real Estate Sector October 2010, Box 1.2
Have Metals Become More Scarce and What Does Scarcity Mean for Prices? October 2010, Box 1.5
Oil Scarcity, Growth, and Global Imbalances April 2011, Chapter 3
Life Cycle Constraints on Global Oil Production April 2011, Box 3.1
Unconventional Natural Gas: A Game Changer? April 2011, Box 3.2
Short-Term Effects of Oil Shocks on Economic Activity April 2011, Box 3.3
Low-Frequency Filtering for Extracting Business Cycle Trends April 2011, Appendix 3.1
The Energy and Oil Empirical Models April 2011, Appendix 3.2
Commodity Market Developments and Prospects September 2011,
Appendix 1.1
Financial Investment, Speculation, and Commodity Prices September 2011, Box 1.4
Target What You Can Hit: Commodity Price Swings and Monetary Policy September 2011, Chapter 3
Commodity Market Review April 2012, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
Commodity Price Swings and Commodity Exporters April 2012, Chapter 4
Macroeconomic Effects of Commodity Price Shocks on Low-Income Countries April 2012, Box 4.1
Volatile Commodity Prices and the Development Challenge in Low-Income Countries April 2012, Box 4.2
Commodity Market Review October 2012, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
Unconventional Energy in the United States October 2012, Box 1.4
Food Supply Crunch: Who Is Most Vulnerable? October 2012, Box 1.5
Commodity Market Review April 2013, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
The Dog That Didn’t Bark: Has Inflation Been Muzzled or Was It Just Sleeping? April 2013, Chapter 3
Does Inflation Targeting Still Make Sense with a Flatter Phillips Curve? April 2013, Box 3.1
Commodity Market Review October 2013, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
Energy Booms and the Current Account: Cross-Country Experience October 2013, Box 1.SF.1
Oil Price Drivers and the Narrowing WTI-Brent Spread October 2013, Box 1.SF.2
Anchoring Inflation Expectations When Inflation Is Undershooting April 2014, Box 1.3
Commodity Prices and Forecasts April 2014, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Natural Gas October 2014, Chapter 1,
in the World Economy Special Feature
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Investment April 2015, Chapter 1,
in an Era of Low Oil Prices Special Feature
The Oil Price Collapse: Demand or Supply? April 2015, Box 1.1

SELECTED TOPICS
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Metals in the World Economy October 2015, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
The New Frontiers of Metal Extraction: The North-to-South Shift October 2015, Chapter 1,
Special Feature Box 1.SF.1
Where Are Commodity Exporters Headed? Output Growth in the Aftermath
of the Commodity Boom October 2015, Chapter 2
The Not-So-Sick Patient: Commodity Booms and the Dutch Disease Phenomenon October 2015, Box 2.1
Do Commodity Exporters’ Economies Overheat during Commodity Booms? October 2015, Box 2.4
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on the April 2016, Chapter 1,
Energy Transition in an Era of Low Fossil Fuel Prices Special Feature
Global Disinflation in an Era of Constrained Monetary Policy October 2016, Chapter 3
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Food Security and October 2016, Chapter 1,
Markets in the World Economy Special Feature
How Much Do Global Prices Matter for Food Inflation? October 2016, Box 3.3
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on the Role of Technology and April 2017, Chapter 1,
Unconventional Sources in the Global Oil Market Special Feature
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts October 2017, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts April 2018, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
What Has Held Core Inflation Back in Advanced Economies? April 2018, Box 1.2
The Role of Metals in the Economics of Electric Vehicles April 2018, Box 1.SF.1
Inflation Outlook: Regions and Countries October 2018, Box 1.4
Commodity Market Developments and Forecasts, with a Focus on Recent Trends in Energy Demand October 2018, Chapter 1,
Special Feature
The Demand and Supply of Renewable Energy October 2018, Box 1.SF.1
Challenges for Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets as Global Financial Conditions Normalize October 2018, Chapter 3
Inflation Dynamics in a Wider Group of Emerging Market and Developing Economies October 2018, Box 3.1
V. Fiscal Policy

