The IMF’s capacity development (CD) information dissemination policy needs to adapt to a new landscape. The Fund is providing more CD and producing greater and more diverse types of CD-related information. Meanwhile, the external landscape has also evolved, as members, partners, and other CD providers increasingly expect greater transparency and access to information. This paper sets out envisaged reforms to further widen the dissemination and publication of CD information.
Dissemination of CD Information
E. Clarifying Policy for Existing CD Information Types
1. Treatment of CD Information Under Fund Policies
1. Capacity Development Spending
3. Field and Virtual CD Missions
4. Publication Statistics
5. TA Reports in the System, 2020
6. Lags in Dissemination of TA Reports
7. Dissemination Process Timeline, 2020
8. Downloads of Fund Documents
I. Dissemination Policy by Information Type and Non-Fund Staff Audience
as online training in FY14 ( Figure 2 ) and virtual CD in FY21 ( Figure 3 ), have resulted in newer formats, such as recorded webinars and workshops.
Sources: ICD Participant and Applicant Tracking System (PATS).
1/ Pre-FY14, online learning was known as distance learning.
Field and Virtual CD Missions
Sources: TIMS and staff estimates.
8. The current policy no longer fully captures the wide array of shareable output . CD output refers to any shareable (e.g., written
Courses within INS Program
Courses outside INS Program
Total IMFTrainingParticipant weeks
This paper focuses on the IMF’s training program as part of the Medium–Term Strategy (MTS) for capacity building in member countries.1 It updates Executive Directors on the current features of the program, reviews the efforts that have been made in recent years to strengthen the curriculum and to enhance value for money, and considers options for boosting external financing of training through charging and increased donor contributions. The paper also provides background for addressing the following issues: — Are the objectives of IMF training fully consistent with the broader objectives of the institution? And are these training objectives being met? — Is Fund training efficiently organized—i.e., is the current degree of decentralization sensible? — Are adequate evaluation and feedback mechanisms in place? —In the absence of market signals and with a large unsatisfied demand, how can we determine the “right” volume of training and how can we assess its worth?