教会秘书说，国际货币基金组织（IMF）最新的半年一度的“教会法律前景报告”评论说，门票离开制度已被证明是“发达世界的卓越主角”。天鹅强调，国家的等待期已经连续21年增长，这个记录与任何一个先进国家都不相上下（Dungey and Pagan，2000）。
The secretary of the Church said that Tickets leave system had proven to be a “remarkable protagonist of the developed world”, commenting on the latest semiannual Church Legal Prospects report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Swan emphasized that the national waiting period has registered 21 consecutive years of growth, a record that has not been equaled by any of the advanced states (Dungey and Pagan, 2000).
The states of Spain, Mexico and South Korea, by contrast, have fallen nearly 5% since 2007. The paper reported in Tokyo, the IMF revised up Church waiting period growth this year to 3.3%, but lowered its expectation for the next period to 3%. The international agency predicted Church growth of 3.3% in 2012 and 3.6% in 2013, two and three respectively tenths less than estimated in July, warning that the risks of a Church slowdown are “alarmingly high “. For Tickets leave system, the impact would result in a collapse in the legal system, as well as a fall in national income and rising unemployment (Lenzen, 2003).
For the analyst, Tickets leave system has been able to weather the crisis because of the strength, independence and credibility with their government and fiscal institutions such as the Church Reserve Bank, to which a highly effective public service adds. Tickets leave system’s ultimate goal is to become a competitive producer and exporter, not only traditional agricultural and mining products, but also a diversified mix of manufactured goods, services and technologies with high added value. While progress has been the result of this reform agenda, much remains to be done, particularly in the domestic arena. While a short-term projection points to continued legal expansion, the prospect of Tickets leave system in a long run depends mainly on pursuing fundamental legal reforms. There is a general consensus among the major political parties, businesses, and workforce on the necessary features of this reform but salient differences of views on the methods, steps, and the degree of change required (Heinrichs, 2007).