Improved Emerging Market Fiscal Performance: Cyclical or Structural? September 2006, Box 2.1
When Does Fiscal Stimulus Work? April 2008, Box 2.1
Fiscal Policy as a Countercyclical Tool October 2008, Chapter 5
Differences in the Extent of Automatic Stabilizers and Their Relationship with Discretionary Fiscal Policy October 2008, Box 5.1
Why Is It So Hard to Determine the Effects of Fiscal Stimulus? October 2008, Box 5.2
Have the U.S. Tax Cuts Been “TTT” [Timely, Temporary, and Targeted]? October 2008, Box 5.3
Will It Hurt? Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Consolidation October 2010, Chapter 3
Separated at Birth? The Twin Budget and Trade Balances September 2011, Chapter 4
Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers? October 2012, Box 1.1
The Implications of High Public Debt in Advanced Economies October 2012, Box 1.2
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 100 Years of Dealing with Public Debt Overhangs October 2012, Chapter 3
The Great Divergence of Policies April 2013, Box 1.1
Public Debt Overhang and Private Sector Performance April 2013, Box 1.2
Is It Time for an Infrastructure Push? The Macroeconomic Effects of Public Investment October 2014, Chapter 3
Improving the Efficiency of Public Investment October 2014, Box 3.2
The Macroeconomic Effects of Scaling Up Public Investment in Developing Economies October 2014, Box 3.4
Fiscal Institutions, Rules, and Public Investment October 2014, Box 3.5
Commodity Booms and Public Investment October 2015, Box 2.2

Cross-Border Impacts of Fiscal Policy: Still Relevant October 2017, Chapter 4

The Spillover Impact of U.S. Government Spending Shocks on External Positions October 2017, Box 4.1
Macroeconomic Impact of Corporate Tax Policy Changes April 2018, Box 1.5
VI. Monetary Policy, Financial Markets, and Flow of Funds

How Do Financial Systems Affect Economic Cycles? September 2006, Chapter 4
Financial Leverage and Debt Deflation September 2006, Box 4.1
Financial Linkages and Spillovers April 2007, Box 4.1
Macroeconomic Conditions in Industrial Countries and Financial Flows to Emerging Markets April 2007, Box 4.2
Macroeconomic Implications of Recent Market Turmoil: Patterns from Previous Episodes October 2007, Box 1.2
What Is Global Liquidity? October 2007, Box 1.4
The Changing Housing Cycle and the Implications for Monetary Policy April 2008, Chapter 3
Is There a Credit Crunch? April 2008, Box 1.1
Assessing Vulnerabilities to Housing Market Corrections April 2008, Box 3.1
Financial Stress and Economic Downturns October 2008, Chapter 4
The Latest Bout of Financial Distress: How Does It Change the Global Outlook? October 2008, Box 1.1
Policies to Resolve Financial System Stress and Restore Sound Financial Intermediation October 2008, Box 4.1
How Vulnerable Are Nonfinancial Firms? April 2009, Box 1.2
The Case of Vanishing Household Wealth April 2009, Box 2.1
Impact of Foreign Bank Ownership during Home-Grown Crises April 2009, Box 4.1
A Financial Stress Index for Emerging Economies April 2009, Appendix 4.1
Financial Stress in Emerging Economies: Econometric Analysis April 2009, Appendix 4.2
How Linkages Fuel the Fire April 2009, Chapter 4
Lessons for Monetary Policy from Asset Price Fluctuations October 2009, Chapter 3
Were Financial Markets in Emerging Economies More Resilient than in Past Crises? October 2009, Box 1.2
Risks from Real Estate Markets October 2009, Box 1.4
Financial Conditions Indices April 2011, Appendix 1.1
House Price Busts in Advanced Economies: Repercussions for Global Financial Markets April 2011, Box 1.1
International Spillovers and Macroeconomic Policymaking April 2011, Box 1.3
Credit Boom-Bust Cycles: Their Triggers and Policy Implications September 2011, Box 1.2
Are Equity Price Drops Harbingers of Recession? September 2011, Box 1.3
Cross-Border Spillovers from Euro Area Bank Deleveraging April 2012, Chapter 2,
Spillover Feature
The Financial Transmission of Stress in the Global Economy October 2012, Chapter 2,
Spillover Feature
The Great Divergence of Policies April 2013, Box 1.1
Taper Talks: What to Expect When the United States Is Tightening October 2013, Box 1.1
Credit Supply and Economic Growth April 2014, Box 1.1
Should Advanced Economies Worry about Growth Shocks in Emerging Market Economies? April 2014, Chapter 2,
Spillover Feature
Perspectives on Global Real Interest Rates April 2014, Chapter 3
Housing Markets across the Globe: An Update October 2014, Box 1.1
U.S. Monetary Policy and Capital Flows to Emerging Markets April 2016, Box 2.2
A Transparent Risk-Management Approach to Monetary Policy October 2016, Box 3.5
Will the Revival in Capital Flows to Emerging Markets Be Sustained? October 2017, Box 1.2

