IMF Organization Chart
- International Monetary Fund
- Published Date:
- October 2017
as of April 30, 2017
1 Known formally as the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries.
Budget and Income
In April 2016, the Executive Board authorized a net administrative budget for FY2017 of $1,072 million, along with indicative budgets for FY2018 and FY2019 (Table 3.1). This was the fifth year in a row that the IMF’s administrative budget remained flat in real terms, notwithstanding a robust medium-term income position. The Board also approved a limit on gross expenditures of $1,315 million, including up to $43 million in unspent FY2016 resources carried forward for possible spending in FY2017. The approved capital budget was $61 million for building facilities and information technology capital projects.
|Buildings and other||199||199||205||218||209||…|
|Total Gross Expenditures||1,247||1,215||1,273||1,255||1,315||1,376|
|Total net budget||1,052||1,038||1,072||1,066||1,104||1,141|
|Total net budget including carry-forward||1,094||1,038||1,116||1,066||1,104||1,141|
|Facilities and information technology||42||131||61||122||66||74|
|Total net budget: in real terms||1,071||1,072||1,072||1,077|
Fy2016 and Fy2019 include travel to the annual Meetings held abroad.
Includes donor-financed activities, cost-sharing arrangements with the World bank, sales of publications, parking, and other miscellaneous revenue.
Resources are carried forward from the previous year under established rules.
The IMF FY2017 work program continued to support intensified work in several critical areas. Additional resources were provided to enhance engagement with new program and near-program countries; further strengthen surveillance, with a better integration of financial analysis and additional assessments under the Financial Sector Assessment Program; and deepen work on a range of topics, such as international taxation and long-term challenges, with increased focus on capacity development. Savings from a variety of sources, including the closure of some field offices in countries with concluding programs, cross-cutting streamlining measures, and other efficiencies, allowed the budget to remain largely flat, save for a $6 million incremental allocation to meet rising physical and information technology security costs.
Actual administrative expenditures in FY2017 totaled $1,066 million, $6 million below the approved net budget. The shortfall in spending was lower than in the previous year. Average vacancy rates declined slightly and are now considered to be at a frictional level, with most departments fully staffed. Globally the sophistication and volume of cyberattacks have increased, as have the threats faced by the IMF. The cost of cybersecurity personnel and third-party services has risen as demand is greater than supply and the trend is expected to continue.
Capital spending in FY2017 took place largely according to plan and at a pace comparable to the previous year. The largest expenditure, $76.3 million, was related to the renovation of the HQ1 building (see Box 3.1). Investments in information technology, totaling $27.9 million, continued to deliver results, mainly in the areas of protecting against cybersecurity threats, improving data management, and replacing infrastructure that had reached the end of its useful life.
For financial reporting purposes, the IMF’s administrative expenditures and capital are accounted for in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These standards require the accrual basis of accounting, the capitalization and depreciation of capital expenditures, and the accounting of employee benefit costs based on actuarial assumptions. Table 3.2 provides a detailed reconciliation between the FY2017 net administrative budget outturn of $1,066 million and the IFRS-based administrative expenses of $1,385 million (SDR 1,001 million) reported in the IMF’s audited financial statements for the year.
|FY2017 NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET OUTTURN||1,066|
|Pension and postemployment benefits costs||355|
|Capital expenditure—amortization of current and prior years’ expenditure||39|
|AMOUNTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET|
|Capital expenditure—items expensed immediately in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards||30|
|Reimbursement to the General Department (from the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, and Special Drawing Rights Department)||(105)|
|TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES REPORTED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS||1,385|
|Total administrative expenses reported in the audited financial statements (millions of SDRs)||1,001|
Income Model Charges, Remuneration, Burden Sharing, and Net Income
Since its establishment, the IMF has relied primarily on its lending activities to fund its expenditures. To generate additional income, the IMF established the Investment Account in 2006 in order to invest its reserves. In 2008, the Executive Board endorsed a new income model that involved the establishment of an endowment funded from the profits from the limited sale of the IMF’s gold holdings. Along with the new income model, the Fifth Amendment to the Articles of Agreement, which became effective in February 2011, authorized the broadening of the IMF’s investment mandate to enhance the expected returns on its investments and further strengthen its finances over time. In January 2013, the Executive Board adopted Rules and Regulations for the Investment Account, implementing the IMF’s broadened investment mandate as authorized by the Fifth Amendment. The Board reviewed the investment strategy of the Fund’s reserves in July 2016 and adopted new Rules.
Reflecting the high levels of lending activities and the current low returns on its investments, the IMF’s main source of income continues to come from charges levied on the outstanding use of credit. The basic rate of charge (the interest rate) on IMF financing comprises the SDR interest rate plus a fixed margin expressed in basis points. Under the rule adopted by the Executive Board in December 2011, the margin is established for a two-year period, subject to a review before the end of the first year, to cover the IMF’s financing-related intermediation costs and allow for a buildup of the IMF’s reserves. The rule also includes a cross-check to ensure that the rate of charge maintains a reasonable alignment against long-term credit market conditions. In April 2017, the Executive Board agreed to maintain the margin for the rate of charge at 100 basis points for the period through April 2018. The margin will be reviewed in 2018.
Box 3.1.HQ1 building renovation progress
Renovation of the older of the two IMF headquarters buildings (HQ1) in Washington, DC, continued in FY2017. The 2016 Annual Meetings returned to both buildings, and the 2017 Spring Meetings were held in a single campus for the first time since 2014.
Renovation continues with three office floors under construction at a time, with staff temporarily relocated to the IMF’s other building (HQ2) or leased space nearby.
The primary purpose for the extensive renovation is necessary replacement of aging and failing building systems. The project aspires to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification and incorporates green building design and construction practices intended to have a lower impact on the environment. When work is completed in 2020, the renovated building is expected to substantially cut energy bills and will help the IMF achieve the highest sustainability standards.
Public areas of HQ1 reopened during the year.
The IMF also levies surcharges on the use of large amounts of credit in the credit tranches and under Extended Arrangements. Following the effectiveness of the Fourteenth General Review of Quotas, the Executive Board revised the quota-based thresholds at which surcharges are applied to mitigate the effect of the doubling of quotas. Surcharges, referred to as level-based surcharges, of 200 basis points are levied on the use of credit above 187.5 percent of a member’s quota. In addition, time-based surcharges of 100 basis points are levied on outstanding credit above the same threshold for more than 36 months in the credit tranches or 51 months under the Extended Fund Facility.
In addition to periodic charges and surcharges, the IMF also levies service charges, commitment fees, and special charges. A service charge of 0.5 percent is levied on each drawing from the General Resources Account (GRA). A refundable commitment fee is charged on amounts available under GRA arrangements, such as Stand-By Arrangements, as well as Extended, Flexible Credit Line, and Precautionary and Liquidity Line Arrangements, during each 12-month period. Commitment fees are levied at 15 basis points, 30 basis points, and 60 basis points on amounts available for drawing up to 115 percent, between 115 and 575 percent, and over 575 percent of quota, respectively. Commitment fees are refunded when credit is used, in proportion to the drawings made. The IMF also levies special charges on overdue principal payments and on charges that are past due by less than six months.
