Debt Management and Debt Market Development, 2000–05 Debt Management

debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward trend, and Peru could very well reach levels of less than 30 percent of GDP by 2010. Given the good external conditions, growth in the rest of the decade could be as strong as it has been in the last two years. How-ever, if global conditions change, and the scenario turns less positive, leading to a slowdown in economic activity and lower primary surpluses, Peru’s debt path would change, and could lead to an increase in debt-to-GDP to over 40 percent.

Debt Sustainability Recommendations

Fiscal surpluses and growth are the most important factors in Peru’s debt dynamics and are key to debt sustainability. The country’s fiscal stance is a crucial policy lever that the Government can utilize to manage its debt dynamics. The Gov-ernment needs to reach the expenditure and revenue quantitative and qualitative tar-gets (Loayza and Polastri 2006). The continued generation of primary surpluses is essential to bring down the debt level, especially in the event of a slowdown in GDP growth, rising interest rates, and a devalued exchange rate. This is all the more impor-tant given that safe thresholds of debt-to-GDP ratio are lower for emerging market countries.

The government should further minimize the debt risks by continuing to mod-ernize debt management, as discussed in the next sections.

III. Debt Management and Debt Market Development, 2000–05

being designed and implemented. These measures are helping reduce budget vulner-ability to financial and economic shocks.

In 2005, the DNEP’s Middle Office (MO) was reorganized and a Front Office (FO) is being built. The MO was expanded to strengthen the analytical work lead-ing to the preparation of a borrowlead-ing strategy and to help promote debt market development. The creation of the FO will be instrumental in the DNEP’s ability to execute debt operations and to provide critical input in the preparation of the bor-rowing strategy. In 2004, the former Crédito Públicomodified its organizational structure and changed its name to DNEP to reflect the broader scope of its functions as established in the new Debt Law. A new unit—Dirección de Normatividad—was created to fulfill the new responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance (MEF) regarding a legal and regulatory framework for the indebtedness of sub-sovereigns, guarantees and concessions, and contingent liabilities.

As discussed above, the debt unit has gone a long way in mitigating refinancing and interest-rate risk, mainly through prefinancing and substituting Paris Club loans. While important steps have been taken to increase the share of local currency funding, currency exposure remains high and is the chief financial risk of the debt portfolio. This exposure needs to be addressed given the potential increase in exchange rate volatility that may result from changes in monetary policy and/or changing external conditions.

Debt Management Recommendations

Going forward, the main challenge for the Dirección de Normatividadis to put together a strategy to address foreign-currency exposure in a way that is consistent with the macroeconomic environment and with the pace at which the domestic debt market is developing. This will require: (i) enhancing the formality of the decision-making process; (ii) bolstering the capacity to analyze alternative borrowing strate-Figure 11. Emerging Markets Bond Index, Global Spreads

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

12/31/98 12/31/99 12/31/00 12/31/01 12/31/02 12/31/03 12/31/04 12/31/05 Latin Peru

0

Basis points

Latin America Peru

Source: JP Morgan, Emerging Markets Bond Index (EMBI) Global, Bloomberg.

gies, including the short end of the curve; and (iii) strengthening the unit’s capacity for execution, recording, and bookkeeping, especially with regard to derivatives.

FORMALIZE A DEBT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The major policy decisions determining the structure of the public debt portfolio are taken in a somewhat informal manner by high-level authorities within the MEF.

Without formal mechanisms for deciding on the debt strategy, the government might be unable to maintain a medium-term course oriented towards clearly defined debt management objectives.

A more institutional decision-making process could be where a proposal is drafted by the MO and the ultimate decision is taken by the Minister with the help of a debt management advisory committee. The committee would debate the proposals pre-pared by the debt unit. Other countries’ experience could offer guidance on the structure of the committee. An initial step, which has already been undertaken, is to document the current debt strategy (MEF 2005).

The possibility of BCRP taking part in the debt management committee as a coor-dination mechanism should be considered. Currently, the debt unit is only responsible for a borrowing strategy in the medium and long end of the yield curve. The short end is left to the BCRP, which issues its own CDs with maturities up to three years. The committee could coordinate the development of an integrated strategy for the whole yield curve to avoid potential conflicts. A plan could be prepared to transition towards conducting monetary policy in the secondary market in a few years.