SELECTED TOPICS
The Role of Financial Sector Repair in the Speed of the Recovery October 2018, Box 2.3
Clarity of Central Bank Communications and the Extent of Anchoring of Inflation Expectations October 2018, Box 3.2
VII. Labor Markets, Poverty, and Inequality

The Globalization of Labor April 2007, Chapter 5
Emigration and Trade: How Do They Affect Developing Countries? April 2007, Box 5.1
Labor Market Reforms in the Euro Area and the Wage-Unemployment Trade-Off October 2007, Box 2.2
Globalization and Inequality October 2007, Chapter 4
The Dualism between Temporary and Permanent Contracts: Measures, Effects, and Policy Issues April 2010, Box 3.1
Short-Time Work Programs April 2010, Box 3.2
Slow Recovery to Nowhere? A Sectoral View of Labor Markets in Advanced Economies September 2011, Box 1.1
The Labor Share in Europe and the United States during and after the Great Recession April 2012, Box 1.1
Jobs and Growth: Can’t Have One without the Other? October 2012, Box 4.1
Reforming Collective-Bargaining Systems to Achieve High and Stable Employment April 2016, Box 3.2
Understanding the Downward Trend in Labor Shares April 2017, Chapter 3
Labor Force Participation Rates in Advanced Economies October 2017, Box 1.1
Recent Wage Dynamics in Advanced Economies: Drivers and Implications October 2017, Chapter 2
Labor Market Dynamics by Skill Level October 2017, Box 2.1
Worker Contracts and Nominal Wage Rigidities in Europe: Firm-level Evidence October 2017, Box 2.2
Wage and Employment Adjustment After the Global Financial Crisis: Firm-level Evidence October 2017, Box 2.3
Labor Force Participation in Advanced Economies: Drivers and Prospects April 2018, Chapter 2
Youth Labor Force Participation in Emerging Market and Developing Economies versus
Advanced Economies April 2018, Box 2.1
Storm Clouds Ahead? Migration and Labor Force Participation Rates April 2018, Box 2.4
Are Manufacturing Jobs Better Paid? Worker-Level Evidence from Brazil April 2018, Box 3.3
The Global Financial Crisis, Migration, and Fertility October 2018, Box 2.1
The Employment Impact of Automation Following the Global Financial Crisis: October 2018, Box 2.2
The Case of Industrial Robots
VIII. Exchange Rate Issues

How Emerging Market Countries May Be Affected by External Shocks September 2006, Box 1.3
Exchange Rates and the Adjustment of External Imbalances April 2007, Chapter 3
Exchange Rate Pass-Through to Trade Prices and External Adjustment April 2007, Box 3.3
Depreciation of the U.S. Dollar: Causes and Consequences April 2008, Box 1.2
Lessons from the Crisis: On the Choice of Exchange Rate Regime April 2010, Box 1.1
Exchange Rate Regimes and Crisis Susceptibility in Emerging Markets April 2014, Box 1.4
Exchange Rates and Trade Flows: Disconnected? October 2015, Chapter 3
The Relationship between Exchange Rates and Global-Value-Chain-Related Trade October 2015, Box 3.1
Measuring Real Effective Exchange Rates and Competitiveness: The Role of Global Value Chains October 2015, Box 3.2
Labor Force Participation Rates in Advanced Economies October 2017, Box 1.1
Recent Wage Dynamics in Advanced Economies: Drivers and Implications October 2017, Chapter 2
Labor Market Dynamics by Skill Level October 2017, Box 2.1
Worker Contracts and Nominal Wage Rigidities in Europe: Firm-Level Evidence October 2017, Box 2.2
Wage and Employment Adjustment after the Global Financial Crisis: Firm-Level Evidence October 2017, Box 2.3