Remuneration and Interest
On the expenditure side, the IMF pays interest (remuneration) to members on their creditor positions in the GRA (known as remunerated reserve tranche positions). The Articles of Agreement provide that the rate of remuneration shall be not more than the SDR interest rate, nor less than 80 percent of that rate. The basic rate of remuneration is currently set at the SDR interest rate, which is based on a weighted average of representative interest rates on short-term financial debt instruments in the money markets of the SDR basket currencies, subject to a floor of 5 basis points. The IMF also pays interest at the SDR interest rate on outstanding borrowing under the bilateral loans and note purchase agreements and the enlarged and expanded New Arrangements to Borrow.
The rates of charge and remuneration are adjusted under a burden-sharing mechanism that distributes the cost of overdue financial obligations to the IMF’s GRA equally between debtor and creditor members. Income loss due to unpaid interest charges that are overdue for six months or more is recovered via burden sharing by increasing the rate of charge and reducing the rate of remuneration. The amounts thus collected are refunded when the unpaid charges are settled.
In FY2017, the adjusted rates of charge and remuneration averaged 1.187 percent and 0.182 percent, respectively.
The IMF’s net income in FY2017 was SDR 1.9 billion ($2.7 billion), reflecting primarily income from the high levels of lending activity, income from its investments held in the Investment Account, and gains stemming from remeasurement of the Fund’s defined-benefit liability. As required by International Financial Reporting Standards (amended International Accounting Standard 19, Employee Benefits), the net income for the financial year includes a gain of SDR 1 billion arising from the immediate recognition of the effects of higher-than-assumed returns on benefit plan investments and changes in actuarial assumptions used in determining the IMF’s defined-benefit obligation of postemployment employee benefit plans.
Arrears to the IMF
Overdue financial obligations to the IMF fell from SDR 1,285.7 million at the end of April 2016 to SDR 1,204.7 million at the end of April 2017 (Table 3.3). At the end of April 2017, two members—Somalia and Sudan—remained in protracted arrears to the IMF (outstanding for more than six months). The two countries have accumulated arrears dating back to the mid-1980s, accounting for about 20 and 80 percent of the total arrears, respectively.
|Total||General Department (including Structural Adjustment Facility)||Trust Fund|
Zimbabwe, which had been in arrears to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust since February 2001, settled all outstanding obligations as of October 2016. One-third of total arrears consisted of overdue principal, and the remaining two-thirds of overdue charges and interest. Currently, almost all arrears are to the GRA, with less than 8 percent to the Trust Fund. Due to the SDR allocations in August/September 2009, all protracted cases have remained current in the SDR Department.
Under the IMF’s strengthened cooperative strategy on arrears, remedial measures have been taken to address the protracted arrears. At the end of the financial year, Somalia and Sudan remained ineligible to use GRA resources.
Human Resources Policies and Organization
To be effective in the global economy, the IMF must recruit and retain a highly qualified and diverse international staff. In FY2017, the IMF started to develop its medium-term Human Resources Strategy and continued to focus on training and leadership development for staff.
As of April 30, 2017, the IMF employed 2,280 professional and managerial staff, and 488 support staff. A list of the institution’s senior officials is on page 100, and its organizational chart can be found on page 75.
Recruitment of 218 new staff in 2016 was slightly higher than the 2015 level of 182. In 2016, 14 managerial staff, 157 professional staff, and 47 support staff were hired. The IMF requires economists to have advanced analytical and policymaking experience, and in 2016 it recruited 20 top university graduates through the Economist Program and 80 experienced midcareer economists. Slightly fewer than half of midcareer hires were macroeconomists; the remainder were financial sector and fiscal policy experts.
During 2016, 517 contractual employees were hired. A total of 13 economists from five countries participated in the Externally Financed Appointee program. This program is designed to provide up to 15 positions for staff from member-country governments with two years of IMF work experience. Costs are financed by member countries through a multipartner trust fund. (For information on the distribution of IMF staff by nationality, gender, and country category, see Web Tables 3.1–3.3; view the IMF staff salary structure in Web Table 3.4.)
Diversity and Inclusion
The IMF strives to ensure that the staff is diverse in terms of geographic region, gender, and educational background. Of the IMF’s 189 member countries, 143 were represented on the staff as of April 30, 2017. Nationals from underrepresented regions—sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa—accounted for 29 percent of all external hiring at the professional level in 2016. More information and data on ongoing efforts to improve diversity and inclusion at the IMF are available in the “2016 IMF Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report.”
Management Appointments and Changes
In early FY2017, Deputy Managing Director Min Zhu announced his intention to leave the IMF when his term expired in late July. Managing Director Christine Lagarde praised his outstanding contributions to the Fund for the preceding five years and before that as a Special Advisor to the Managing Director. “His down-to-earth style, wonderful sense of humor, and warm personality served to reinforce his formidable intellect and passion for economics and enabled him to provide strong leadership across a large range of issues,” she said. The Managing Director’s announcement also noted that a process was underway to identify a candidate to succeed him.
In July 2016, the Managing Director announced she had nominated Tao Zhang, Deputy Governor of China’s central bank, to serve as an IMF Deputy Managing Director effective August 22. Zhang previously served for four years as China’s Executive Director at the IMF. At China’s central bank he held several positions, including head of the bank’s legal affairs department and head of its financial survey and statistics department. He also has worked at the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. “Mr. Zhang brings a strong combination of international economic expertise, public sector policymaking, and diplomatic skills,” Lagarde said. “He also has extensive experience with international financial institutions, excellent communication and negotiating skills, and a superb knowledge of IMF policies and procedures.”
Box 3.2.Profiles of outgoing and incoming senior staff
ANTOINETTE SAYEH served as Director of the IMF’s African Department from July 2008 through August 2016. As Minister of Finance in postconflict Liberia, she led the country through the clearance of its long-standing multilateral debt arrears, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Decision Point, and the Paris Club, significantly strengthening its public finances. Sayeh holds a Ph.D. in international economic relations from the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
ABEBE AEMRO SELASSIE took over as Director of the African Department in September 2016. Previously, Selassie served in the IMF’s African Department as a senior resident representative in Uganda and mission chief for South Africa and led work on the Regional Economic Outlook. He also brings extensive operational and policy experience with the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department and the European Department. He previously worked for the Economist Intelligence Unit and for the Ethiopian government as Principal Economist in the Office of the President. He holds a master’s in economic history from the London School of Economics.
