Back Matter

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office
Published Date:
October 2005
    Share
    • ShareShare
    Show Summary Details
    Appendix I
    Table A1.1.New Initiatives: Monetary and Financial Systems Department
    Toward a More Strategic

    Process to Identify TA Needs
    Tracking of Progress During the ProjectEnhancing Impact and Evaluating Final Effects
    Aligned MFD priorities with Board paper,

    “Ensuring Alignment of TA with the IMF’s

    Policy Priorities” (SM/00/284), and updated

    priorities based on Board guidance

    (e.g., adding AML/CFT).

    Introduced pre-TOR meetings, interested departments and MFD divisions are invited.

    Introduced MAE/MFD TA Tracking System (MATTS), which helps to more clearly define a project and identify its objectives, track its progress, and evaluate its outcomes, thus providing lessons for future TA delivery.

    MAE/MFD reorganization led to creation of a TA Wing and provided more resources for TA oversight and management. This has also helped strengthen TA prioritization, tracking, and evaluation. (Note: TAIMS will replace MATTS.)

    Six-monthly meetings with area departments.
    MATTS and MFD reorganization (see column 1).

    Missions place increased emphasis on developing detailed, time-bound action plans.

    Greater use of TA evaluation visits, which also check progress in projects.

    Detailed monthly reports to Area Chiefs on progress of RAP, and regular meetings of Area Chiefs and TA Wing.

    TA Request Log introduced to record ad hoc requests that are not included in the RAP or introduced during the annual meetings, and MFD’s response.
    MATTS and MFD reorganization (see column 1).

    Greater use of TA evaluation visits, with questionnaires on impact and sustainability distributed to country authorities and area departments.

    Conducted user survey to evaluate overall satisfaction with MFDTA.
    Table A1.2.Table A1.2. New Initiatives: Fiscal Affairs Department
    Toward a More Strategic Process

    to Identify TA Needs
    Tracking of Progress During the ProjectEnhancing Impact and Evaluating Final Effects
    System of Regional Committees.

    Reorganization of TA divisions along regional lines.

    Fiscal Strategy Briefs.

    Standard assessment process for all TA requests.

    Enhanced coordination process with area departments in formulation of the RAP.
    Regional Committee review of the effectiveness of ongoing TA activities.

    Regular updates of Fiscal Strategy Briefs.

    Annual evaluations of experts managed by TA divisions.
    Adoption of upstream approach in revenue administration area.

    Survey of countries (shortly to be disseminated).

    Series of thematic evaluations (tax and customs reforms, PEM in Africa, VAT implementation).
    Table A1.3.New Initiatives: Legal Department
    Toward a More Strategic Process

    to Identify TA Needs
    Tracking of Progress During the ProjectEnhancing Impact and Evaluating Final Effects
    Integration of TA into country operations and review work. All country lawyers are to be familiar with the TA that is being delivered to their assigned countries by LEG. Where appropriate, actual TA delivery should be done by the country lawyer himself. These measures serve not only to promote better linkages between country review and TA work, but also to enable the TA needs of a country to be addressed, where necessary and applicable, in the context of program design or surveillance.All TA to be organized as “projects,” with each project having predefined objectives, outputs, and associated deadlines. Progress is tracked and monitored against these predefined indicators.TA project outcome is evaluated against the project’s predefined objectives by the respective TA manager.
    Table A1.4.New Initiatives (Since 1999): Statistics Department
    Toward a More Strategic Process

    to Identify TA Needs
    Tracking of Progress During the ProjectEnhancing Impact and Evaluating Final Effects
    Project Monitoring System (PMS) introduced to underpin the design, delivery, evaluation, and monitoring of TA in STA. It consists of a project framework summary, a statement of mission tasks, an end-of-mission evaluation report, a project evaluation report, and a progress report by the authorities.

    Needs assessment; plans for improvement based on GDDS and ROSC; greater reliance on multisector missions to provide comprehensive assessments of countries’ statistical systems, generally linked to the GDDS; and development and widespread use of the Data Quality Assessment Framework (DQAF) as an assessment tool.

    Geographic orientation introduced in STA involving the preparation of country strategy papers and closer coordination of TA with area departments.
    Sequence of matrices used to track project implementation. The PMS process has become more streamlined and focused, making the tracking of progress a more effective component of TA delivery.

