IMFのFiscal Monitor

economy

去年の7月から年に2回定期的に出されることになったらしいIMFのFiscal Monitorの第3号が出ている。
PFM blog: IMF Fiscal Monitor: Navigating the Fiscal Challenges Ahead
上のブログの中では、レポートのキーポイントとして以下のようなことが挙げられている。

  • In many countries, fiscal adjustment will require a sizable, and sometimes unprecedented, effort. The Monitor presents a broad outline of policies to achieve this adjustment. While the economic recovery is proceeding faster than expected, fiscal balances are not improving commensurately.
  • Excluding financial sector support, headline and cyclically adjusted fiscal balances are expected to worsen further in advanced economies this year, contributing to a sustained rise in public debt. By contrast, deficits remain markedly lower in emerging economies. Here too, however, progress in reducing deficits has been slower than expected.
  • As economic and financial conditions normalize, support to financial sectors is being unwound and asset recovery has begun.
  • Risk of spillovers of sovereign risk across advanced countries is significant, at a time when advanced countries will need to tap bond markets in unprecedented amounts.
  • New research on government debt and growth indicates that high public debt may hamper growth, mainly through its impact on domestic investment and productivity.
  • Fiscal strategies should aim at gradually but steadily and significantly―reducing public debt ratios, rather than just stabilizing them at their elevated post crisis levels. Failing to do so would ultimately weaken the world’s long-term growth prospects.

で、当然ながら日本の財政赤字は目立っており、レポートの中で消費税の5%アップを提案されているようだが、今、消費税上げをしたらまた日本だけが沈んでいくことになるだろう。最近、ギリシアの問題があったり、昨年度末の国債残高が発表になったりしたせいか、民主党は次期総選挙後の消費税増税をマニフェストに明示といってみたり、一方で盛り上がり始めた「インフレ目標」は民主公約に盛り込まれない公算になってきているし、何だ全くがっかりな状況。
基本的に日本の国債は国内で引き受けられているのでまだ大丈夫だと思うが、以下のレポートでは国内の引き受け能力についてかなり悲観的に見ているようだ。中身をチェックしとかないと。

先進国成長率、債務削減しなければ年0.5％超低下も＝IMF - Reuters

追記（5月15日）

Krugmanによる辛めな批評

In fact, I’m pretty sure that if you take the IMF’s model of the effect of slumps on potential output seriously, it actually implies that increasing government spending in a slump more or less pays for itself: it leads to higher output not just in the short run but in the long run, and therefore leads to higher revenue that very likely more than offsets the original expense. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the truth, but it is an implication of the long-run pessimism that underlies this IMF report.