MASOOD AHMED retired from the IMF in October 2016 after serving as Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department at the IMF for eight years, overseeing the IMF’s relations with the region at a time of political transition and intensified turmoil during the conflict in Syria. He joined the IMF in 2000 as Deputy Director of the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department and was Director of the Communications Department from 2006 to 2008. Ahmed holds postgraduate degrees in economics from the London School of Economics.
JIHAD AZOUR took over as Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department in March 2017. Azour previously served as Lebanon’s Finance Minister from 2005 to 2008, during which he coordinated the implementation of important reform initiatives at the national level and in the Finance Ministry. He chaired the Group of Eight Middle East and North Africa Ministerial Group from 2006 to 2008 and spearheaded the Paris III International Conference for Lebanon, which was instrumental in raising international financial support for Lebanese reconstruction. Azour holds a Ph.D. in international finance and a postgraduate degree in international economics and finance from the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris.
JOSÉ VIÑALS served for seven years as the Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department, where he worked tirelessly to make the IMF a truly macro-financial institution. Before joining the IMF in 2009, Viñals had a distinguished career at the Central Bank of Spain, where he served as the Deputy Governor. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.
TOBIAS ADRIAN joined the IMF in January 2017 as Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department. He brings extensive operational and policy experience from roles at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was Senior Vice President and Associate Director of Research. Adrian holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
MOISÉS SCHWARTZ served as Director of the Independent Evaluation Office from 2010 to 2017. Schwartz was previously President of the National Commission for Retirement Savings in Mexico. He served as an Executive Director of the IMF and, before that, was the Mexican Finance Minister’s Chief of Staff and Director General of International Financial Affairs in the Ministry of Finance. Schwartz holds a Ph.D. In economics from the University of California, Los Angeles.
CHARLES COLLYNS was appointed Director of the Independent Evaluation Office effective February 2017. Previously, Collyns had been Managing Director and Chief Economist of the Institute of International Finance since August 2013 and served as Assistant Secretary for International Finance at the US Department of the Treasury. He was IMF Deputy Director of the Research Department and of the Western Hemisphere Department. Collyns holds an M.Phil. and a D.Phil. in economics from Oxford University.
Management Structure and Salaries
The Executive Board reviews IMF management remuneration periodically. The Board of Governors approves the Managing Director’s salary. Annual adjustments are made based on the Washington, DC, consumer price index. As of July 1, 2016, the salary structure for management was as follows:
|First Deputy Managing Director:||$435,280|
|Deputy Managing Directors:||$414,570|
Senior Staff Changes
On September 15, 2016, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde appointed Abebe Aemro Selassie as Director of the IMF’s African Department, after his predecessor Antoinette Sayeh retired from the IMF (see profiles of outgoing and incoming senior staff in Box 3.2).
On November 28, 2016, Lagarde announced the appointment of Tobias Adrian as Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department to succeed José Viñals, who left the IMF.
On December 1, 2016, Lagarde announced the appointment of Jihad Azour as Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department, replacing Masood Ahmed, who also retired from the IMF.
On October 14, 2016, the Executive Board selected Charles Collyns as Director of the Independent Evaluation Office. He succeeded Moisés Schwartz, whose term expired.
Risk Management at the IMF
By virtue of its role as established in the Articles of Agreement, the IMF faces a range of risks. In 2016, the Executive Board approved risk acceptance statements indicating the degree of risk the IMF is willing to tolerate across its activities and has the capacity to successfully manage over an extended period. The statements will be reviewed periodically to reflect any changes in existing policies and processes made by the Executive Board and management.
The IMF uses three lines of defense to actively manage risks. The first line of defense is the departments that conduct day-to-day operations and that establish and maintain systems of internal controls for identifying and managing the risks inherent in those operations. In specific areas, cross-departmental committees provide additional risk oversight. The second line of defense is a Risk Management Unit, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the risk-management framework, assessing aggregate risk, and reporting to management and the Executive Board on the IMF’s overall risk profile, highlighting areas where risk mitigation efforts are required.
The Risk Management Unit’s risk assessment feeds into the IMF’s strategic and budget planning cycle. A Fund Risk Committee chaired by the First Deputy Managing Director assesses and prioritizes risk mitigation efforts and ensures integration of the risk function across the institution. The Office of Internal Audit and Inspection—the third line of defense—provides assurance on the effectiveness of governance, risk management, and internal controls. Ultimate responsibility for managing and mitigating risks lies with management and the Executive Board.
The IMF monitors and actively manages risks across four broad and interrelated areas—strategic, core, cross-functional, and reputational:
▪ Strategic direction is guided by the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda, informed by continuous analysis of emerging issues affecting the international monetary system. Managing strategic risk requires establishing a clear strategic framework, supported by the medium-term budget, and responding to the evolving external environment.
▪ Risks in the core functions relate to aligning surveillance, lending, and capacity development activities with the IMF’s strategic direction and underlying objectives, while ensuring that its financing model remains safeguarded. In managing lending risks—of programs not achieving their intended objectives—the IMF employs a multilayered framework mainly based on access limits, program design, and conditions for disbursements (see Box 3.3). An adequate level of precautionary balances and the Fund’s de facto preferred creditor status are integral parts of this framework.
▪ Risks in cross-functional assets refer to the capacity of the IMF’s human capital, technology, physical assets, and other support to help the Fund implement its strategic direction and avoid any disruption in effective performance of its core functions. Cross-functional risks also encompass income and investment risks.
▪ Reputation risk refers to the possibility that stakeholders might take a negative view of the IMF, resulting in damage to its credibility and policy traction.
The IMF’s audit mechanisms comprise an external audit firm, an internal audit function, and an independent External Audit Committee (EAC) that, under the IMF By-Laws, exercises general oversight over the annual audit.
External Audit Committee
The three members of the EAC are selected by the Executive Board and appointed by the Managing Director. Members serve three-year terms on a staggered basis and are independent of the IMF. EAC members are nationals of different member countries and must possess the expertise and qualifications required to carry out the oversight of the annual audit. Typically, EAC members have significant experience in international public accounting firms, the public sector, or academia.
Box 3.3.Managing risks with safeguards assessments
When the IMF provides financing to a member country, a safeguards assessment is usually carried out to obtain reasonable assurances that its central bank is able to adequately manage the resources received from the IMF and provide reliable program monetary data on the IMF-supported program. Safeguards assessments are diagnostic reviews of central banks’ governance and control frameworks and complement the IMF’s other safeguards, which include limits on access, conditionality, program design, measures to address misreporting, and postprogram monitoring. They involve an evaluation of central bank operations in five areas: the external audit mechanism, the legal structure and autonomy, the financial reporting framework, the internal audit mechanism, and the system of internal controls.
At the end of April 2017, 296 assessments had been conducted, covering 96 central banks; 13 of these assessments were completed in FY2017. In addition, safeguards activities include monitoring of progress in addressing recommendations and other developments in central banks’ safeguards frameworks for as long as IMF credit remains outstanding. About 60 central banks are currently subject to monitoring.