    Dissemination Standards Bulletin Board continuously updated. GDDS participants undertake an annual update of their plans for improvement, together with the identification of associated TA needs. The DQAF provides important elements for prioritization in the department’s TA program.

    Process introduced to ensure that country strategy papers are updated on a regular basis based on inputs from the area departments and member countries.
    End-of-project evaluation reports are an integral component of the PMS. Formal procedures have been introduced to elicit feedback from the authorities on the effectiveness of TA delivery.

    The introduction of the various data standards initiatives has led to the consistent application and implementation of internationally accepted standards with respect to the compilation of macroeconomic statistics of relevance to the IMF. More systematic dissemination of TA reports and recommendations introduced.

    Based on a study of users’ reactions to TA reports, procedures have been adapted to increase responsiveness to users’ needs. A more integrated regional approach to TA prioritization is now embedded in the TA formulation process.
    Appendix II
    Table A2.1.Allocation of TA Resources by Country Grouping and Source of Funding, FY2002-03 Average 1(In person-years)
    Field Work (TIMS)Headquarters
    Gross National IncomeExternallyResources 3
    (GNI) Per Capita 2002IMF-financedfinanced(Pro rata)Estimated IMF-Financed TA
    (Atlas Method, World Bank)2(a)(b)(c)(a+c)(In percent)
    Less than $ 1,00060.166.774.4134.467.3
    $l,000-$2,00017.27.514.531.615.8
    $2,001-$3,0005.93.95.811.75.8
    $3,001-$4,0001.90.81.63.51.7
    $4,001-$5,0003.40.72.45.92.9
    $5,001-$7,0001.20.51.02.2I.I
    $7,001-$9,0001.41.01.42.81.4
    More than $9,0003.82.93.97.73.8
    Total94.884.0104.9199.7100.0
    Sources: OTM and World Bank, World Development Indicators.

    Excluding the IMF Institute.

    TA delivered to the regional technical centers, regional organizations (including regional central banks in Africa), and countries without GNI figures (such as post-conflict economies) is included in the less than $ 1,000 group.

    Time at headquarters devoted by the functional departments to backstopping resident experts; to preparing TA missions, TA papers, and formal reports, as well as the direct administrative and management time to support TA activities (see Chapter 3, “TA Resources at the Aggregate Level”).

    Bibliography

      Abbasi, Zia,2003, “Cambodia: Report of the Multisector Statistics Advisor” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Abbasi, Zia, and DavidCollins,2003, “Cambodia: Report on the Producer Price Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Ahmad, Ehtisham, and others,2001, “Ukraine: Refocusing Treasury and Budget Reforms” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Baldet, Jacques,2002, “Evaluation/Assessment Report on the Implementation of the UNDP/IMF/DFID Project to Assist the Government of Yemen in Strengthening Economic and Financial Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Baser, Heather, and PeterMorgan,2001, “The Pooling of Technical Assistance: An Overview Based on Field Research Experience in Six African Countries.” A Study for the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

      Benon, Olivier,1999, “Republic of Yemen: Next Steps in Implementing the GST” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Bio-Tchané, Abdoulaye, and TeresaTer-Minassian,2003, “Internal Assessment of FAD’s TA in Public Expenditure Management: The Mainly Anglophone African Countries” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Bloem, Adriaan, and others,2000, “Republic of Yemen: Report on the Multisector Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Bouley, D., and others,1999, “Niger: La Gestion des Finances Publiques” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Brondolo, John D., and BlaineMcDonald,1999, “Ukraine: Priorities for Tax Administration Reform” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Cartas, José M., and AngelSanchez,2003, “Zambia: Report on the Monetary and Financial Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Cartas, José M., ElizabethMerino, and SilvanoSpencer,2000, “Honduras: Report on the Monetary and Banking Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Chevauchez, Benoit,2003, “External Evaluation of Technical Assistance: Public Expenditure Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Conde, Alberto,2003, “Honduras: Asistencia Técnica” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Consulting and Audit Canada, 2003, “Mid-Term Review of Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre” (Ottawa: Consulting and Audit Canada).