BOLSTER ANALYTICAL CAPACITY TO DEVELOP A DEBT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The current debt management strategy is rather intuitive and could be better sup-ported by the systematic analysis of cost and risk. With this in mind, the MO has developed a stochastic model to quantify cost and risk. However, its specification could be simplified and the model output needs to be tested. More importantly, the analytical framework for the strategy design needs to explicitly incorporate macro-economic constraints and market development considerations. A thorough under-standing of the way in which macroeconomic and market considerations can be included in the strategy design is fundamental to decide on the pace at which the share of domestic currency debt can be increased.

STRENGTHEN THE DEBT MANAGEMENT UNIT’S CAPACITY FOR EXECUTING AND RECORDING TRANSACTIONS

At present, the FO is unprepared for a high level of activity in issuance, exchanges, and hedge operations in the domestic and the international capital markets. Devel-oping and implementing a training program, that covers the functioning of financial instruments and financial markets, market intelligence, syndications, and so forth, would boost the unit’s capacity and would allow the FO to contribute to the formu-lation of the debt management strategy. The latter is critical in the case of Peru, given the embryonic state of domestic market development.

The Back Office (BO) is not fully prepared to process hedging operations trans-acted by the debt unit. Systems are outdated, inefficient, and cannot account for and monitor derivatives. To upgrade BO functioning, the current processes should be assessed and reengineered according to international best practice. Subsequently, the IT systems could be redesigned in line with the new processes, and a training pro-gram for the staff could be prepared.

Debt Market Development

Since 2001, the MEF has made significant strides in developing a domestic govern-ment bond market. Within an overall framework of strong economic performance and fiscal discipline, BCRP’s monetary policy of inflation-targeting accompanied, by a managed float through dollar purchase and nuevo sol sterilization have reduced volatility in interest and foreign exchange rates. This has provided a favorable back-ground to allow local capital markets to play a small but growing role in funding MEF financing needs. With consistent improvements in macroeconomic stability, MEF started to tap the domestic debt market, introduced Dutch auctions in 2002, focused initially on two and three year maturities, then started to build longer-term instruments. The process of domestic debt market development got a boost in 2003 through the introduction of the primary dealership system (Creadores de Mercado).

Currently, auctions are held monthly after consultation with market participants.

Sol-denominated, fixed-rate bonds have up to 15-year terms, and nuevo sol VACs extend up to 30 years. This trend is having the side effect of providing the financial system with a nuevo sol reference curve, despite the high degree of financial dollarization.

Prior to 2000, the only domestic public bonds were bank-restructuring, privately-placed, and U.S. dollar-denominated. By December 2004, the domestic bonds out-standing had become mostly market issues (Figure 12), denominated in nuevo soles (or nuevo soles VAC) and with semiannual coupon payments and fungiblity, thus limiting the number of different bonds outstanding and allowing for a larger stock under each line.

In 2002, the MEF and DNEP developed the comprehensive design of domestic bonds instruments and issuance processes. Market participants had a negative per-ception of government credit risk due to the absence of an organized, market-based set of instruments. DNEP decided to adopt a primary dealer (PD) system to foster the development of the domestic market. PDs’ incentives versus obligations are detailed in the Reglamento de Creadores de Mercado. DNEP also considers using active exchanges to further consolidate the number of domestic bonds maturing in any given calendar year.

The Peruvian financial market is highly concentrated, which is reflected in gov-ernment debt ownership. There are five private pension funds (AFPs), twelve banks (with the top five represent close to 80 percent of the total), four life insurance com-panies, and four fund managers. While banks and mutual funds invest more in

instruments with a residual maturity below five years, AFPs, foreign investors and life insurance companies have an appetite for long-term nominal and inflation-linked paper. This concentration segments the demand and limits securities trading (see Figure 13).

Domestic government securities outstanding as of November, 2005, represent a lower share of banks assets and AFP assets than in comparable countries in the region (Mexico, Colombia, and Chile). This partly reflects the early stages of the debt mar-ket’s development. Also, investors’ appetite for government exposure may be less.

Moreover, domestic bonds compete with internationally issued Peruvian bonds in local investors’ exposure to government debt.