The IMF Executive Board reviews the safeguards policy every five years. The latest review, in 2015, confirmed the policy’s effectiveness and its positive contribution to the IMF’s overall risk-management framework. It also recognized that the safeguards process has helped central banks improve their control, audit, and reporting practices. The safeguards framework has been refined periodically to adapt to experience in the field and developments in industry. While no significant changes have been made, a new element introduced in 2015 was that for cases involving direct budget financing, a risk-based approach for fiscal safeguards reviews of state treasuries would be conducted. The reviews will only apply for arrangements under which a member requests exceptional access to Fund resources and a substantial portion of the funds, at least 25 percent, is directed to financing the state budget. So far, no such cases have arisen.
In addition, regional safeguards seminars were conducted during FY2017 at the Singapore Regional Training Institute and with the Joint Partnership for Africa in Pretoria, South Africa. The seminars highlighted international leading practices in safeguards areas and provided a forum for central bank officials to share experiences. In addition, a high-level central bank governance forum was held in Dubai. Participants were high-level central bank officials and their external auditors. The forum highlighted diverse approaches and different milestones among participant central banks in strengthening oversight and enablers of good governance, such as internal audit, risk management functions, and audit committees.
The EAC selects one of its members as chair, determines its own procedures, and is independent of the IMF’s management in overseeing the annual audit. It meets in Washington, DC, each year, usually in January or February, to oversee planning for the annual audit; in June after the completion of the audit; and in July to brief the Executive Board. The IMF staff and the external auditors consult with EAC members throughout the year. The 2017 EAC members were Mary Barth, a professor of accounting at Stanford University; Kamlesh Vikamsey, a chartered accountant and senior partner in an accounting firm in India; and Kathy Hodge, a chartered accountant and partner in an international accounting firm in Antigua and Barbuda.
External Audit Firm
The external audit firm, which is selected by the Executive Board in consultation with the EAC and appointed by the Managing Director, is responsible for conducting the IMF’s annual external audit and expressing an opinion on the IMF’s financial statements, including the accounts administered under Article V, Section 2(b), of the Articles of Agreement and the Staff Retirement Plan. At the conclusion of the annual audit, the EAC briefs the Executive Board on the results of the audit and transmits the report issued by the external audit firm, through the Managing Director and the Executive Board, for consideration by the Board of Governors.
The external audit firm is appointed for a term of five years, which may be renewed for up to an additional five years. PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed as the IMF’s external audit firm in November 2014. The external audit firm may perform certain consulting services, except for prohibited services and subject to robust safeguards to protect the audit firm’s independence. These safeguards involve oversight by the IMF’s EAC and, for consulting fees above a certain threshold, the Executive Board’s approval.
Office of Internal Audit and Inspection
The Office of Internal Audit and Inspection (OIA) is an independent assurance and advisory function designed to protect and strengthen the IMF. The OIA’s mandate is twofold: (1) assessing the effectiveness of the IMF’s governance, risk management, and internal controls; and (2) acting as a consultant and catalyst for improvement of the Fund’s business processes by advising on best practice and development of cost-effective control solutions. To provide for its independence, the OIA reports to management and maintains a functional reporting relationship with the External Audit Committee.
The OIA’s FY2017 work included the quota increase payments under the Fourteenth General Review of Quotas, the IMF’s approach to identity and access management (to manage individuals’ access to information assets), the IMF’s controls to manage risks associated with third-party vendors, and an independent assessment of the prototype of the Fund’s Economic Data Registry.
The OIA also delivered the Eighth Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Implementation Plans in Response to Board-Endorsed Recommendations of the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). This was the third such report prepared by the OIA. The report assessed the progress made over the past year on actions contained in the four Management Implementation Plans arising from recent IEO evaluations, as well as on another four for which individual management actions were classified as “in progress” in the Seventh PMR. The Executive Board’s Evaluation Committee reviewed the Eighth PMR in March 2017, and the Executive Board approved it in April 2017.
The Executive Board is informed of OIA activities twice a year in an activity report that includes information on audit results and the status of audit recommendations. The most recent informal Board briefing on these matters took place in January 2017.
Independent Evaluation Office
The IEO was established in 2000 to conduct independent, objective evaluations of IMF policies and activities. Under its terms of reference, the IEO is fully independent of IMF management and staff and operates at arm’s length from the Fund’s Executive Board. Its mission is to enhance the learning culture within the IMF, strengthen the IMF’s external credibility, and support the institutional governance and oversight functions of the Executive Board.
Executive Board Reviews of IEO Reports and Recommendations
The IMF and the Crises in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal
In July 2016, the Board reviewed a report by the IEO on the IMF and the crises in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal. Executive Directors welcomed the report and appreciated the accompanying statement by the Managing Director. They agreed that the report’s findings provide valuable insights and lessons for handling crises in members of currency unions. Directors underscored that the work of the IEO continues to play a vital role in enhancing the learning culture within the IMF, strengthening the Fund’s external credibility and supporting the Executive Board’s oversight responsibilities.
Directors broadly shared the general thrust of the IEO’s main findings and broadly endorsed its recommendations, with some caveats. Directors recognized that, while the Fund needs to learn from the experience of the three euro area crisis programs, it is important to acknowledge the difficult and unprecedented circumstances prevailing at the time. Key challenges included the abrupt loss of market access, the need to address deep imbalances without recourse to adjustment in the nominal exchange rate, and the absence of euro area firewalls. Directors also noted that the uncertainty and fear of contagion were acute given the backdrop of the global financial crisis. They emphasized that the IMF’s performance in these crisis cases must be assessed in this broader context as it navigated uncharted territory.
Against this background, Directors considered that the Fund-supported programs had succeeded in buying time to build European firewalls, preventing the crisis from spreading, and restoring growth and market access in Ireland and Portugal. They observed that the political economy of the Greek crisis was unique and complex. Directors generally viewed the unprecedented Troika arrangement as efficient overall, noting in particular how the Fund’s engagement had evolved over time. Nevertheless, the need to coordinate and reach common ground with the European partners may have affected the IMF’s agility as a crisis manager and gave rise to criticism that its decision-making process lacked transparency.
In line with established practices, management and staff gave careful consideration to the discussion in formulating the implementation plan, including approaches to monitor progress.
IMF’s Multilateral Surveillance
In March 2017, the IEO issued an update of the 2006 evaluation of the IMF’s multilateral surveillance. It found significant progress in attaining the objectives of the 2006 evaluation—as the global financial crisis served as a catalyst for many reforms. These included the 2012 Integrated Surveillance Decision, new activities that closed gaps in precrisis analysis in areas such as vulnerabilities and spillovers in advanced economies, and a more structured discussion of macro-financial risks through the Early Warning Exercise. At the same time, the task of maintaining consistency across the larger number of overlapping products has become more difficult.