      Craig, Jon, and others,2002, “Republic of Yemen: Further Reform of the Budget Process” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Diamond, Jack, and others,2004, “Public Expenditure Management Reform in Anglophone African Countries: An Assessment of FAD Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Diz, Adolfo, WolfgangRieke, and AlexanderSwoboda,1996, “External Evaluation of Technical Assistance Provided by the IMF’s Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Dridi, Jemma, and KotbSalem,2000, “Republic of Yemen: Report on the Real Sector Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Dridi, Jemma, and Madan G.Singh,1999, “Republic of Yemen: Report on the National Accounts Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Dublin, M. Keith, and others,2003, “Niger: Rapport de la Mission de Statistiques Multisectorielles” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Fassler, Segismundo,1999, “Honduras: Informe de la Misión de Asistencia Técnica en Cuentas Nacionales” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Fossat, Patrick, Anne-MarieGeourjon, and SarawanGunnoo,1998, “Niger: Introduction du TEC et Re-forcement des Administrations Fiscale et Douaniere” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Frydl, Edward, JuanFoxley, and EddieHerron,2003, “Cambodia: Banking Sector and Accounting Issues and Management of Foreign Exchange Reserves” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Geadah, Sami, and others,1999, “Republic of Yemen: Monetary Operations, Foreign Reserves Management, and Organization and Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Geourjon, Anne-Marie, and others,2003, “Niger: Vers une Amélioration des Recettes Fiscales” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Gillingham, Robert, AloysiusKuijs, and RickShaw,1999, “Republic of Yemen: Pension Reform” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Government of Cambodia, 2003, “Cambodia: Technical Cooperation Assistance Program Progress Report” (Phnom Penh).

      Government of Cambodia, 2002, “National Poverty Reduction Strategy 2003-2005” (Phnom Penh: Council for Social Development).

      Government of Ethiopia, 2002, “Ethiopia: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program” (Addis Ababa: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development).

      Government of Honduras, 2001, “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” (Tegucigalpa).

      Government of Honduras, 2002, “Borrador para Discusión, Proyecto de Régimen Tributario Simplificado Versión 2” (Tegucigalpa: Dirección Ejecutiva de Ingresos).

      Government of Honduras,, 2003a, “Acuerdo #1314, 2003” (Tegucigalpa: Finance Secretary).

      Government of Honduras, 2003b, “Plan Director de Tecnologías de Información: Período 2003-2005” (Tegucigalpa: Computer Science Department).

      Government of Honduras, “Plan Estratégico de la Dirección Ejecutiva de Ingresos 2002-2005” (Tegucigalpa).

      Government of Honduras, “Proyecto de Modificaciones al Codigo Tributario, Explicación de Motivos” (Tegucigalpa).

      Government of Niger, 2000, “Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” (Niamey: Office of the Prime Minister).

      Government of Niger,, 2002, “Full Poverty Reduction Strategy” (Niamey: Office of the Prime Minister).

      Government of Niger,, 2003, “Poverty Reduction Strategy Progress Report” (Niamey: Office of the Prime Minister).

      Government of Yemen, 2002, “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2003-2005” (Sanaá).

      Government of Zambia, 2002, “Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2002-2004” (Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National Planning).

      Government of Zambia,, 2004, “Zambia: First PRSP Implementation Progress Report, January 2002-June 2003,” Planning and Economic Management Department (Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National Planning).

      Gravelle, Pierre,2000, “Review of Technical Assistance Provided by the Revenue Administration Division of the Fiscal Affairs Department in Fiscal Year 2000” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Gupta, Sanjeev, and others,2000, “Ukraine: Implementing Public Expenditure Reforms” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Harkrisnowo, Harkristuti, PatriciaKendall, andDaniel S.Lev,2004, “IMF/Netherlands Program: Legal and Judicial Reform in Indonesia External Evaluation” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Holland, Graham, and RichardCourneyea,2002, “Ukraine: VAT Refund Management and Selected VAT Administrative Issues” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Independent Evaluation Office, 2002, Evaluation of Prolonged Use of IMF Resources (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Independent Evaluation Office, 2003, The IMF and Recent Capital Account Crises: Indonesia, Korea, Brazil (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Independent Evaluation Office, 2004, Evaluation of the IMF’s Role in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Ingves, Stefan,2004a, “Monetary Policy Implementation at Different Stages of Market Development” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Ingves, Stefan,2004b, “Monetary Policy Implementation at Different Stages of Market Development: Country Cases and Appendices—Supplementary Information” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 1996, “External Evaluation of Technical Assistance Provided by the IMF’s Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 1997, “Fiscal and Monetary Management Reform and Statistical Improvement: Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre, Report of the Evaluation Team (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 1999, “Review of Fund Technical Assistance: From Technical Assistance to Technical Consultation and Cooperation” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2000a, “An Assessment of FAD Technical Assistance in Establishing the Treasuries in the Baltic Countries, Russia, and Other Countries of the Former Soviet Union” (Washington: International Monetary Fund.

