It is a rulebased organisation that ensures the influence and equal treatment of the member countries. It is against this background that I believe the IMF is the organisation that is best suited to being responsible for overseeing, identifying and analysing risks in the global financial system. Greater focus on financial surveillance My view is that the IMF has taken several steps in the right direction in its work with financial surveillance during the years that I have followed its activities. For example, the IMF has begun to integrate the analysis of financial stability with the traditional macroeconomic analysis of the member countries. Now, for instance, the financial economists of the IMF also take part in some of the annual country reviews (the Article IV consultations). The Baltic countries, among others, are able to testify to how effective this is. When Latvia experienced problems, the IMF was quickly able to put together a reform and support package thanks to its sound knowledge of the country. This shows that it is important to have knowledge of both the macroeconomic and financial developments, and seen in retrospect the Latvian programme is a good example of this. A further major step forward is that the Financial Sector Assessment Programmes (FSAPs), which was previously voluntary, was made compulsory by a decision in 2010 for the 25 most systemically-important countries – including of course the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and the Euro Area, but also Sweden.
Barbro Wickman-Parak: The IMF’s role – new thinking in the wake of the financial crisis Speech by Ms Barbro Wickman-Parak, Deputy Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank, at a meeting at Global Challenge, Stockholm, 5 October 2012. *  *  *  I would like to thank Ms Maria Wallin Fredholm and Ms Emelie Mannefred, from the Riksbank’s Financial Stability Department, for their assistance in the writing of this speech. The 188 member countries of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will gather in Tokyo for the Fund’s annual meeting next week. When I began working with IMF issues at the Riksbank in 2007, my impression was that the IMF was suffering from an identity crisis. The Fund’s lending to countries in crisis appeared to have played out its role and major staff cuts were underway. In short, the mood was rather subdued in the corridors of the IMF. The financial crisis led to an abrupt change. The IMF was forced to quickly provide action programmes and funding for crisis countries. Before the crisis, the IMF’s lending amounted to approximately USD 9 billion, the largest part of which went to Turkey. Today, the IMF’s lending amounts to around USD 112 billion, and the absolute largest part of this sum now goes to countries in Europe. The media spotlight often falls on the Fund when it rides to the rescue with crisis-management measures like this. But the every-day, important and tireless surveillance work of the IMF seldom attracts any headlines.