IN FOCUS
OPEC Fund Quarterly : You say that sovereigns may fear their vulnerabilities could be exposed. But isn’t transparency a necessary part of the process? Daniel Cash: Transparency is the end goal here. But this refers to the need for a safe, off-the-record space before any formal disclosures are made. Many sovereigns are understandably cautious about raising in-progress reforms or policy vulnerabilities without clear safeguards. The forums are designed to build confidence and context first – so that public-facing transparency can be more substantive and less risky later. OFQ : The Charter may encourage voluntary participation, but what would stop either side from walking out during the proceedings? DC: The idea is to strike a balance: Participation would be voluntary, but the Charter and MDB facilitation would create procedural consistency – setting expectations on format, confidentiality and thematic scope. That soft structure builds reputational commitment without legal constraint. While walk-outs can’t be prevented, the reputational costs and MDB neutrality provide strong soft power to see the dialogue through.
OFQ : The Chatham House Rule of disclosing information without attribution would only work if there are multiple participants. What would be the ideal number or critical mass? DC: A working assumption is small thematic clusters of around five sovereigns per forum (perhaps slightly more depending on the region). That number would be large enough to support peer learning and a meaningful diversity of perspective, but small enough to ensure confidentiality, focus and procedural clarity. OFQ : Credit rating agencies have been around for decades, meeting the demands of low income countries (LICs) and middle income countries (MICs) to raise funds via bonds. Yet you depict these relationships as “nascent” and “asymmetric” – is this depiction either accurate or fair? DC: What I mean by “nascent” isn’t that rating agencies haven’t been around – they obviously have. It’s that the institutional frameworks for meaningful dialogue remain underdeveloped. I’ve seen governments receive rating decisions with minimal explanation beyond top-line rationales, while
appeal processes are practically non- existent. “Asymmetric” captures who gets to shape the narrative. When a sovereign wants to explain why their debt trajectory isn’t as concerning as it looks, or how governance reforms are progressing, there’s often no structured way to get that story heard. That imbalance isn’t anyone’s fault – it’s just how the system evolved, but it’s worth addressing. OFQ : Developing countries pay higher interest rates because they are higher risk. How can the international development community and private lenders square that circle? DC: I completely agree – risk-based pricing is fundamental. The issue I’ve encountered is when risk gets misread because reforms or resilience strategies don’t register properly with credit rating agencies. Not because the data isn’t there, but because there are inefficiencies to allow it to be seen properly. Better engagement helps ensure that spreads reflect actual fundamentals rather than assumptions or communication gaps.
Photos: SRIMES RATTENACHAI/Shutterstock (left); BigPixel Photo/Shutterstock (right)
24
Powered by FlippingBook