      International Monetary Fund, 2000b, “Ensuring Alignment of Technical Assistance with the IMF’s Policy Priorities” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2000c, “Ensuring Alignment of Technical Assistance with the IMF’s Policy Priorities—Supplementary Paper: Country Contributions for Technical Assistance” Technical Assistance Committee (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2000d, “Review of Technical Assistance Provided by the Revenue Administration Division of the Fiscal Affairs Department in Fiscal Year 2000” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2001a, Japan Administered Account for Selected IMF Activities: Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2001b, “Policy Statement on IMF Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2001c, “Review of the Technical Assistance by the Legal Department,” Office of Internal Audit and Inspection (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2002a, Japan Administered Account for Selected IMF Activities: Annual Report Fiscal Year (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2002b, “Report of the Task Force on the Review of the Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2002c, “Review of Technical Assistance Policy and Experience” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2002d, “Summing Up by the Acting Chair: Review of Technical Assistance Policy and Experience” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003a, “Cambodia: Fiscal Strategy Brief” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003b, “External Evaluation of Technical Assistance in PEM in Francophone African Countries” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003c, “IMF Technical Assistance: Transferring Knowledge and Best Practice” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003d, “Internal Assessment of FAD’s TA in Public Expenditure Management: The Mainly Anglophone African Countries” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003e, Japan Administered Account for Selected IMF Activities: Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003f, “Mid-Term Review of Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003g, “Public Expenditure Management Reform in Anglophone African Countries: An Assessment of FAD Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003h, “Statistical Capacity Building: Case Studies and Lessons Learned” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003i, Technical Assistance Information Management System: Contribution Paper (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004a, “Honduras: Ex Post Assessment of Longer-Term Program Engagement” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004b, “Honduras—First Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and Request for Waiver of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004c, “Niger: Ex Post Assessment of Performance Under IMF-Supported Programs” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004d, “Review of Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004e, “Statistical Development Strategy (SDS): Cambodia” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004f, “Supplement to the Review of Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004g, “Technical Assistance Evaluation Program—Findings of Evaluations and Updated Program” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004h, Technical Assistance Information Management System, User Manual (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004i, “Zambia: Ex Post Assessment of Performance Under Fund-Supported Programs” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004j, “Rebuilding Fiscal Institutions in Post-Conflict Countries” (Washington: International Monetary Fund) (draft).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004k, “MFD Technical Assistance to Recent Post-Conflict Countries” (Washington: International Monetary Fund) (draft).

      International Monetary Fund, “FY2000 Annual Report on Technical Assistance” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, International Monetary Fund and International Development Association, 2000, “Niger: Joint Staff Assessment of the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2002, “Niger: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper—Joint Staff Assessment” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2003, “Niger: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper—Progress Report: Joint Staff Assessment” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      International Monetary Fund, 2004, “Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper—Progress Report: Joint Staff Assessment” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Kamikamica, Josevata, and others,1997, “Fiscal and Monetary Management Reform and Statistical Improvement: Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre, Report of the Evaluation Team.

      Kavalsky, Basil,2004, “OED Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Process: Background Paper on Capacity Enhancement and the PRSP Process” (Washington: World Bank).

      Khay, Phousnith, and RobertGoschy,2002, “Cambodia: Report on Monetary and Financial Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Khemani, P.D., K.Mathai, and T.Reite,2001, “Zambia: Strengthening Public Expenditure Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Krelove, Russell, and others,2003, “Republic of Yemen: Indirect Tax Policy and Revenue Administration Reforms” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Lienert, I., and M.Woolley,2000, “Zambia: Improving Public Expenditure Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Merino, Elizabeth,2000, “Zambia: Report on Balance of Payments Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Mohammed, Nadir, and MariaHandal,2003, “Yemen Economic Update” (Sana’a: World Bank).