Well-functioning securities funding tools, such as repurchase agreements (repos) and securities lending systems, could increase the liquidity of the market for govern-ment bonds. The Superintendencia de Banca y Seguros (SBS) has issued a regulatory clarification and adopted FAS133¹⁵accounting for repos, with two possible account-ing schemes. Problems exist with repo enforceability in Peru, particularly in the case Figure 12. Local Currency Bond Market

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Amount in million Soles

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year Bonds issued during year Bonds outstanding end of year Source MEF: auctions results, not including bond swaps “encajes.”

of a bankruptcy. Securities lending requires a special setup in the custody/clearing entity CAVALI,¹⁶in order to warehouse the lending collateral and unwind the trans-action at maturity.

In terms of market infrastructure, CAVALI implemented the last steps towards Delivery versus Payment (DVP) in government securities in November 2005, thus eliminating principal risk. Transactions on government securities are supported by three centralized trading platforms (Datatec,¹⁷CIMD,¹⁸and BVL’s ELEX), and set-tled by the custodian CAVALI.¹⁹CAVALI went live on the link to BCRP’s RTGS system, which eliminates counterparty principal risk.

Figure 13. Peru’s Debt Owners

Peru Domestic Fixed Rate Bonds Ownership (October 2005)

Pension Funds 36%

Banks 18%

Mutual Funds 5%

Non-residents 35%

Insurance 0%

Others 6%

Pension Funds 33%

Banks Mutual Funds 26%

0%

Non-residents 6%

Insurance 33%

Others 2%

Peru Domestic Inflation-Indexed Bonds Ownership (October 2005)

Source: DNEP.

While these improvements have been substantial, the authorities in the debt man-agement unit and the MEF view it as a work in progress. The recommendations that follow are directed at improving the functioning of the primary market and promot-ing the conditions for a more active and liquid secondary market.

Debt Market Development Recommendations

MEF should ensure the regular issuance of government paper across the curve and coordinate with other issuers in the public sector. DNEP should not neglect short- and medium-term instruments.²⁰Appropriate supply of these instruments to the market could be developed in coordination with the Treasury and BCRP and should be part of the over-all debt strategy. BCRP should increase its efforts to standardize CDs maturities and min-imize the number of issues in the market to facilitate their trading in the secondary market.²¹A transition mechanism toward conducting monetary policy in the secondary market would be a major step in improving the functioning of the primary market.

The Primary Dealers’ system has to be reinforced to ensure minimum liq-uidity in the secondary market. Dealers trading volumes outside the resale of ini-tial offerings are very limited, and institutional investors often trade directly with each other. MEF should reexamine and formulate an adequate and sustainable mix of incentives and obligations. In particular, the possibility of paying a small fee for increased quoting obligations could help develop a guaranteed liquidity cushion to address minimum investor exit needs without disrupting the market.

MEF and other regulators should continue to push for a well-functioning repo and securities lending mechanism. At present, market makers are heavily restricted to finance the trading of securities in the interbank market, which is small, fragmented, and concentrated mostly in overnight, unsecured transactions. This would change with the development of a repo market, which could be done in two stages: first, a Master Repurchase Agreement (MRA) would be drafted reviewing bankruptcy laws as well as the accounting standards; second, a repo clearing mechanism would be established at CAVALI in a manner consistent with the legal framework and accounting rules.

MEF needs to ensure that the financial system has the capacity to manage the risks arising from holding and trading public debt instruments. In the concen-trated and fairly illiquid securities market, sharp adjustments in asset value could gen-erate a debt market squeeze (such as occurred in Brazil in 2003, Colombia in 2002, and Mexico in 2004). MEF and SBS should promote stronger risk-management prac-tices of investors. Also, the Business and Securities National Supervisory Commission (Comisión Nacional Supervisora de Empresas y Valores— CONASEV) and MEF should provide a regulatory framework for the voice broker CIMD and for Datatec.²²

The DNEP should continue its recent efforts to establish regular dialogue with the investors and closely follow the regulatory changesrelated to the criti-cally important investor segments: banks, fund managers, insurance companies, and most important, private pensions.²³These considerations are critical inputs to the DNEP’s strategy for debt management and market development.