IX. External Payments, Trade, Capital Movements, and Foreign Debt

Capital Flows to Emerging Market Countries: A Long-Term Perspective September 2006, Box 1.1
How Will Global Imbalances Adjust? September 2006, Box 2.1
External Sustainability and Financial Integration April 2007, Box 3.1
Large and Persistent Current Account Imbalances April 2007, Box 3.2
Multilateral Consultation on Global Imbalances October 2007, Box 1.3
Managing the Macroeconomic Consequences of Large and Volatile Aid Flows October 2007, Box 2.3
Managing Large Capital Inflows October 2007, Chapter 3
Can Capital Controls Work? October 2007, Box 3.1
Multilateral Consultation on Global Imbalances: Progress Report April 2008, Box 1.3
How Does the Globalization of Trade and Finance Affect Growth? Theory and Evidence April 2008, Box 5.1
Divergence of Current Account Balances across Emerging Economies October 2008, Chapter 6
Current Account Determinants for Oil-Exporting Countries October 2008, Box 6.1
Sovereign Wealth Funds: Implications for Global Financial Markets October 2008, Box 6.2
Global Imbalances and the Financial Crisis April 2009, Box 1.4
Trade Finance and Global Trade: New Evidence from Bank Surveys October 2009, Box 1.1
From Deficit to Surplus: Recent Shifts in Global Current Accounts October 2009, Box 1.5
Getting the Balance Right: Transitioning out of Sustained Current Account Surpluses April 2010, Chapter 4
Emerging Asia: Responding to Capital Inflows October 2010, Box 2.1
Latin America-5: Riding Another Wave of Capital Inflows October 2010, Box 2.2
Do Financial Crises Have Lasting Effects on Trade? October 2010, Chapter 4
Unwinding External Imbalances in the European Union Periphery April 2011, Box 2.1
International Capital Flows: Reliable or Fickle? April 2011, Chapter 4
External Liabilities and Crisis Tipping Points September 2011, Box 1.5
The Evolution of Current Account Deficits in the Euro Area April 2013, Box 1.3
External Rebalancing in the Euro Area October 2013, Box 1.3
The Yin and Yang of Capital Flow Management: Balancing Capital Inflows with Capital Outflows October 2013, Chapter 4
Simulating Vulnerability to International Capital Market Conditions October 2013, Box 4.1
The Trade Implications of the U.S. Shale Gas Boom October 2014, Box 1.SF.1
Are Global Imbalances at a Turning Point? October 2014, Chapter 4
Switching Gears: The 1986 External Adjustment October 2014, Box 4.1
A Tale of Two Adjustments: East Asia and the Euro Area October 2014, Box 4.2
Understanding the Role of Cyclical and Structural Factors in the Global Trade Slowdown April 2015, Box 1.2
Small Economies, Large Current Account Deficits October 2015, Box 1.2
Capital Flows and Financial Deepening in Developing Economies October 2015, Box 1.3
Dissecting the Global Trade Slowdown April 2016, Box 1.1
Understanding the Slowdown in Capital Flows to Emerging Markets April 2016, Chapter 2
Capital Flows to Low-Income Developing Countries April 2016, Box 2.1
The Potential Productivity Gains from Further Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Liberalization April 2016, Box 3.3
Global Trade: What’s behind the Slowdown? October 2016, Chapter 2
The Evolution of Emerging Market and Developing Economies’ Trade Integration with
China’s Final Demand April 2017, Box 2.3
Shifts in the Global Allocation of Capital: Implications for Emerging Market and
Developing Economies April 2017, Box 2.4
Macroeconomic Adjustment in Emerging Market Commodity Exporters October 2017, Box 1.4
Remittances and Consumption Smoothing October 2017, Box 1.5
A Multidimensional Approach to Trade Policy Indicators April 2018, Box 1.6
The Rise of Services Trade April 2018, Box 3.2

SELECTED TOPICS
Role of Foreign Aid in Improving Productivity in Low-Income Developing Countries April 2018, Box 4.3
Global Trade Tensions October 2018, Scenario box
X. Regional Issues

EMU: 10 Years On October 2008, Box 2.1
Vulnerabilities in Emerging Economies April 2009, Box 2.2
East-West Linkages and Spillovers in Europe April 2012, Box 2.1
The Evolution of Current Account Deficits in the Euro Area April 2013, Box 1.3
Still Attached? Labor Force Participation Trends in European Regions April 2018, Box 2.3
XI. Country-Specific Analyses