      Muzondo, Timothy R., JohnIsaac, and OsvaldoSchenone,2001, “Zambia: Reform of the Tax System” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Patel, Chandrakant,1999, “Cambodia: Report on the Balance of Payments Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Patel, Chandrakant,2000, “Cambodia: Report on the Balance of Payments Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Pinché, René,1998, “Zambia: Report on the Balance of Payments Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Potter, B.H., and others,1997, “Zambia: Improving the Control of Public Expenditure” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Prakash, Tej, and others,2001, “Cambodia: Framework for Improving Expenditure Management” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Rao, M.Govinda, RajaB.M.Korale, and SukumarMukhopadhyay,Evaluation Report on Technical Cooperation Assistance Program on Strengthening Economic and Financial Management Project” (New York: United Nations Development Program).

      Richards, Christie,2001, “Cambodia: Report on the Balance of Payments Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Richards, Christie,2003, “Cambodia: Final Report on Balance of Payments Statistics Peripatetic Assignment” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Salem, Kotb,2002, “Republic of Yemen: Report on Technical Assistance for National Accounts and Price Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Silvani, Carlos, and others,2001a, “Propuestas Para la Re-forma del Sistema Tributario y Su Administracion, Volumen I—Sistema Tributario” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Silvani, Carlos, and others,2001b, “Propuestas Para la Reforma del Sistema Tributario y Su Administracion, Volumen II—Administration Tributaria y Aduanera” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Tait, Alan, OlivierBenon, and DominiqueSimard,2001, “Cambodia: Improving the Structure and the Performance of the Tax System and Its Tax Administration” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      tenBerge, Joy, andSilvanoSpencer,1998, “Honduras: Report on the Money and Banking Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Torrez, Alfredo, and DavidFranco,2001, “Honduras: Nota Técnica de la Misión de Estadisticas Mone-tarias y Financieras” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Valdivieso, Luis M., and others,2004, “Cambodia: Ex Post Assessment of Longer-Term Program Engagement” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      van der Heeden, Koenraad, and JohnBrondolo,2000, “Ukraine: Implementing Large Taxpayer Offices and Strengthening Collection Enforcement” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      van der Heeden, Koenraad, John D.Brondolo, and VincentCastonguay,1998, “Ukraine: Reform Administration Reform” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      World Bank, 2002, “Civil Service Reform: Strengthening World Bank and IMF Collaboration,” Directions in Development (Washington: World Bank).

      Zee, Howell H., JohnBristow, and SolitaWakefield,2003, “Cambodia: Revenue Developments and Prospects” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Zee, Howell H., Patricio M.Castro, and ChrisWu,1999, “Cambodia: Reforming Tariff Policy and Customs Administration” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Zee, Howell H., Patricio M.Castro, and ChrisWu,2002, “Report of the Task Force on the Review of the Monetary and Exchange and Affairs Department” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Zee, Howell H., Patricio M.Castro, and ChrisWu,2003, “Strengthening the Monitoring and Evaluation of Technical Assistance at the IMF” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Zee, Howell, H., and others,2000, “Cambodia: Technical Cooperation Action Plan” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Zytek, Roman, and GeertAlmekinders,1997, “Zambia: Report on Money and Banking Statistics Mission” (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    Statement by the Managing Director

    Statement by the Managing Director on the Independent Evaluation OfficeEvaluation of the Technical Assistance Provided by the Fund

    Executive Board Meeting February 18,2005

    The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) is to be congratulated for a thorough and insightful report into technical assistance (TA) provided by the IMF. This evaluation has effectively combined careful cross-country analysis with informative, in-depth country case studies. In the process, it has shed greater light on factors underlying the allocation of technical assistance. As the report rightly emphasizes, this study faced special analytical challenges owing to the broad objectives of the IMF’s TA, which encompass a very diverse range of activities. Nonetheless, this report brings increased clarity to the subject by unbundling the TA process into three stages: prioritization, the delivery process, and monitoring progress and evaluation.