The IEO Work Program
In addition to completing the projects discussed above, the IEO continued work on its evaluation on the IMF and social protection and initiated two additional evaluations during FY2017. The evaluation on the IMF and social protection assesses how the IMF has responded to the increasing attention being paid to social protection amid rising concern about preventing or alleviating a reduction in well-being among vulnerable groups. Looking at the past decade, it focuses on the IMF’s role in and approach to social protection at the institutional level; the IMF’s operational work on social protection at the country level (in the context of economic surveillance, lending, and technical assistance); and IMF collaboration with other institutions that have a more direct role in designing, financing, and assessing social protection policies, strategies, and programs. The IEO presented this evaluation to the Executive Board for discussion in July 2017.
An evaluation of the IMF and fragile states analyzes the role played by the IMF in countries in postconflict and other fragile situations through policy advice, program design (with and without financing), and capacity building. It focuses on the general framework for IMF engagement, how the Fund interacts with external stakeholders, the role of the Executive Board, and internal human resource issues. The Executive Board discussed a draft issues paper for this evaluation in November 2016; the IEO expects to present a report to the Executive Board late in FY2018.
A newly launched evaluation of IMF financial surveillance is in the early stages. The report will examine the Fund’s efforts to strengthen financial surveillance since the onset of the global financial crisis. It will examine the relevance, quality, and effectiveness of IMF surveillance products and activities, at both the bilateral and multilateral levels. Additionally, the IEO initiated two evaluation updates for delivery in FY2018: “IMF Exchange Rate Policy Advice, 1999–2005: Revisiting the 2007 IEO Evaluation” and “Structural Conditionality in IMF-Supported Programs: Revisiting the 2007 IEO Evaluation.”
Looking further ahead, the IEO, in consultation with various stakeholders, is considering topics for future evaluation. A list of prospective topics, to serve as the basis for consultations, will be prepared in early FY2018 and brought to the attention of the Evaluation Committee of the Executive Board. Information and documentation on the IEO’s completed, ongoing, and future evaluations are available at www.ieo-imf.org.
Implementation of Board-Endorsed Recommendations
In November 2016, the Executive Board approved the Management Implementation Plan (MIP) for the evaluation “Behind the Scenes with Data at the IMF.” The discussion focused on the timing and procedures for the articulation of a long-term strategy for data and statistics, as proposed by the evaluation. The MIP indicates that this strategy will be drafted by a task force after broad consultations across the IMF and presented to the Executive Board no later than the end of 2017.
The MIP for the evaluation “The IMF and the Crises in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal” was approved by the Executive Board in February 2017. This plan emphasized the IMF’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the analytical underpinnings of its work, in order to minimize the room for political intervention in the IMF’s technical analysis and to prepare Board papers on program design in currency union members and cooperation with regional financing arrangements. It also noted the preparation of a protocol for information sharing between the IEO and IMF staff.
In April 2017, the Executive Board approved the “Eighth Periodic Monitoring Report on the Status of Implementation Plans in Response to Board-Endorsed IEO Recommendations.” The report found that implementation of agreed actions had been uneven since the last report, with actions from more recent MIPs seeing more rapid progress, while advancement on older ones was slower. Overall, the Executive Board considered that management and staff remained committed to the timely implementation of open actions.
Outreach and Engagement with External Stakeholders
The objectives of IMF outreach are twofold: first, to listen to external stakeholders to better understand their concerns and perspectives, with the aim of improving the relevance and quality of IMF policy advice; and second, to strengthen the outside world’s understanding of IMF objectives and operations. The IMF’s Communications Department has primary responsibility for conducting the IMF’s outreach activities and its engagement with external stakeholders.
The communications strategy has developed over time. Over the past decade, the IMF’s approach has evolved from increased transparency to more proactive engagement with the media and other stakeholders in order to explain the IMF’s policies and operations, enable the IMF to participate in and contribute to intellectual debate on important economic issues, and better facilitate two-way learning and dialogue with the IMF’s global membership.
Like most modern organizations, the IMF now uses communications as a strategic tool to help strengthen its effectiveness. Strategic engagement through new technologies, such as social media, videos, blogs, and podcasts has formed an increasing part of the IMF’s communications strategy. At the same time, in today’s rapidly changing world, the Fund is reaching out to a new set of influencers, including civil society organizations and private sector networks.
The IMF engages with parliamentarians—a group that plays an important role in their countries’ economic decision-making process—mainly through the Parliamentary Network of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but also through targeted in-country and regional engagement.
The two-day annual conference of the Parliamentary Network was held during the Spring Meetings of the IMF and World Bank and was attended by about 170 members of parliament (MPs) from all regions. Managing Director Christine Lagarde and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim held a town hall with the MPs. IMF staff also exchanged views with the MPs on a range of issues, such as corruption, growth prospects in sub-Saharan Africa, inequality, and jobs.
In preparation for the 2018 Annual Meetings, which will take place in Indonesia, the Parliamentary Network also organized a two-day seminar in Singapore for MPs from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. The seminar covered country-specific issues but also discussed economic risks facing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations region and how legislative reforms can spur investment.
Over 40 MPs from 10 countries—Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, and Tunisia—met in Tunis for the launch of the Middle East and North Africa chapter of the Parliamentary Network. The conference included panel discussions on regional economic and governance reform priorities, the role of regional networks, youth unemployment, and fragile states.
Also at the regional level, the Parliamentary Network organized a three-day field visit with about 20 MPs from Belgium, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, France, Liberia, Madagascar, Pakistan, Senegal, Sweden, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uganda, in Nairobi, where they met with representatives from the government, civil society, the diplomatic corps, and the private sector to discuss issues such as corruption, growth, job creation, gender, and IMF technical assistance and capacity development.
The IMF also brought together MPs from Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine for a special seminar at the Joint Vienna Institute. The seminar, which was offered in various languages, featured presentations on country-specific issues as well as on governance, fiscal policy and institutions, and central bank autonomy.
In its 10th year, the IMF Civil Society Fellowship Program sponsored 50 representatives from civil society organizations from 36 low-income developing countries to participate in the IMF–World Bank Spring and Annual Meetings. As part of the Civil Society Policy Forum during the meetings, more than 90 panel discussions—many with IMF representation—were organized by civil society on issues such as inequality, gender, debt, public finance management, international taxation, social protection, food and energy subsidies, and corruption. During the 2016 Annual Meetings, ActionAid and the Bretton Woods Project—in partnership with the IMF—organized a flagship seminar on gender with a keynote speech from First Deputy Managing Director David Lipton—a first of its kind.
Beyond the Spring and Annual Meetings, the IMF engaged with civil society through bilateral meetings, briefings, workshops, and online consultations on such topics as debt sustainability in low-income developing countries, governance, inequality, and social safeguards. Outside of headquarters, regional events in Kenya and in Jordan complemented the ongoing engagement with local civil society during IMF staff missions. The Managing Director also met with representatives of Ugandan civil society organizations during her visit to the country to discuss governance, fiscal policies, and international taxation.