Why Is the U.S. International Income Account Still in the Black, and Will This Last? September 2005, Box 1.2
Is India Becoming an Engine for Global Growth? September 2005, Box 1.4
Saving and Investment in China September 2005, Box 2.1
China’s GDP Revision: What Does It Mean for China and the Global Economy? April 2006, Box 1.6
What Do Country Studies of the Impact of Globalization on Inequality Tell Us?
Examples from Mexico, China, and India October 2007, Box 4.2
Japan after the Plaza Accord April 2010, Box 4.1
Taiwan Province of China in the Late 1980s April 2010, Box 4.2
Did the Plaza Accord Cause Japan’s Lost Decades? April 2011, Box 1.4
Where Is China’s External Surplus Headed? April 2012, Box 1.3
The U.S. Home Owners’ Loan Corporation April 2012, Box 3.1
Household Debt Restructuring in Iceland April 2012, Box 3.2
Abenomics: Risks after Early Success? October 2013, Box 1.4
Is China’s Spending Pattern Shifting (away from Commodities)? April 2014, Box 1.2
Public Investment in Japan during the Lost Decade October 2014, Box 3.1
Japanese Exports: What’s the Holdup? October 2015, Box 3.3
The Japanese Experience with Deflation October 2016, Box 3.2
Permanently Displaced? Labor Force Participation in US States and Metropolitan Areas April 2018, Box 2.2
XII. Special Topics

Climate Change and the Global Economy April 2008, Chapter 4
Rising Car Ownership in Emerging Economies: Implications for Climate Change April 2008, Box 4.1
South Asia: Illustrative Impact of an Abrupt Climate Shock April 2008, Box 4.2
Macroeconomic Policies for Smoother Adjustment to Abrupt Climate Shocks April 2008, Box 4.3
Catastrophe Insurance and Bonds: New Instruments to Hedge Extreme Weather Risks April 2008, Box 4.4
Recent Emission-Reduction Policy Initiatives April 2008, Box 4.5
Complexities in Designing Domestic Mitigation Policies April 2008, Box 4.6
Getting By with a Little Help from a Boom: Do Commodity Windfalls Speed Up Human Development? October 2015, Box 2.3
Breaking the Deadlock: Identifying the Political Economy Drivers of Structural Reforms April 2016, Box 3.1
Can Reform Waves Turn the Tide? Some Case Studies Using the Synthetic Control Method April 2016, Box 3.4
A Global Rush for Land October 2016, Box 1.SF.1
Conflict, Growth, and Migration April 2017, Box 1.1
Tackling Measurement Challenges of Irish Economic Activity April 2017, Box 1.2
Within-Country Trends in Income per Capita: The Case of the Brazil, Russia, India, China,
and South Africa April 2017, Box 2.1

Technological Progress and Labor Shares: A Historical Overview April 2017, Box 3.1
The Elasticity of Substitution Between Capital and Labor: Concept and Estimation April 2017, Box 3.2
Routine Tasks, Automation, and Economic Dislocation around the World April 2017, Box 3.3
Adjustments to the Labor Share of Income April 2017, Box 3.4
The Effects of Weather Shocks on Economic Activity: How Can Low-Income Countries Cope? October 2017, Chapter 3
The Growth Impact of Tropical Cyclones October 2017, Box 3.1
The Role of Policies in Coping with Weather Shocks: A Model-Based Analysis October 2017, Box 3.2
Strategies for Coping with Weather Shocks and Climate Change: Selected Case Studies October 2017, Box 3.3
Coping with Weather Shocks: The Role of Financial Markets October 2017, Box 3.4
Historical Climate, Economic Development, and the World Income Distribution October 2017, Box 3.5
Mitigating Climate Change October 2017, Box 3.6
Smartphones and Global Trade April 2018, Box 1.1
Has Mismeasurement of the Digital Economy Affected Productivity Statistics April 2018, Box 1.4
The Changing Service Content of Manufactures April 2018, Box 3.1
Patent Data and Concepts April 2018, Box 4.1
International Technology Sourcing and Knowledge Spillovers April 2018, Box 4.2
Relationship between Competition, Concentration, and Innovation April 2018, Box 4.4
Increasing Market Power October 2018, Box 1.1
Sharp GDP Declines: Some Stylized Facts October 2018, Box 1.5
Predicting Recessions and Slowdowns: A Daunting Task October 2018, Box 1.6