    We consider that the report provides a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Fund’s TA and welcome the constructive main recommendations coupled with some thoughtful final observations. Amongst the strengths cited by the IEO is the Fund’s ability to respond quickly, to tailor advice to member’s circumstances, and to produce high-quality analysis based on effective quality control. As to areas for improvement, we endorse the proposals made to: (i) introduce a more medium-term perspective for setting TA strategy and priorities; (ii) strengthen the tracking and evaluation of TA results; (iii) enhance country ownership of TA; and (iv) revisit TA prioritization filters. Indeed, as recognized in the report and discussed in the March 2004 TA review, the Fund has been taking steps in these areas, for instance with the introduction of departmental TA strategy papers, the planned pilot to provide TA summaries in Article IV reports, the launch of the TA evaluation program, and the ongoing development of the Fund-wide Technical Assistance Information Management System (TAIMS).

    Against this general background, it is appropriate to consider each of the IEO’s six main recommendations in turn.

    Recommendation 1: The IMF should develop a medium-term country policy framework for setting TA priorities, incorporating country-specific strategic directions and linked to more systematic assessments of factors underlying past performance.

    We endorse this recommendation and welcome the six suggested managerial approaches to carrying it forward. It is desirable that low-income country authorities, together with the Fund and other technical assistance providers, should be encouraged to use the PRSP as a vehicle for identifying medium-term technical assistance needs in general terms and improving coordination of technical assistance amongst various agencies. This recommendation is in line with the conclusions reached in our discussion of the IEO’s report on the Fund’s Role in PRSPs and PRGFs. For other members, a country-centered framework for identifying TA needs is also important, although a variety of approaches may be appropriate as the report acknowledges. Where present, resident representatives should play a greater role in this process.

    We see value in the annual resource allocation plan (RAP) evolving toward a multiyear framework consistent with the IMF’s general move to a three-year budget framework. For this process to work, each area department would need to spell out their proposed TA country priorities, based on a country policy framework discussed with their country authorities, benefiting from inputs from resident representatives, and drawing on the expertise of TA-providing departments. This approach is intended to allow a more transparent comparison between TA demands from the countries—as prioritized by the area departments—and supply from the TA-providing departments, identifying emerging pressure points that would call for a reallocation over time of resources across TA-providing departments. As the report emphasizes, we will need to reflect further on the resource implications for area departments and for other departments. TA-providing departments would remain responsible for devising the most effective delivery of TA, including its phasing and coordination and development of detailed TA projects to build capacity. The proposed framework should continue close contact between functional departments and the country authorities. A multiyear framework should also have the flexibility to satisfy unexpected technical assistance needs that arise from unforeseen country developments or other operational needs such as specific policy design and from strategic initiatives decided by the Board. It should continue to allow the Fund to respond to a member’s request for one-off TA where appropriate that is outside an agreed medium-term framework. The Fund’s ability to respond quickly and flexibly is an asset that must be preserved.

    Recommendation 2: The IMF should develop more systematic approaches to track progress on major TA activities and to identify reasons behind major shortfalls.

    We concur that at the outset of major TA activities, staff and the authorities should agree on indicators of progress, reflecting the unbundling of the results of TA through various stages. A greater ability to track and monitor progress and explain shortfalls is desirable. The TAIMS is directed at making more explicit at the planning stage the definition of objectives and indicators of success for each project. Candid reporting by the staff of obstacles to progress is obviously desirable, as is the use of comparable and transparent monitoring practices across countries to guide future TA allocations. For some types of technical assistance, the measurement of progress, and even more so outcomes, might be difficult.

    Recommendations 3 and 4: Greater involvement by the authorities and counterparts in the design of TA activities and arrangements for follow-up should be emphasized as a signal of ownership and commitment. Stronger efforts should be made by TA experts to identify options and discuss alternatives with local officials prior to drafting TA recommendations.

    Greater involvement and ownership by the recipient authorities and discussion of options is clearly desirable. We welcome the proposals for more participation by country authorities in drawing up terms of reference (TORs) building on the discussions that already take place and to specify clearly progress milestones, resource commitments, and critical policy steps. More informal discussions with authorities, including identifying options and discussing possible alternatives, is also desirable in order to enhance implementation, although the quality of TA advice should be maintained. At the design stage, tangible commitments to the contemplated technical assistance strategy or advice should be systematically sought from the authorities.