Given the importance of understanding and addressing the impact of the global financial crisis on employment, the IMF continued to regularly engage with labor organizations at the global, regional, and national levels. At headquarters, the IMF hosted its biennial high-level meeting with the International Trade Unions Confederation. Seventy labor union representatives from 30 countries met with the Managing Director and staff to discuss issues that included policy tools to support jobs and growth, labor market policies, income and gender inequality, and climate change and energy issues.
The IMF continues to value its engagement with youth as today’s game-changers and tomorrow’s leaders. IMF management and senior staff often meet with students, young entrepreneurs, and young leaders during country visits, during which they exchange views on issues that matter to youth in their countries. As part of the Youth Fellowship program, the IMF also invites young leaders to attend the Spring and Annual Meetings, where they attend various events and seminars, and interact with policymakers and IMF staff. For the 2017 Spring Meeting, 130 university students in the Washington, DC, area participated in the program.
The IMF also provides a platform for young global leaders to share experiences and thoughts on topics important to them through the IMF Youth Dialogue during the Annual Meetings. For the 2016 Youth Dialogue, the topic was the impact of corruption in their countries and ways to combat it. The IMF also invited Phiona Mutesi, a young Ugandan chess champion and subject of the film “Queen of Katwe,” to share with Spring Meeting participants her experience growing up in the poor neighborhood of Katwe.
Engaging through Corporate Social Responsibility
Through its Corporate Social Responsibility programs, the IMF demonstrates its commitment as an organization to promote the well-being and sustainability of the community and of the broader environment in which it operates. For example, the IMF has achieved carbon neutrality through ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions in its operations. In addition, the IMF purchases carbon offsets equal to or above its total carbon emissions. These offsets support environmentally sustainable projects in eight countries. And through the purchase of compostable materials, the IMF has achieved an 8 percent reduction of its landfill waste in the past year. The IMF also engages in sustainable purchasing practices focused on two key areas of procurement—office supplies and electronics. These measures are some examples of the ways in which the IMF contributes to responsible stewardship of environmental resources.
Another important pillar of the IMF’s corporate social responsibility is its volunteerism programs. During the year, philanthropic activities by the IMF staff received a boost with the launch of the Min Zhu Volunteer Program, an initiative that coordinates staff volunteer activities in the local community in Washington, DC, around the headquarters of the IMF. The program is named in honor of former Deputy Managing Director Min Zhu, known among staff for his dedication to community service.
The program was announced by the Managing Director on January 12 during the annual volunteering event to commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy of community service. More than 400 IMF staff and retirees gathered for the event and assembled hygiene kits that were distributed by the international charity World Vision to people displaced by natural disasters, including victims of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti.
The Min Zhu Volunteer Program has two main components: mentoring schoolchildren in underserved communities, for example, through teaching classes in financial literacy and providing tutoring in essay writing, and helping the homeless, for example, through preparation and delivery of meals to homeless shelters in the Washington area. Annual collection drives for winter coats, toys, and food are also planned. A group of staff known as the IMF Volunteers Club coordinates many of the activities, thereby championing volunteerism across the Fund.
Managing Director Christine Lagarde speaks on a panel during the 2016 Annual Meetings in the newly renovated HQ1 atrium.
The Min Zhu Volunteer Program is managed by IMF Giving Together, which coordinates corporate and staff giving and includes an annual giving campaign, humanitarian relief appeals, grants to local and international charities, and managing charitable donations during their visits to member countries.
In 2017, during the Giving Together campaign, the IMF staff donated $2.5 million, including a 50 percent match from the IMF, with 33 percent staff participation, far exceeding the campaign goal of 25 percent.
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
As the IMF’s outpost in Asia and the Pacific, a region whose importance in the global economy continues to grow, the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (OAP) monitors economic and financial developments to bring a more regionally focused perspective to IMF economic surveillance. It seeks to enhance understanding of the IMF’s policies in the region and to keep the IMF informed on regional perspectives on key issues. In this capacity, the OAP is engaged in bilateral surveillance—currently on Japan and Nepal—and has stepped up its participation in regional surveillance.
The OAP staff actively participates in forums in Asia, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan, and Korea (ASEAN+3); Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); Executives’ Meeting of East Asia Pacific Central Banks (EMEAP); and the Pacific Island Countries Central Bank Governors Meeting. The OAP contributes to capacity development in the region through the Japan-IMF Scholarship Program for Asia, the Japan-IMF Macroeconomic Seminar for Asia, and other capacity-building seminars. An example of the latter is a July 2016 seminar on social spending for inclusive growth held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, jointly with the central bank and the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department.
The office also conducts outreach and recruiting activities in both Japan and the rest of the region and engages in dialogue with Asian policymakers on current policy issues central to the IMF’s work. Policy conferences held in Tokyo included a joint event with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency on fiscal risks, fiscal space, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (February 2017) and another with Hitotsubashi University on the international monetary system (March 2017). The OAP also partnered with the Australian authorities to organize a conference on investment, trade, and capital market development in the region, held in Sydney in December 2016.
Regional Office in Paris and Brussels
The IMF’s Offices in Europe, located in Paris and Brussels, serves as a liaison to European Union (EU) institutions and member states, as well as to many international organizations and civil society in Europe. The office engages with institutions such as the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the European Stability Mechanism, and the European Parliament, as well as the Economic and Financial Committee and the Eurogroup Working Group, on euro area and EU policies and country programs financed jointly by the EU and IMF. It represents the IMF at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The office also supports the IMF’s operations in Europe, including economic surveillance, IMF-supported programs, and technical assistance, and helps to coordinate communication and outreach activities across the region. More broadly, it fosters dialogue on global economic issues with EU institutions, international organizations, governments, and civil society in Europe and meets frequently with representatives from industry associations, trade unions, think tanks, financial markets, and the media.
The office has organized several joint workshops and events, including a joint conference with the World Bank Europe Office on the economic impact of the refugee crisis and an annual conference with the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department on evolving fiscal policies in Europe. The office convenes high-level policy lunches at least twice a year in Paris, Brussels, London, and Berlin to discuss the IMF’s views on key challenges facing the European economy. Staff members had speaking roles at international conferences in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
As part of the office’s role in supporting capacity development and outreach, it co-sponsored a workshop at the Joint Vienna Institute for parliamentarians from several EU countries and staff spoke at various other institute events. The office’s outreach activities include an external office newsletter that provides regular updates on IMF events and publications to key European stakeholders, an external website, and an active Twitter feed. Finally, the office supports IMF recruiting efforts by interviewing candidates at universities in several European countries.
Outreach by Resident Representatives
In 85 countries across the globe, the IMF has Resident Representatives who conduct a variety of outreach activities designed to improve understanding of the IMF’s work and of macroeconomic issues, often in collaboration with local universities, governments, and nongovernmental organizations.