IMF EXECUTIVE BOARD DISCUSSION OF THE OUTLOOK,
OCTOBER 2018
The following remarks were made by the Chair at the conclusion of the Executive Board’s discussion of the
Fiscal Monitor, Global Financial Stability Report, and World Economic Outlook on September 20, 2018.
E
xecutive Directors broadly shared the welfare. They noted that unilateral trade actions and
assessment of global economic prospects retaliatory measures could disrupt global supply chains,
and risks. They observed that the global weaken investor confidence, and undermine broader
expansion, while remaining strong, has lost multilateral cooperation at a time when it is urgently
some momentum and growth may have plateaued needed to address shared challenges. They therefore
in some major economies. Prospects increasingly urged all countries to adopt a cooperative approach to
diverge among countries, reflecting differences in promote growth in goods and services trade, reduce
policy stances and the combined impact of tighter trade costs, resolve disagreements without raising tariff
financial conditions, rising trade barriers, higher oil and nontariff barriers, and modernize the rules-based
prices, and increased geopolitical tensions. Beyond multilateral trading system. The possibility of an
2019, growth in most advanced economies is expected outcome in which trade issues could be resolved in
to be held back by slow labor force growth and a positive way was also pointed out. Directors noted
weak labor productivity. In emerging market and that persistent large external imbalances continue to
developing economies, growth is projected to remain call for sustained efforts, mindful of countries’ cycli-
relatively robust, although income convergence toward cal positions, to increase domestic growth potential in
advanced economy levels would likely be less favorable surplus countries and to raise supply or rein in demand
for countries undergoing substantial fiscal adjustment, in deficit countries.
economic transformation, or conflicts. Given a narrowing window of opportunity,
Directors generally agreed that near-term risks to the Directors underscored the urgency of policy measures
global outlook have recently shifted to the downside to sustain the expansion, strengthen resilience, and
and some have partially materialized. Trade barriers raise medium-term growth prospects. They encouraged
have risen, with adverse consequences for investment countries to rebuild fiscal buffers where needed, and
and growth. Financial conditions in most emerging implement growth-friendly measures calibrated to
market and developing countries have tightened since avoid procyclicality and the risk of sharp drags on
mid-April. Capital flows to some of these countries have activity. Directors agreed that, where inflation is below
declined, reflecting weak fundamentals, higher politi- target, continued monetary accommodation remains
cal risks, and/or U.S. monetary policy normalization. appropriate. Where inflation is close to or above target,
While financial conditions in advanced economies monetary support should be withdrawn in a gradual,
remain broadly accommodative, an inflation surprise data-dependent, and well-communicated manner.
could lead to an abrupt tightening of monetary policy Directors emphasized the critical role of structural
and to an intensification of market pressures across a reforms in boosting potential output, ensuring that gains
broader range of countries. In addition, most Directors are widely shared, and improving safety nets—including
saw as key risks a further escalation of trade tensions, to protect those vulnerable to structural change.
a rise in political and policy uncertainties, and growing Most Directors shared the assessment that near-term
inequality. Meanwhile, high debt levels limit the room risks to financial stability have increased while medium-
for maneuver in many countries. term risks remain elevated. They highlighted, in particu-
Most Directors considered that the recent intensi- lar, the buildup of financial vulnerabilities over the past
fication of trade tensions and the potential for further few years of very accommodative financial conditions,
escalation pose a substantial risk to global growth and including high and rising public and corporate debt,

