A careful review has revealed significant scope to modernize and better align the MAC DSA with its objectives and the IMF’s lending framework. This note proposes replacing the current framework with a new methodology based on risk assessments at three different horizons. Extensive testing has shown that the proposed framework has much better predictive accuracy than the current one. In addition to predicting sovereign stress, the framework can be used to derive statements about debt stabilization under current policies and about debt sustainability.

The framework for fiscal policy and public debt sustainability analysis (DSA) in market-access countries (MACs) was reviewed by the Executive Board in August 2011.1 The review responded to shortcomings in identifying fiscal vulnerabilities and assessing risks to debt sustainability against the backdrop of increased concerns over fiscal policy and public debt sustainability in many advanced economies.

This note provides operational guidance for the use of the Sovereign Risk and Debt Sustainability Framework (SRDSF), which replaces the Debt Sustainability Framework for Market Access Countries. The SRDSF introduces improvements in organization, methodology, transparency, and communication when analyzing public debt issues in countries that mainly finance themselves with market-based debt. After its phased adoption beginning [June 2022], it will become the Fund’s principal tool for assessing public debt sustainability.

NULL

Modernizing the framework for fiscal policy and public debt sustainability analysis (DSA) has become necessary, particularly in light of the recent crisis and rising sustainability concerns in some advanced economies. While recognizing the inherently challenging nature of such analysis, this paper highlights areas where improvements are needed and makes both general and specific proposals on how this could be achieved. It also proposes to move to a risk-based approach to DSAs for all market-access countries, where the depth and extent of analysis would be commensurate with concerns regarding sustainability, while a reasonable level of standardization would be maintained.

The Debt Sustainability Framework for Low-income Countries (LIC DSF) has been the cornerstone of assessments of risks to debt sustainability in LICs. The framework classifies countries based on their assessed debt-carrying capacity, estimates threshold levels for selected debt burden indicators, evaluates baseline projections and stress test scenarios relative to these thresholds, and then combines indicative rules and staff judgment to assign risk ratings of external debt distress. The framework has demonstrated its operational value since the last review was conducted in 2012, but there are areas where new features can be introduced to enhance its performance in assessing risks. Against the backdrop of the evolving nature of risks facing LICs, both staff analysis and stakeholder feedback suggest gaps in the framework to be addressed. Complexity and lack of transparency have also been highlighted as causes for concern. This paper proposes a set of reforms to enhance the value of the LIC DSF for all users. In developing these reforms, staff has been guided by two over-arching principles: a) the core architecture of the DSF—model-based results complemented by judgment—remains appropriate; and b) reforms should ensure that the DSF maintains an appropriate balance by providing countries with early warnings of potential debt distress without unnecessarily constraining their borrowing for development.

The Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) is a standardized framework for analyzing debt-related vulnerabilities in low-income countries (LICs). It aims to help countries monitor their debt burden and take early preventive action, to provide guidance to creditors in ensuring their lending decisions are consistent with countries’ development goals, and to improve the Bank and Fund’s assessments and policy advice. The DSF was last reviewed in 2006, and a reconsideration of some aspects of the framework is timely.