In Madagascar, for example, during the 2017 Article IV consultations, IMF Resident Representative Patrick Imam helped organize a public seminar on analytical work considered macro-critical—scaling up investment, enhancing resilience to natural disasters, and fighting corruption. Attendance was broad, with representatives from government ministries, parliament, the civil service, nongovernmental organizations, and journalists, with lively audience participation. Reactions were positive, with wide press coverage and demand for a comparable seminar during the next Article IV consultation.
In Indonesia, as part of a broad Voyage to Indonesia program in the lead-up to the 2018 IMF–World Bank Annual Meetings in Bali, the Resident Representative Office in Jakarta has organized several events in partnership with the Indonesian authorities. The events included presentations on the IMF, the Annual Meetings, and the Indonesian economy, and targeted students and faculty at universities, academic roundtables, parliamentarians, civil society organizations, and the business community. More events are planned in FY2018.
To help build consensus on Mongolia’s comprehensive IMF-supported economic reform program, Resident Representative Neil Saker has been conducting intensive outreach, giving media interviews and public presentations, holding meetings, and maintaining close contact with civil society, the business community, trade unions, international investors, and diplomats. One seminar on the program was broadcast on all Bloomberg terminals globally. Saker has developed a close relationship with a local special needs school and, during the 2016 visit of Deputy Managing Director Mitsuhiro Furusawa, the IMF donated books in a well-received gesture of support.
Bas Bakker, the Fund’s Senior Regional Resident Representative for Central and Eastern Europe, is based in Warsaw, Poland, and heads the office in Minsk, Belarus. He speaks at many regional events, including the Economic Forum in Krynica, Poland, the largest conference in the region, with more than 3,000 participants, and the annual Euromoney Central and Eastern Europe Forum in Vienna, which brings together 1,100 delegates and speakers ranging from finance ministers and central bank governors to investors, business leaders, and heads of financial institutions.
In 2016, the IMF Office in Armenia participated in the public consultation processes that the authorities hold before the approval of key legislation. Resident Representative Teresa Daban Sanchez regularly attended the meetings of the Tax Councils—public-private platforms for the government and the business community to discuss tax issues—to enhance the IMF’s profile and to help ensure that the discussion of key legislation incorporates inputs from IMF Technical Assistance.
In December 2016, Resident Representative Nooman Rebei organized a Regional Economic Outlook presentation in Nouadhibou, Mauritania, the first such event outside the capital, Nouakchott. The event had a record number of participants from the business community, including major fishing and mining companies, and bankers, along with members of civil society who were interested in the IMF’s global and regional perspectives.
In Brazil, during a period of sharp economic contraction and high political uncertainty, Resident Representative Fabian Bornhorst intensified outreach to a broader audience. The Brazil office increasingly reached out to regional governments, think tanks, civil society, and the media. In addition to presenting the IMF’s view on the local and regional economy, the activities included Bornhorst’s participation in seminars to explain the IMF’s role in promoting fiscal transparency.
Quotas and Governance
Quota subscriptions are central to the IMF’s financial resources. Each member country of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative position in the world economy. A member country’s quota determines its maximum financial commitment to the IMF and its voting power and has a bearing on its access to IMF financing.
When a country joins the IMF, it is assigned an initial quota in the same range as the quotas of existing members of broadly comparable economic size and characteristics. The IMF uses a quota formula to help assess a member’s relative position.
The current quota formula is a weighted average of GDP (weight of 50 percent), openness (30 percent), economic variability (15 percent), and international reserves (5 percent). For this purpose, GDP is measured through a blend of GDP at market exchange rates (60 percent) and GDP at purchasing-power-parity rates (40 percent). The formula also includes a “compression factor” that reduces the dispersion in calculated quota shares across members.
Quotas are denominated in SDRs, the IMF’s unit of account. The largest member of the IMF is the United States, with a current quota (as of April 30, 2017) of SDR 83 billion (about $114 billion), and the smallest member is Tuvalu, with a quota of SDR 2.5 million (about $3.4 million).
The conditions for implementing the quota increases agreed under the Fourteenth General Quota Review were met on January 26, 2016. As a result, the quotas of each of the IMF’s 189 members will increase to a combined SDR 477 billion (about $654 billion) from about SDR 238.5 billion (about $327 billion). As of April 30, 2017, 179 of the 189 members had made their quota payments, accounting for over 99 percent of the total quota increases, and total quotas stood at SDR 475 billion (about $652 billion).
Fifteenth general review of Quotas
The Executive Board in September 2016 submitted a progress report to the IMF Board of Governors on the Fifteenth General Review of Quotas. In its report, the Executive Board recognized that, in light of the significant divergences of views on many key issues for the Fifteenth Review, further reflection was needed on how best to take the work forward. The Executive Board undertook to report to the Board of Governors on the outcome of these discussions in the near future.
In October 2016, the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) reaffirmed its commitment to a strong, quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF to preserve the Fund’s role at the center of the global financial safety net. The IMFC stated that it is committed to concluding the Fifteenth Review and agreeing on a new quota formula as a basis for a realignment of quota shares to result in increased shares for dynamic economies in line with their relative positions in the world and hence likely in the share of emerging market economies and developing countries as a whole, while protecting the voice and representation of the poorest members.
The IMFC expressed its support for resetting the timetable for completing the Fifteenth Review in line with the above goals by the Spring Meetings of 2019 and no later than the Annual Meetings of 2019, subject to adoption by the Board of Governors.
In November 2016, the Executive Board finalized a work plan and proposed that the Board of Governors adopt a resolution (1) noting the Report of the Executive Board and expressing regret that the timetable for completing the Fifteenth Review was no longer within reach; (2) calling on the Executive Board to work on the Fifteenth Review expeditiously in line with existing Executive Board understanding and guidance provided by the IMFC; (3) requesting that the Executive Board report on progress on the Fifteenth Review to the Board of Governors semiannually, with a first report by the 2017 Annual Meetings; and (4) urging the remaining members who have not yet consented to their quota increases under the Fourteenth General Review of Quotas to do so without further delay, and urging the members who have consented to their quota increases to make their quota payments in a timely manner. The Board of Governors adopted the resolution in early December 2016.
Gender Diversity in the Executive Board
The Executive Board in July 2016 issued its first report to the Board of Governors on gender diversity on the Board, calling on member countries to consider gender diversity when nominating candidates for Executive Directors and their staff. The Board followed up on a statement in the April 2016 communiqué of the International Monetary and Financial Committee reiterating the importance of gender diversity on the Board.
Executive Directors noted that improving gender diversity would lead to a more effective IMF and pointed to growing evidence that organizations governed by diverse boards are more successful. Directors emphasized that staff diversity and inclusion enhance the quality of the Fund’s work and engagement with member countries. The Board has supported measures by member nations to promote economic and gender inclusion where it is macro-critical for sustained economic growth.