    Recommendation 5: The program of ex post evaluations of TA should be widened and more systematic procedures of disseminating lessons put in place.

    We agree that the recent trends in favor of more ex post evaluations should be strengthened and made more systematic, and that the findings should be widely disseminated within the IMF through periodic stocktaking exercises and regular reviews. To enhance effectiveness, the extent of the evaluations and the selection of topics need to be considered carefully and to be integrated fully into a broader strategy aimed at more effective and focused TA delivery. And, as discussed below, the trade-off between TA evaluations and TA delivery needs to be weighed. We concur that external evaluations are desirable as they enhance accountability and provide a fresh perspective. The Office of Technical Assistance Management (OTM), in collaboration with other departments, should continue to prepare and update its program of ex post evaluations and to assess shifts in TA demands across subject areas. There is also a continuing role for self-assessments by TA-providing departments.

    Recommendation 6: The prioritization filters should be discontinued or replaced by ones that would more effectively guide TA allocation. Either course of action involves strategic decisions on trade-offs that need to be taken explicitly.

    We agree that the case for discontinuing the current filters is strong. As the IEO report recognizes, a strategic decision needs to be taken on how decentralized an approach should be pursued. A decentralized approach led by area departments could allow TA to be closely aligned with specific country needs and circumstances and better integrated into our surveillance and use of Fund resources (UFR) activities, where the area departments have primary responsibility. However, as the IEO rightly notes, this approach risks spreading expertise too thinly or reducing the ability to respond quickly and effectively and would have implications for staffing in functional departments. As the report recognizes, more centralized guidance could help build a critical mass of expertise, but it may do so at the expense of adaptability to country circumstances. Prioritization of TA resources should flow on from our medium-term objectives, while at the same time retaining the flexibility to respond to the urgent needs of members.

    Final observations

    The IEO report emphasizes that its recommendations entail more staff-intensive approaches to providing TA, including greater collaboration with country authorities and other TA providers. These resource implications will need to be carefully considered and quantified. Absent an increase in resources, as the report acknowledges, the proposals will result in a lower volume of TA delivered by the Fund, although that TA should be more effective. This is an inescapable trade-off in a constrained budget environment and striking the proper balance is an important policy decision. In addition, as the report notes, further thought is required on both the internal mechanisms needed to reinforce a greater area department role in TA prioritization, planning, and monitoring, and the external mechanisms for strengthening country ownership, where the report suggests various possibilities for consideration. Changes in the Fund’s own budgetary procedures may need to be considered and there may also be a need to revisit the issue of charging for TA or other commitment devices as suggested by the IEO.

    There are also wider issues which require addressing in the context of the current strategic review. These include (i) the strategic role to be played by the Fund’s TA, in particular in low-income countries, where institution building requires significantly greater resources than Fund TA can provide; (ii) the broad objectives of TA, which encompasses a diverse range of activities; (iii) the link between TA and surveillance and UFR operations; (iv) the role of regional TA centers (where a Board paper is envisaged); and (v) the appropriate role for Fund TA relative to that of other providers, particularly in cases where country authorities’ ability to coordinate TA is lacking.

    Finally, the IEO has not provided—intentionally and appropriately—a ready blueprint for implementing their recommendations or assessed their budgetary implications. In particular, the possible adverse impact on the volume of TA delivery requires thorough examination. Therefore, management intends to task staff to make concrete proposals on how to implement these recommendations, taking into account the views expressed by Executive Directors, to estimate their budgetary costs, and to assess their implications for work practices and TA delivery.

