Search

Access to finance, particularly credit, is widely recognized as problematic for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), hampering their growth and development. To address this challenge, many governments around the world intervene in SME credit markets through credit guarantee schemes (CGSs). A CGS offers risk mitigation to lenders by taking a share of the lenders’ losses on SME loans in case of default. CGSs can contribute to expand access to finance for SMEs. Yet they may bring limited value added and prove costly if they are not designed and implemented well. There have been efforts in recent years to identify good practices for CGSs, but the international community still lacks a common set of principles or standards that can help governments establish, operate, and evaluate CGSs for SMEs. The Principles for Public Credit Guarantees for SMEs are filling this gap. The Principles provide a generally accepted set of good practices, which can serve as a global reference for the design, execution, and evaluation of public CGSs around the world. The Principles propose appropriate governance and risk management arrangements, as well as operational conduct rules for CGSs, which can lead to improved outreach and additionality along with financial sustainability. Developed through extensive consultations with stakeholders, the Principles draw from both the literature on good practices for CGSs and sound practices implemented by a number of successful CGSs around the world.

After two years of fragile recovery from the global recession, as a group the six South East European countries (SEE6) Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia are experiencing a double-dip recession in 2012. Deteriorating external conditions, the impact of the severe winter on economic activity, and a continuing rise in unemployment early in the year took a toll on consumption, investments, and exports. In this fragile environment, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro in particular will need to persevere in reducing fiscal deficits and bringing down debt, even as they must continue to improve the investment climate and reform labor markets and the public sector. In all SEE6 countries, public sector arrears pose special challenges to fiscal management and the private sector, and there are unfinished, structural reforms agendas. After two years of deep crisis, a sluggish recovery, rising unemployment and poverty, and a continuing recession even with the best efforts on fiscal consolidation and structural reforms, which must continue there is a danger that SEE6 countries are caught in a vicious circle that reinforces the cycle of long-term austerity, low if not negative growth, high debt, and even higher risks of social upheaval. To prevent this outcome, this report argues, SEE6 governments need to redouble their efforts to accelerate fiscal and structural reforms. These countries have largely exhausted their fiscal space and reduced public investment (except Kosovo, an outlier) to a fraction of what is needed to maintain public capital stock in critical infrastructure. Private investment is suppressed by the lack of productive, complementary public investments, slow credit recovery, and depressed domestic demand. External demand is minimal, and exports are not only too few, they are prevented from becoming an immediate, new engine of growth by infrastructure, finance, and other deficiencies. If such accelerated reforms materialize, external support well-coordinated and targeting the region as a whole, not just individual countries from the European Union (EU) and global international financial institutions (IFIs) could help ease the transition to a more sustained growth in medium term. In November 2012, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the World Bank announced 30 billion in financing for Central and South East European countries over the next two years. In SEE6 countries, this timely initiative would likely be delivered via the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) and other IFI resources. Investment Promotion Agency (IPA) resources will also be important, especially in supporting institutional reform and rural development. By focusing on major infrastructure of regional significance (rail, highways, energy, and gas) and on jobs and small and medium enterprises, the efficiency of investments, growth, and employment could be substantially heightened. However, additional financing for growth and jobs could prove effective only if accompanied by intensified fiscal and structural reforms, especially in the areas of investment climate, labor markets, and governance.