Skip to main content
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Search

Natural Resource Governance Institute

  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Economic diversification
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Revenue sharing
    Civic space
    Energy transition
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Sovereign wealth funds
    Commodity prices
    Gender
    Measurement of governance
    State-owned enterprises
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Global initiatives
    Open data
    Subnational governance
    Coronavirus
    Legislation and regulation
    Revenue management
    Tax policy and revenue collection
    Corruption
    Licensing and negotiation
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
      • Civil society actors
      • Government officials
      • Journalists and media
      • Parliaments and political parties
      • Private sector
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Countries
    NRGI Priority Countries
    Colombia
    Guinea
    Nigeria
    Tanzania
    Dem. Rep. of Congo
    Mexico
    Peru
    Tunisia
    Ghana
    Mongolia
    Senegal
    Uganda
    OTHER COUNTRIES
  • Learning
    • Training
      • Residential training courses
        • Executive
        • Anglophone Africa
        • Francophone Africa
        • Asia-Pacific
        • Eurasia
        • Latin America
        • Middle East and North Africa
      • Online training courses
        • Advanced
        • Negotiating Contracts
        • Massive open online course (MOOC)
        • Interactive course: Petronia
      • Trainers' modules
        • (empty)
    • Primers
    • Glossary
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
      • 2020-2025 Strategy
      • Country prioritization
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog

You are here

  1. Home
  2. Blog

Debt Sustainability Challenges in Resource-Rich Developing Countries

18 November 2016
Author
David Mihalyi
Topics
Commodity pricesEconomic diversificationMeasurement of governanceOpen dataRevenue managementSovereign wealth funds
Countries
GhanaMozambiqueSierra Leone
Stakeholders
Civil society actorsGovernment officialsJournalists and mediaParliaments and political partiesPrivate sector
Precepts
P1 P2 P7 P8 P9 P11 P12 What are Natural Resource Charter precepts?
Social Sharing

A 10-year boom in the prices of many commodities drew to a close last year. During previous booms, governments in developing countries have often squandered wealth accumulated through oil, gas and minerals, directing little of the proceeds toward effective investment or saving. When boom turned to bust, resource-rich countries were caught out, forced into debt spirals.

At the beginning of this decade, observers had reason to be more optimistic about how windfall revenues were being managed—many countries had put commitments and rules in place to prioritize productive domestic investment or saving for “rainy days.” With commodity prices now low again, these policies have been put to test and fiscal sustainability is once again a burning question.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are currently undertaking a review of their debt sustainability framework for low-income countries. They use the framework to assess countries’ risk of debt distress; the results are closely watched by financial markets and aid donors. Framework assessments can therefore impact how much additional borrowing countries can access, and at what rates. We at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) submitted comments to the fund and bank on how the framework could better address the particular debt sustainability challenges faced by resource-rich countries.

To place the importance of these challenges in context, I analyzed how shifts in the World Bank/IMF debt sustainability assessments (DSA) varied depending on countries’ levels of dependence on natural resources between 2001 and 2016. Of the 70 low-income countries where the bank and IMF conducted debt sustainability analysis, 13 were classified as resource-rich and an additional 11 as prospective natural resource exporters in 2012. The following graph shows the results of the latest assessment available for each country in three years when summary results were published (2011, 2013, 2016).


Click to enlarge.


DSA results from 2016 are available from the IMF website. I obtained results from 2011 and 2013 using the Wayback Machine internet archive, where original IMF PDFs are stored even after removal from the IMF website. I then scraped the files, compiled the data into a dataset, and visualized it using Tableau.

At the beginning of this decade, the majority of resource-rich and prospective exporter countries had low debt burdens as a result of the HIPC debt relief initiative and a favorable economic outlook due to rising commodity prices. This picture is confirmed by the 2011 cross-country review of debt sustainability analysis, reporting that only 25 percent of these countries were in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress, compared to 35 percent across all other countries assessed. The picture remained largely unchanged when it was rendered in 2013. But following the recent decline in commodity prices the analysis has changed significantly. According to the latest list of debt sustainability analysis published in this year, the IMF considers 33 percent of resource-rich and prospective resource exporter countries in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress, compared to 28 percent across resource-poor countries.

The data allows us to track changes for each country over time across the different assessments. For the period for which data was available using the 2011 and 2016 list of assessments, the risk of debt distress on average decreased across resource-poor countries, while it increased somewhat in resource-rich countries, and even more so in countries classed as prospective resource exporters.

Some of the most dramatic examples include Ghana and Mozambique, where hopes of imminent resource riches might have contributed to ballooning borrowing. In Mozambique, after major gas discoveries in 2010, negotiations with investors dragged on for years. (A final investment decision is expected by the end of the year.) During this same period the government accumulated enormous debt—some of it secretly for purchasing military hardware. In Ghana, despite rapid progress moving from the first major oil discovery in 2007 to production in 2010, government revenue accumulation remained low—far below what would have been required to keep up with the rapid increase in government spending. The government of Mozambique recently requested assistance from the IMF, while Ghana obtained an IMF bailout last year.

In other places, the debt sustainability outlook reported by the IMF remained unchanged, but extractive projects such as the Simandou project in Guinea and the Tonkolili project in Sierra Leone are major nodes of uncertainty. Both iron ore mines were projected to double their countries’ GDP only a few years ago, but their future is now uncertain after delays, halts and changes in ownership. Studies of the history of resource-rich countries also show that the effects of commodity price volatility are a key contributor to the “resource curse.”

After the number-crunching and country cases, it’s clear that the debt sustainability framework should pay special attention to both resource-rich developing countries and prospective exporters of resources. In our comments to the IMF we provide recommendations on how the framework could incorporate the special characteristics of these countries more directly and transparently:

  • Analyze scenarios related to delays or cancellation of giant extractive projects
  • Ensure that non-traditional debt instruments tied to commodities are adequately captured in the framework
  • Provide special attention to the sustainability risks caused by the opacity of the resource sector

The note also provides suggestions on making the framework more accessible for reuse, which would make it much easier for civil society organizations, researchers and the private sector to reproduce and scrutinize analysis (like that above) and conduct more detailed reviews of sustainability.

David Mihalyi is an economic analyst with NRGI.


 

Related content

Countries Struggling with Governance Manage $1.2 Trillion in Resource Wealth

David MihalyiAnna Fleming
8 September 2017

NRGI’s Top 10 Blog Posts in 2016

13 December 2016

At International Anti-Corruption Conference, Calls for Sustained—and Heightened—Vigilance

Max George-Wagner
16 December 2016

Natural Resource Charter Benchmarking Framework: 170 Crucial Questions for Resource-Rich Countries

Robert PitmanDavid Manley
17 October 2016

May 2015 Letter from the President

14 May 2015
Helping people to realize the benefits of their countries’ endowments of oil, gas and minerals.
Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Subscribe to Updates
  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Civic space
    Commodity prices
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Coronavirus
    Corruption
    Economic diversification
    Energy transition
    Gender
    Global initiatives
    Legislation and regulation
    Licensing and negotiation
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Measurement of governance
    Open data
    Revenue management
    Revenue sharing
    Sovereign wealth funds
    State-owned enterprises
    Subnational governance
    Tax policy and revenue collection
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Priority
    Countries
    • Colombia
    • Dem. Rep. of Congo
    • Ghana
    • Guinea
    • Mexico
    • Mongolia
    • Nigeria
    • Peru
    • Senegal
    • Tanzania
    • Tunisia
    • Uganda
  • Learning
    • Training
    • Primers
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Search