This review examines experience in implementing the lessons drawn in the 2011 Board paper on the Fund’s engagement with countries in post-conflict and fragile situations (more commonly referred to as fragile states (FS)) and the ensuing 2012 Guidance Note. The focus is on capacity building, Fund facilities and program design, and policy support. The review identifies scope to improve the Fund’s engagement in selected areas.
)) and the ensuing 2012 Guidance Note. The focus is on capacity building, Fund facilities and program design, and policy support. The review identifies scope to improve the Fund’s engagement in selected areas.
Capacity building. Resources dedicated to capacity building in FS have risen in recent years. While recognized as high quality by FSauthorities, the latter would like to see capacity building tailored more closely to their absorptive capacity, with a stronger focus on training and support through resident advisors. Staff teams generally concur that the Fund
by more limited capacity for economic administration, less-developed economic institutions, and less favorable ratings in governance indicators; and
FS members face higher risks of internal violence, political instability, and regional conflict and are more susceptible to spillovers from instability in neighboring countries.
4. The review focuses on changes, if any, to Fund engagement with FS since the staff guidance note of 2012 ( Box 1 ). The review draws on responses to dedicated questionnaires for FS mission chiefs, FSauthorities, technical assistance