Monday, January 25, 2010

OECD vs Fund's Relationship Management

OECD (2008) compares OECD peer reviews with IMF Board discussions and describes differences in focus, in methods of analysis and consequently, in the nature of interactions. The IMF process is characterized as a higher frequency exercise with a shorter-term focus and notes that the country is not necessarily expected to endorse the policy recommendations of a surveillance report, nor does it have much latitude to change or remove topics from a Staff Report. The OECD, on the other hand, engages in a much more intensive exchange with country authorities, both in missions and at headquarters when finalizing its Economic Surveys. It engages in a full day of discussions with the authorities joined by officials from other countries who contribute to the debate with their policy experience, after which the Secretariat works with the country subject to peer review over the course of a full day to finalize the document for publication. Thygesen acknowledges that this buy-in may result in a reduction of clarity in issues or key messages in the report. He also suggests that the peer review process only works well if there is a high and matched level of expertise brought by country representatives around the table so that the authorities undergoing the peer review can truly benefit from the discussion. OECD (2007) discusses the prerequisites of value sharing, mutual trust and credibility in the process adding that the peer review is as effective as the “peer pressure” stemming from the reviewer countries, and the willingness of the reviewed country to accept it

-A Comparative Study on Relationship Management

No comments: