it also needs to be recognized that the process is evolutionary and say two years down the line, present standards themselves can change, in degree and detail though not in kind. in a broad sense, it can be held that all standards are, in some way or other, relevant for all the countries though the extent of relevance, scope for application and urgency of implementation may differ depending upon the stage of development as also the country specific, legal and institutional structures. in particular, in economies which do not have developed markets, the entire market development has to be given greater weight than mere application of standards. in the case of such economies, the advantage is that since they are starting on a clean slate, the standards and best practices could be easily incorporated as they go along with the development of institutions and markets. while there can be no uniform prioritisation of standards relevant for all countries, it is possible to place, on a universal basis considerable emphasis upon certain specific areas depending on individual country circumstances. to quote the task force on implementation of standards chaired by andrew sheng ( 2000 ) : " prioritization of standards for implementation must necessarily vary from economy to economy, taking into consideration their current status in observance of standards, economic circumstances, financial structures, legal and institutional frameworks, and policy priorities. a balance would need to be struck between international and domestic considerations ". it would be useful to explore parameters for prioritization in respect of specific countries though there could be different approaches. for instance, it would be easier to implement standards in areas, which have been substantially developed. on the contrary, the prioritization for a particular country could consider the identification of ‘ weak areas ’. the weak areas may be, for example, weak legal base leading to legal uncertainties, lack of regulation leading to lack of regulatory norms, etc. it may also be possible to classify the standards in a conceptual framework under three broad elements, viz., technical, policy and socio - cultural. standards like sdds, accounting and auditing, and supervision may be classified as purely technical and, therefore, easily amenable to implementation. standards on monetary and financial policies, fiscal transparency and securities regulation have certain policy implications and would form an integral part of the economic reform process in many developing countries. the changes in these areas depend on timing, sequencing and complementarity in related areas and availability of institutional, technological and legal infrastructure. nevertheless, while it is desirable to adopt these standards quickly, it actually boil

is an overriding presumption in the prescriptions that the causes of the crisis rests primarily with policy and institutional weaknesses in the debtor countries and hence place the onus of responsibility of reform on the debtors. the report observes that inadequate attention has been given to the role of institutions and policies of creditor countries. the root of the problem, according to unctad, lies in the failure to establish a stable exchange rate system. there are also criticisms that although the imf introduced the contingent credit lines, it has not been used so far. it is well recognised that the capacity of the imf to raise resources is severely limited and is inadequate compared to the size of the recent financial packages. there are also views that not much has been done on standstill arrangements and bankruptcy procedures. secondly, there are varying perceptions among different actors resulting in inadequate attention to many aspects of international order. a study by prof. stephany griffith jones ( 2001 ) highlights that all key actors involved in the reform process, viz., developed country governments, banking and financial markets and international financial institutions share one common objective, which is, that they are in favour of and benefit from sustained growth of developing countries. for some ( developing countries and international financial institutions ) it is a dominant objective. there is, however, far less agreement on specific measures to be taken for building a new international financial architecture. an important example relates to the opening of the capital accounts by developing countries. while international financial markets have a strong preference for full opening up, most developing countries favour a gradual and sequenced opening up. the study also observes the attitudes of the different players on specific changes in the international financial architecture. the areas include codes and standards, international liquidity, development finance, international regulation, standstill and orderly debt workouts and increased developing country participation. the matrix shows that except in the area of standards and codes, most of the significant measures that would need to be taken have not actually happened. thirdly, it is argued that the progress made so far reflects asymmetry in different participants'responsibilities for the changes required. the main criticism is that it does not adequately address the concerns of developing countries. the obligations contained in the standards and codes seem to reflect the view that the main flaws in the system for international capital movements are to be found in recipient countries which should thus bear the burden of adjustment needed to prevent or contain financial crisis. the unctad report ( 2001 ) states : " the reform process