Special Drawing Right
New SDR Basket Includes Chinese Currency
The Special Drawing Right (SDR) is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries’ official reserves. IMF members who are participants in the SDR Department (currently all members) may exchange SDRs for freely usable currencies. The SDR also serves as the IMF’s unit of account.
The value of the SDR is based on a basket of five major currencies. The basket composition is reviewed every five years by the Executive Board. As approved by the Executive Board of the IMF in November 2015, effective October 1, 2016, the Chinese currency, the renminbi, was determined to be a freely usable currency and was included in the SDR basket as a fifth currency, along with the US dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound.
The renminbi’s inclusion reflects the progress made in reforming China’s monetary, foreign exchange, and financial systems and acknowledges the advances made in liberalizing and improving the infrastructure of its financial markets. The milestone also reflects the ongoing evolution of the global economy.
The weight of each currency in the basket reflects the relative importance of currencies in the world’s trading and financial systems. In November 2015, the Board also decided that the initial weights of each currency would be 41.73 percent for the US dollar, 30.93 percent for the euro, 10.92 percent for the Chinese renminbi, 8.33 percent for the Japanese yen, and 8.09 percent for the British pound.
On September 30, 2016, the Board decided that effective October 1, 2016, the value of the SDR would be the sum of the values of the amounts of each currency as listed in Table 3.4.
Transparency in economic policy and the availability of reliable data on economic and financial developments are critical for sound decision making and for the smooth functioning of an economy. The IMF has policies in place to ensure that meaningful and accurate information—about both its own role in the global economy and the economies of its member countries—is provided in real time to its global audiences.
Transparency helps economies function better and makes them less vulnerable to crises. Greater openness on the part of member countries encourages more widespread public discussion and examination of policies, enhances the accountability of policymakers and the credibility of policies, and facilitates efficient and orderly functioning of financial markets. Greater openness and clarity by the IMF about its own policies and the advice it provides to its member countries contributes to a better understanding of the IMF’s own role and operations, building traction for the Fund’s policy advice and making it easier to hold the institution accountable. Outside scrutiny should also support the quality of surveillance and IMF-supported programs.
The IMF’s approach to transparency is based on the overarching principle that it will strive to disclose documents and information on a timely basis unless strong and specific reasons argue against such disclosure. The principle respects the voluntary nature of publication of documents that pertain to member countries. Documents are posted on the IMF’s website, www.imf.org.
Publication of country documents prepared for consideration by the IMF Executive Board (“Board documents”) is typically “voluntary but presumed,” meaning that, while voluntary, the publication of these documents is encouraged. A member’s consent to publication of a Board document is typically obtained on a nonobjection basis. The publication of policy papers is presumed but is subject to Board approval, while the publication of multicountry documents requires consent from either the Board or the members involved, depending on the type of document.
The IMF’s efforts to improve the understanding of its operations and engage more broadly with the public have been pursued along four broad lines: (1) transparency of surveillance and IMF-supported programs, (2) transparency of its financial operations, (3) external and internal review and evaluation, and (4) external communications. The Fund’s Transparency Policy is reviewed every five years: the most recent review was in 2013. See also the “Accountability” and “Outreach and Engagement with External Stakeholders” sections.
IMF Executive Directors
Back row (left to right): Hervé de Villeroché, Stephen Field, Anthony De Lannoy, Alexandre Tombini, Daouda Sembene, Carlo Cottarelli, Miroslaw Panek
Middle row: Masaaki Kaizuka, Carlos Hurtado, Thomas Östros, Heenam Choi, Jafar Mojarrad, Steffen Meyer, Jorge Estrella, Maxwell M. Mkwezalamba, Subir Gokarn
Front row: Juda Agung, Sunil Sabharwal, Michaela Erbenova, Aleksei Mozhin, Hazem Beblawi, JIN Zhongxia, Nancy Horsman, Hesham Alogeel
(From left to right): David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director
Carla Grasso, Deputy Managing Director and Chief Administrative Officer
Christine Lagarde, Managing Director
Mitsuhiro Furusawa, Deputy Managing Director
Tao Zhang, Deputy Managing Director
Executive Directors and Alternates (as of April 30, 2017)
|Anthony De Lannoy|
Richard Doornbosch Vladyslav Rashkovan
|Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Luxembourg, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine|
Klaus Gebhard Merk
Jorge Dajani Gonzalez
José Alejandro Rojas Ramirez
|Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Spain, República Bolivariana de Venezuela|
Tomas Benjamin Marcelo
|Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Fiji, Republic of Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam|
|Albania, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, San Marino|
|Hervé de Villeroché|
Schwan Badirou Gafari
Christine Barron Grant Johnston
|Australia, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu|
Michael J. McGrath
|Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Ireland, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines|
|Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden|
Christian Just Taşkin Temiz
|Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Turkey|
Bruno Saraiva Pedro Fachada
|Brazil, Cabo Verde, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago|
|Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka|
|Maxwell M. Mkwezalamba|
Dumisani H. Mahlinza Fundi Tshazibana
|Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Republic of South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe|
|Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Republic of Yemen|
|Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan|
|Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia|
Ryadh M. Alkhareif
Mohamed-Lemine Raghani Herimandimby A. Razafindramanana
|Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Togo|
|Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay|
(as of April 30, 2017)
|Abebe Selassie||Director, African Department|
|Chang Yong Rhee||Director, Asia and Pacific Department|
|Poul Thomsen||Director, European Department|
|Jihad Azour||Director, Middle East and Central Asia Department|
|Alejandro Werner||Director, Western Hemisphere Department|
|Gerard T. Rice||Director, Communications Department|
|Andrew J. Tweedie||Director, Finance Department|
|Vitor Gaspar||Director, Fiscal Affairs Department|
|Sharmini A. Coorey||Director, Institute for Capacity Development|
|Sean Hagan||General Counsel and Director, Legal Department|
|Tobias Adrian||Financial Counsellor and Director, Monetary and Capital Markets Department|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Economic Counsellor and Director, Research Department|
|Louis Marc Ducharme||Director, Statistics Department|
|Siddharth Tiwari||Director, Strategy, Policy, and Review Department|
|INFORMATION AND LIAISON|
|Chikahisa Sumi||Director, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific|
|Christopher Lane||Special Representative to the United Nations|
|Jeffrey Franks||Director, Offices in Europe/Senior Resident Representative to the European Union|
|Chris Hemus||Director, Corporate Services and Facilities Department|
|Kalpana Kochhar||Director, Human Resources Department|
|Susan Swart||Chief Information Officer and Director, Information Technology Department|
|Jianhai Lin||Secretary of the Fund, Secretary’s Department|
|Clare Brady||Director, Office of Internal Audit and Inspection|
|Daniel A. Citrin||Director, Office of Budget and Planning|
|Derek Bills||Director, Investment Office|
|Charles Collyns||Director, Independent Evaluation Office|