On September 28, Dominique Strauss-Kahn became the new Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. He follows in the footsteps of his French predecessors, Pierre-Paul Schweitzer (1963-1973), Jacques de la Rosière (1979-1987) and Michel Camdessus (1987-2000). Indeed, French bureaucrats have led the IMF for almost half of its existence. Look beyond 19th Street, and you will find the mark of Frenchmen in many more of the world's most influential economic organizations, from Pascal Lamy, who has been Director General of the World Trade Organization since 2005, to Jean-Claude Trichet, who has headed the European Central Bank since 2003.
» read more | French version

Since the month of August, economists have been trying to understand why something that was supposed to be positive for global growth, namely the diversification of risk through securitization, had turned out to be the source of the recent crisis. The first reaction was to characterize this as a liquidity crisis - some banks were having undue difficulties in securing funds in the interbank market, and thus central banks reacted by providing liquidity through open market operations. Many central bankers and academics started smiling with an "I told you so, there was so much excess liquidity, this was bound to happen", and adopted a tough anti-moral hazard stance. More than a month, and many billions of dollars of extra liquidity injections, later the situation in money and credit markets has not improved. Central banks have added liquidity to a situation of already "excess liquidity" to tackle an apparent liquidity crunch, and yet nothing has got better. Perhaps it was not about liquidity, after all.
» read more | French version

IMF reform has been on the policy agenda for as long as most of us can remember. Since the breakdown in the early 1970s of the Bretton Woods System that the IMF had been created to oversee, observers have questioned whether the Fund still has a mission and tools appropriate to the task. For the older among us, recalling these earlier discussions, it seems like the IMF is always in search of a new job description.

IMF reform has been on the policy agenda for as long as most of us can remember. Since the breakdown in the early 1970s of the Bretton Woods System that the IMF had been created to oversee, observers have questioned whether the Fund still has a mission and tools appropriate to the task. For the older among us, recalling these earlier discussions, it seems like the IMF is always in search of a new job description.
» read more | French version

Financial markets have a bad habit of moving too fast. Many on the marketplace had become used to think that the European monetary union (EMU) meant the creation of an integrated European capital market alongside the progressive disappearance of fragmented, national markets. This left plenty of room for difficult policy questions: should securities regulation be kept separated from prudential supervision, as in the US or France, or brought under the same roof, as in the UK or Germany? Should the system be based on the coordination of national authorities, as now in the so-called Lamfalussy process and its intricate architecture of Europe-wide committees, or should a new European agency be created? Should the approach cover the whole EU and its 25 (soon 27) member states, or be limited to the Eurozone or the continent to bypass a possible British veto? But one thing seemed sure: the relevant scope of the next steps would be of pan-European scale.
» read more | French version