and stretched asset valuations in some major markets. their fundamentals and idiosyncratic factors. In this
Addressing these vulnerabilities remains an important context, they underlined the importance of main-
priority for many countries. For some countries, priori- taining credible policy and institutional frameworks,
ties include cleaning up bank balance sheets, improving strengthening governance, and improving human
corporate governance, and addressing risks from the and physical capital. Directors noted that the current
sovereign-bank nexus, although a number of Directors felt environment highlights the need for the Fund to offer
that regulatory issues pertaining to sovereign exposures granular, tailored policy advice and stand ready to pro-
would best be left to the remit of the Basel Committee vide financial support to its members as needed.
on Banking Supervision, which is the standard-setting Directors underscored that priorities for low-income
body on the matter for a number of member countries. developing countries include building resilience, lifting
Directors also stressed the importance of completing and potential growth, improving inclusiveness, and making
fully implementing the regulatory reform agenda, and of progress toward the 2030 Sustainable Development
avoiding a rollback of reforms that have contributed to a Goals, while commodity exporters should also pri-
more resilient financial system ten years after the global oritize economic diversification. Stronger efforts are
financial crisis. needed to create room for development expenditure,
Directors agreed that financial regulators and super- through broadening the tax base, improving revenue
visors should remain vigilant about potential threats to administration, and prioritizing spending on health,
financial stability and stand ready to act. They called education, and infrastructure, while cutting wasteful
for special attention to liquidity conditions and new subsidies. Directors also called for urgent action to
risks, including those related to cybersecurity, finan- contain debt vulnerabilities, which are rising in many
cial technology, and other institutions or activities countries. They stressed that both debtors and creditors
outside the perimeter of prudential regulation. These share a responsibility for ensuring sustainable financing
require policymakers to further develop policy tools, practices and enhancing debt transparency.
including macroprudential policies, and deploy them Directors agreed that public sector balance sheet
proactively as needed, as well as enhance coordination analysis provides a useful tool to analyze public
across borders. finances. By revealing the full scale of public assets
Directors stressed that, as monetary policy normal- in addition to debt and nondebt liabilities, it helps
ization proceeds in advanced economies, emerging governments identify risks and manage both assets and
market and developing economies need to prepare for liabilities, potentially reducing borrowing costs and
an environment of tighter financial conditions and raising returns on assets. Directors noted that the long-
higher volatility. Countries need to tackle their vulner- term intertemporal analysis is particularly relevant in
abilities and enhance resilience with an appropriate aging societies. They also saw the benefits of the added
mix of fiscal, monetary, exchange rate, and prudential transparency in enriching the policy debate. At the
policies. In certain circumstances, capital flow man- same time, Directors acknowledged that the balance
agement measures may be appropriate but not as a sheet approach still has limitations, notably data qual-
substitute for macroeconomic adjustment. Directors ity and differences in accounting practices hindering
observed that markets have so far differentiated among cross-country comparisons, and thus it should be used
emerging market and developing economies based on with caveats to complement traditional fiscal analysis.

Highlights from IMF Publications
Advancing the Frontiers of The ASEAN Way: Sustaining Finance & Development Magazine
Monetary Policy Growth and Stability $29 annual subscription fee.
$30. English. Paperback $25. English. Paperback Free to developing countries.
ISBN 978-1-48432-594-0. 296pp. ISBN 978-1-51355-890-5. 308pp. English ISSN 0145-1707
Race to the Next Income Frontier Realizing Indonesia’s Economic Modernizing China:
$40. English. Paperback Potential Investing in Soft Infrastructure
ISBN 978-14843-0313-9. 430pp. $30. English. Paperback $38. English. Paperback
ISBN 978-1-48433-714-1. 336pp. ISBN 978-1-51353-994-2. 388pp.
To order, visit bookstore.imf.org/weo1018

Economy World

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economy World

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economy World

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What topics does it cover?

What topics does it cover?

Wo rld Eco nomi c a nd F i na nci a l S u r v e y s

World Economic Outlook

Challenges to Steady Growth

Cover and Design: Luisa Menjivar and Jorge Salazar

Joint Bank-Fund Library

Names: International Monetary Fund.

ISBN 978-1-48437-679-9 (paper)

Recommended citation: International Monetary Fund. 2018. World Economic Outlook:

Publication orders may be placed online, by fax, or through the mail:

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Assumptions and Conventions ix

Executive Summary xvi

Chapter 1. Global Prospects and Policies 1

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 iii

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Statistical Appendix 127

World Economic Outlook, Selected Topics 183

IMF Executive Board Discussion of the Outlook, October 2018 193

iv International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 v

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Annex Table 3.1.1. Data Sources

vi International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Figure 1.17. Growth for Creditors and Debtors 19

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 vii

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Figure 2.3.4. Nonperforming Loan Ratio 95

viii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

Corrections and Revisions

Print and Digital Editions

Copyright and Reuse

x International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xi

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

xii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xiii

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

xiv International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xv

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

xvi International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 xvii

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

xviii International Monetary Fund | October 2018

©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution

GLOBAL PROSPECTS AND POLICIES

International Monetary Fund | October 2018 1