ANOPPORTUNITYFORADIFFERENTPERU: PROSPEROUS, EQUITABLE, ANDGOVERNABLE

Table A.I.1. General Government Debt (percent of GDP)

LTFC

rating 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005e

A countries 19.1 20.4 21.7 24.0 30.2 32.2 33.0 32.8 35.7 35.6 36.1

Cyprus A+ 49.8 51.2 55.2 59.6 59.9 59.9 61.9 65.2 69.7 71.7 69.1

Korea A+ 8.9 11.1 13.7 24.5 30.6 31.0 35.3 33.5 33.5 34.5 35.8

Taiwan A+ 24.4 24.4 25.1 22.6 23.1 26.6 30.7 32.2 34.6 36.2 37.8

Chile A 40.4 37.3 37.3 34.2 35.7 36.2 36.8 36.8 33.8 29.7 23.8

China A 10.5 10.7 10.8 17.2 24.3 29.9 29.8 30.3 28.8 28.3 27.0

Czech Republic A 14.8 15.2 15.3 20.0 29.8 33.4 26.3 29.8 36.8 36.5 36.4

Estonia A 7.5 7.5 6.4 5.6 6.0 4.7 4.4 5.3 5.9 5.4 4.5

Greece A 108.7 111.3 108.2 105.8 112.3 114.0 114.4 111.6 108.8 109.3 107.9

Malta A 32.9 39.5 47.3 59.7 57.2 56.0 61.7 61.2 71.3 76.6 75.6

Saudi Arabia A 9.7 12.9 16.6 21.1 23.6 20.2 25.1 22.3 21.2 17.7 12.1

Slovakia A 21.6 30.6 33.1 34.0 47.2 49.9 49.4 43.8 43.1 42.6 37.9

Bahrain A- 16.5 15.8 18.3 23.5 29.5 29.3 30.3 32.1 36.9 35.1 34.9

Israel A- 109.7 106.8 103.6 106.4 100.8 90.8 95.9 104.7 106.5 104.9 104.2

Latvia A- 14.6 13.3 11.0 9.8 12.6 12.8 15.0 14.2 14.6 13.1 14.9

Lithuania A- 14.9 16.4 15.8 16.8 23.0 23.6 22.9 22.3 21.2 19.5 19.2

Malaysia A- 41.1 35.3 31.9 36.4 37.3 36.6 43.6 45.6 47.9 48.2 48.9

BBB countries 47.9 37.3 37.7 33.6 40.2 38.5 41.2 42.9 38.5 35.7 34.2

Hungary BBB+ 85.3 72.0 64.2 62.4 62.1 56.1 53.1 56.7 59.0 60.3 61.2

Poland BBB+ 47.9 44.0 43.2 38.5 40.2 37.1 37.8 42.9 47.4 46.3 46.4

South Africa BBB+ 49.5 48.9 48.0 48.0 45.5 42.0 41.2 35.6 35.5 35.3 34.2

Thailand BBB+ 4.7 5.0 24.0 32.1 38.3 38.5 38.2 39.4 35.1 34.2 31.5

Aruba BBB 38.5 23.9 37.7 30.3 27.2 36.9 42.0 47.1 41.1 44.2 44.8

Bulgaria BBB 111.9 295.9 101.1 75.8 79.2 73.5 66.1 52.8 45.2 38.6 31.4

Kazakhstan BBB 7.5 9.6 12.2 16.6 26.5 21.6 18.0 15.6 13.5 10.8 9.5

Mexico BBB 50.2 37.3 31.6 33.6 44.9 38.5 38.1 39.4 38.5 35.7 34.9

AINABILITYANDDEBTMANAGEMENT155

Namibia BBB- 15.3 17.9 20.2 23.9 25.1 24.1 27.1 24.5 30.2 34.0 31.7

