Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 90 items for :

Clear All
International Monetary Fund

public goods are becoming increasingly urgent in an interconnected world. The opportunities and risks defining the future for the Fund’s members and the global economy will need to inform the institution’s policy advice and its CD work. The Fund must continue to adapt and update its approach to engaging with countries, including on CD . The Fund has increasingly recognized that to serve its members well, CD cannot be a secondary or isolated activity. Where capacity is weak, the effectiveness and traction of policy advice and financial support require a focus on

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

Capacity development (CD) is a key function of the IMF, aiming to assist its member countries develop their institutional and human capacity to design and implement sound macroeconomic and financial policies. CD has been provided to all IMF member countries at some point, although it is directed mainly toward low- and middle-income countries. CD represents about one-third of the IMF’s administrative budget, having expanded substantially in the past decade. This evaluation assesses how effective the IMF has been in meeting the CD needs and expectations of recipient countries, and the Fund’s institutional objectives for CD, during 2012-20. It also provides an initial review of how IMF CD adapted to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation finds that IMF CD was relevant, valued, and broadly effective. Recipients, donors, and the wider membership saw IMF CD as being of the highest technical quality in the Fund’s core areas of expertise and generally perceived that it had become better tailored to recipient needs and circumstances. Overall, Fund CD has supported member countries in building the institutional capacity, in a very wide range of country circumstances. The IMF has also put substantial effort into integrating CD with surveillance and programs, which has in general enhanced its overall engagement with member countries. While recognizing these achievements, the evaluation also identifies a number of important shortcomings and challenges. The evaluation includes recommendations to enhance the strategic framework for, and prioritization of, CD; information available to Executive Directors and opportunities to exercise their oversight role; the integration of CD with surveillance and programs, particularly in the context of programs; CD ownership and delivery; the monitoring and evaluation framework; the sustainability of the CD funding model; and HR policies and incentives to maintain and develop the expertise in the Fund’s core and newly emerging CD topics.

International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Dept.
Public Investment Management Assessments (PIMAs) are the IMF‘s key tool for assessing infrastructure governance over the full investment cycle and supporting economic institution building in this area. The PIMA framework was first introduced in the 2015 Board Paper on “Making Public Investment More Efficient,” as part of the IMF’s Infrastructure Policy Support Initiative (IPSI). A key motivation for its development has been that strong infrastructure governance is critical for public investment to spur economic growth. PIMAs offer rigorous assessment of infrastructure governance, that is, the key public investment management (PIM) institutions and processes of a country. On the basis of the PIMAs conducted to date, this paper summarizes the lessons learned and updates the assessment framework itself. PIMAs summarize the strengths and weaknesses of country public investment processes, and set out a prioritized and sequenced reform action plan. The PIMA framework has been well-received by member countries, with over 30 PIMAs conducted to date (mainly in emerging markets (EMs) and low income developing countries (LIDCs), and a pipeline of new requests in place; eight PIMAs have been or are about to be published. The PIMAs conducted show that there is much room for strengthening PIM, with weaknesses spread across the investment cycle. The results and recommendations of several PIMAs have been used in IMF lending, surveillance, and capacity development (CD) work, and have improved support and coordination among CD providers. While leaving the structure of the 2015 framework unchanged, the revised PIMA framework highlights some critical governance aspects more prominently. In particular, it brings out more fully some key aspects of maintenance, procurement, independent review of projects, and the enabling environment (e.g., adequacy of the legal framework, information systems, and staff capacity). Yet, the revised PIMA retains the key features of the 2015 framework, including the three-phase structure (planning, allocation, and implementation) with five institutions assigned to each phase, three dimensions under each institution, and three possible scores under each dimension (i.e., not/partially/fully met). The revision has benefitted from extensive stakeholder feedback, including from IMF teams, World Bank staff, and country authorities.
International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Dept.

"Public Investment Management Assessments (PIMAs) are the IMF‘s key tool for assessing infrastructure governance over the full investment cycle and supporting economic institution building in this area. The PIMA framework was first introduced in the 2015 Board Paper on “Making Public Investment More Efficient,” as part of the IMF’s Infrastructure Policy Support Initiative (IPSI). A key motivation for its development has been that strong infrastructure governance is critical for public investment to spur economic growth. PIMAs offer rigorous assessment of infrastructure governance, that is, the key public investment management (PIM) institutions and processes of a country. On the basis of the PIMAs conducted to date, this paper summarizes the lessons learned and updates the assessment framework itself. PIMAs summarize the strengths and weaknesses of country public investment processes, and set out a prioritized and sequenced reform action plan. The PIMA framework has been well-received by member countries, with over 30 PIMAs conducted to date (mainly in emerging markets (EMs) and low income developing countries (LIDCs), and a pipeline of new requests in place; eight PIMAs have been or are about to be published. The PIMAs conducted show that there is much room for strengthening PIM, with weaknesses spread across the investment cycle. The results and recommendations of several PIMAs have been used in IMF lending, surveillance, and capacity development (CD) work, and have improved support and coordination among CD providers. While leaving the structure of the 2015 framework unchanged, the revised PIMA framework highlights some critical governance aspects more prominently. In particular, it brings out more fully some key aspects of maintenance, procurement, independent review of projects, and the enabling environment (e.g., adequacy of the legal framework, information systems, and staff capacity). Yet, the revised PIMA retains the key features of the 2015 framework, including the three-phase structure (planning, allocation, and implementation) with five institutions assigned to each phase, three dimensions under each institution, and three possible scores under each dimension (i.e., not/partially/fully met). The revision has benefitted from extensive stakeholder feedback, including from IMF teams, World Bank staff, and country authorities."