Dr. Donal Donovan:

There are two different questions. The first is whether the analysis is appropriate in terms of coverage, depth and so on. The second is whether any notice will be taken of it. They are two slightly different questions. The issues I discussed here were essentially to do with the faulty analysis or incomplete analysis of the IMF part. Whatever the analysis is, whether it is good or bad, it may have some impact. In the case of Ireland, the positive indications given as to the state of the financial sector were somewhat counterproductive, as the Governor of the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, said, because they provided a message of reassurance when that was not appropriate.

More generally, there is a problem in that although the IMF's advice is published and the views of the executive board - which usually endorse the staff views, but not always - are published, governments can and do ignore this advice. Sometimes they disagree with it. This is quite common in the UK, for example. Over the years, the UK Chancellor has often said: "That's an interesting report. I agree with much of it, but I strongly disagree with a, b and c." It could be argued, therefore, that a positive role of the IMF is to encourage public debate, encourage exploration of issues and encourage greater public awareness of matters, and to do so indirectly through peer pressure. If all the other countries say to one country, "Your country is really doing bad things. Our collective view, based on experience, is that you should change the policies," that country may say, "Maybe these people have something to say."