Romania BBB- 20.5 27.8 27.7 27.6 33.2 31.4 28.8 28.8 26.9 23.1 22.5

BB countries 44.4 47.7 41.7 46.7 55.9 52.7 57.6 59.4 57.3 51.8 45.3

Egypt BB+ 121.4 108.5 93.4 77.6 75.9 75.1 83.0 97.7 111.4 110.0 112.6

El Salvador BB+ 31.4 31.9 30.5 27.3 28.3 29.8 33.7 38.7 40.6 40.5 39.6

Guatemala BB+ 23.7 20.9 20.3 20.1 19.7 18.9 18.8 16.3 17.6 17.8 16.6

India BB+ 70.5 66.9 68.9 69.9 72.6 76.4 81.3 85.4 85.8 86.1 84.3

Panama BB+ 79.5 66.9 61.8 60.2 62.3 59.8 64.7 63.7 63.5 65.9 61.4

Azerbaijan BB 12.3 14.1 14.1 15.8 24.6 25.4 27.5 26.3 25.6 20.9 15.4

Colombia BB 19.2 20.2 24.1 27.5 37.9 45.1 51.7 55.1 54.6 50.2 48.2

Costa Rica BB 44.4 42.3 40.0 38.9 45.5 45.8 47.8 51.2 50.7 49.2 45.7

Macedonia BB 19.4 27.4 32.8 37.0 36.0 53.5 52.3 46.1 42.5 39.4 43.0

Peru BB 56.4 57.8 41.7 47.4 50.3 46.8 45.6 47.0 47.3 44.3 37.8

Philippines BB 61.1 53.2 55.7 56.6 58.4 62.7 63.0 67.0 72.1 69.8 68.8

Brazil BB- 44.4 55.9 58.1 55.5 63.8 67.6 73.9 84.2 78.9 75.4 75.2

Indonesia BB- 31.0 24.8 38.4 50.3 87.3 91.8 77.7 68.8 60.0 57.2 48.7

Iran BB- 34.8 27.6 25.1 29.1 22.8 17.3 16.5 21.3 20.5 17.6 15.3

Lesotho BB- 65.1 62.6 53.7 69.3 69.1 83.7 101.4 73.8 65.1 53.4 44.9

Nigeria BB- ... ... ... ... ... 85.6 79.5 93.8 80.0 66.0 40.7

Serbia BB- 699.2 247.3 217.4 194.6 162.3 241.5 111.2 74.4 68.9 58.9 56.2

Sri Lanka BB- 95.2 93.3 85.8 90.9 95.1 96.9 103.2 105.6 105.8 105.4 95.3

Turkey BB- 46.1 47.7 46.6 43.5 55.9 51.9 102.0 89.3 79.6 74.0 69.4

Ukraine BB- 41.0 25.7 33.3 46.7 59.4 44.4 36.0 33.0 28.7 22.6 17.1

Venezuela BB- 59.8 59.5 45.7 42.5 38.4 33.2 35.6 44.4 50.8 39.7 35.0

Vietnam BB- 19.8 16.5 21.2 20.7 22.2 32.2 33.4 31.8 30.6 33.0 34.1

B/C/D countries 67.5 66.3 63.1 79.9 90.0 91.5 78.3 88.5 81.1 74.3 68.0

Cape Verde B+ 88.5 93.7 80.6 79.9 90.0 121.8 119.8 107.7 97.6 93.3 95.0

Ghana B+ 90.7 81.6 89.6 95.1 119.6 160.3 127.8 120.6 101.4 80.3 70.0

Mongolia B+ 45.1 62.2 65.8 88.2 112.6 98.5 95.2 91.9 104.8 99.0 75.9

Uruguay B+ 32.6 31.2 33.8 35.5 41.8 47.0 60.2 118.7 112.9 92.6 72.3

Benin B 78.3 74.7 63.1 58.9 60.4 60.4 59.6 51.6 41.1 41.7 42.1

(Table continues on the following page.)

ANOPPORTUNITYFORADIFFERENTPERU: PROSPEROUS, EQUITABLE, ANDGOVERNABLE

LTFC

rating 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005e

Mozambique B 271.9 185.4 163.6 161.3 144.8 151.9 158.1 94.8 86.9 62.9 68.0

Papua N. Guinea B 61.3 59.9 59.9 70.6 67.2 61.7 69.2 75.4 68.0 60.8 59.5

Suriname B 44.7 21.1 16.5 24.7 48.3 69.7 51.6 48.0 41.7 39.5 36.7

Uganda B 62.0 62.3 60.1 61.4 45.6 43.7 65.1 74.7 81.1 75.7 65.0

Bolivia B- 48.1 46.1 46.2 48.6 50.7 51.9 49.4 57.8 67.1 74.3 73.7

Cameroon B- 110.0 110.0 110.0 127.9 126.7 106.2 99.2 88.5 66.4 65.1 57.5

Dominican Rep. B- 30.3 27.0 29.1 29.0 26.5 25.9 23.5 29.4 46.9 29.9 30.5

Ecuador B- 67.5 66.3 58.8 67.3 100.7 88.2 67.4 58.2 53.3 48.0 45.3

Lebanon B- 74.8 94.2 97.9 109.2 131.5 151.1 165.9 169.9 166.9 164.0 168.5

Mali B- 102.3 108.4 105.9 101.1 92.6 95.6 85.6 80.5 75.3 69.0 67.4

Moldova B- 59.4 65.6 44.4 81.6 85.6 91.5 78.3 73.1 58.5 47.6 39.7

Gambia CCC 133.9 121.8 123.7 136.1 130.2 156.8 150.6 188.3 182.7 162.9 150.7

Malawi CCC 154.4 103.1 110.3 208.3 158.0 208.4 155.0 193.7 219.0 172.8 166.0

Argentina RD 34.4 36.4 35.4 38.2 43.5 45.6 53.6 149.9 137.9 121.0 79.5

Source: FitchRatings (http://www.fitchratings.com/).

Table A.I.2. Cumulative Debt Decomposition for 21 Market Access Countries (percent of GDP)

1991–1996 1997–2002 1991–2002

Total change in public debt 13.8 26.6 12.7

Primary fiscal balance 6.7 5.2 11.9

Real GDP growth rate 14.5 7.8 22.3

Real interest rate 0.4 19.4 19.8

Real exchange rate 3.5 8.6 5.1

Other factors 10.1 9.1 19.2

O/w recognized liabilities 0.4 2.4 2.8

Source: Budina and Fiess (2004).

ANOPPORTUNITYFORADIFFERENTPERU: PROSPEROUS, EQUITABLE, ANDGOVERNABLE

Cumulative

Start of Debt/GNP change in Primary (secondary) Debt/GNP

Episode (percent) Total Debt reasons for fall in end-2000

(year t) t t + 3 (US$ billion) (percent) Debt/GNP ratio^a (percent)

Debt default/restructuring during the episode

Russia 1999 96 67 14.06 5.9 Debt reduction (output growth) 67

Egypt 1987 110 79 11.13 3.4 Debt reduction (output growth) 29

Iran 1993 42 16 6.8 3.1 Net repayment 8

Jordan 1991 249 129 1.84 6.9 Debt reduction (output growth) 99

Bulgaria 1992 116 81 1.58 6.3 Debt reduction 86

Costa Rica 1987 111 69 0.97 4.3 Debt reduction (output growth) 31

Bolivia 1988 113 80 0.84 4.3 Debt reduction (output growth) 72

Chile 1985 142 88 0.8 5.7 Output growth 54

Jamaica 1990 125 93 0.57 2.3 Debt reduction (output growth) 61

Paraguay 1987 69 39 0.42 4.9 Debt reduction (output growth) 41

Gabon 1978 70 32 0.38 8.0 Net repayment 94

Albania 1992 98 18 0.18 2.7 Debt reduction 20

Panama 1989 135 100 0.03 6.8 Output growth 75

Philippines 1986 96 68 0.45 5.2 Output growth 63

Morocco 1985 129 98 5.01 5.6 Output growth 55

No debt default/restructuring during the episode

Thailand 1998 97 66 25.24 0.1 Net repayment 66

Korea 1985 52 20 11.42 9.7 Net repayment (output growth) 30

Malaysia 1986 83 44 5.6 6.4 Net repayment (output growth) 51

Papua New Guinea 1992 93 56 1.28 8.7 Net repayment (output growth) 71

Lebanon 1990 51 17 0.43 9.1 Net repayment (output growth) 59

Botswana 1976 42 16 0.03 13.5 Output growth (net repayment) 8

Swaziland 1985 68 40 0.02 9.3 Output growth 17

Source: Reinhart, Rogoff, and Savastano (2003).

a. Column lists the economic factors that contributed to at least 20 percent of the decline in the debt-to-GNP ratio during each episode. The contribution of changes in the US dollar value of nominal GNP (which were often sizable) or of changes in the valuation of the debt stock are not listed among the factors.

Graph A.I.1. Chile Public Debt (percent of GDP)

Graph A.I.2. Argentina Public Debt (percent of GDP)

Graph A.I.3. Dominican Republic Public Debt (percent of GDP)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Domestic currency denominated debt Foreign currency denominated debt

Source: Central Bank (net public debt).

Source: Central Bank.

0 40 80 120 160

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

External debt Domestic debt

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005*

Percent of GDP

External debt Domestic debt

Source: IMF.

Trong tài liệu Prosperous, Equitable, and Governable (Trang 179-192)