    Summing Up of IMF Executive Board Discussion by Acting Chair

    The Acting Chair’s Summing Up

    Independent Evaluation Office— Evaluation of the Technical Assistance Provided by the Fund

    Executive Board Meeting 05/16 February 18,2005

    Executive Directors commended the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) for a thorough and insightful evaluation of technical assistance (TA) provided by the IMF. They highlighted the increasingly important role that Fund TA is called upon to play in responding to the diverse needs of member countries, particularly in the areas of policy design and implementation, as well as in capacity building. Directors saw the discussion of the IEO report as a welcome opportunity to explore how the effectiveness of TA could be further enhanced. They recognized the special analytical challenge faced by this IEO evaluation owing to the broad objectives and very diverse modalities of Fund TA. Several Directors referred, in this context, to the IEO’s observation that the broad objectives of Fund TA have been used to define a wide set of TA activities—including short-term policy advice that is closely linked to the Fund’s core surveillance and program work—and suggested that it would be useful to revisit the output classifications for TA. Directors noted that the combination of cross-country analysis with in-depth country case studies and interviews with key stakeholders lent robustness to the report’s findings, and welcomed the light shed by the report on factors underlying the allocation of TA. However, several Directors would have liked to see a discussion of regional technical assistance centers (RTACs). Directors appreciated the report also for bringing greater clarity to the subject by unbundling the TA process into three stages: prioritization, the delivery process, and monitoring progress and evaluation.

    Directors considered that the report provides a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Fund’s TA. They welcomed the constructive recommendations and observations, which, together with today’s discussion, will provide timely and valuable inputs into the ongoing strategic review of the Fund. Directors concurred that key strengths of the Fund in providing TA are its ability to respond quickly, to tailor advice to members’ circumstances, and to produce high-quality analysis based on effective quality control. As to areas for improvement, Directors agreed that there is a need to: (i) introduce a more medium-term perspective for setting TA strategy and priorities; (ii) strengthen the tracking and evaluation of TA implementation and results; (iii) enhance country ownership of TA; and (iv) revisit the need for TA prioritization filters. As recognized in the IEO report and discussed in the March 2004 TA review, the Fund has been taking steps in these areas, for instance with the introduction of departmental TA strategy papers, the planned pilot to provide TA summaries in selected Article IV reports, the launch of the TA evaluation program, and the ongoing development of the Fund-wide Technical Assistance Information Management System (TAIMS). At the same time, however, improving the effectiveness of TA remains an ongoing challenge, and Directors considered how the IEO’s six major recommendations could help advance this effort.

    Recommendation 1: The IMF should develop a medium-term country policy framework for setting TA priorities, incorporating country-specific strategic directions and linked to more systematic assessments of factors underlying past performance.

    Directors endorsed this recommendation and generally supported the managerial approaches suggested for carrying it forward. In particular, most Directors agreed that in low-income countries, the PRSP should increasingly serve as a vehicle for identifying medium-term TA needs and improving coordination of TA among various agencies. It was recognized, however, that, in a number of cases, the focus of PRSPs will need to be sharpened to carry out this role effectively. In other countries, Directors stressed the importance of developing country-centered frameworks for identifying TA needs, but noted that a variety of approaches—possibly including greater use of Article IV consultations to assess needs—may be appropriate. They emphasized the importance of ensuring that these frameworks reflect the institutional, organizational, and managerial characteristics of recipient countries, including their capacity constraints.

    Directors saw value in the annual resource allocation plan (RAP) evolving toward a multiyear framework, consistent with the IMF’s move to a three-year budget framework, with area departments taking a central role in developing country frameworks, and resident representatives, where present, also contributing to identifying and monitoring TA. This approach would allow a comprehensive comparison across sectors and countries between TA needs—as prioritized by the area departments—and supply from the TA-providing departments. It would also provide means of identifying emerging pressure points that might call for a reallocation of resources across TA-providing departments. Directors considered that TA-providing departments should remain responsible for assuring the quality of TA and for devising TA strategies in their sectors, as well as for the most effective delivery of TA, including its phasing and coordination, with continuous, close contact between those departments, area departments, country authorities, and donor agencies. In this context, Directors generally supported the view that country authorities should be ultimately responsible for coordinating TA, although the Fund might need to work more closely with other agencies and donors in cases of weak capacity in member countries. Stressing that the Fund’s ability to respond quickly and flexibly is an asset that must be preserved, Directors emphasized that a multiyear framework should retain the flexibility to satisfy unexpected TA needs where appropriate. They encouraged management to put in place incentives for area departments to play the central role described above. Going forward, the likely resource implications of this role for area departments will also need to be carefully considered.

    Directors noted the report’s finding that the evidence on charging for TA was inconclusive, and many shared the report’s skepticism on whether this issue should be pursued. These Directors pointed out that most of the recipients of TA were low-income countries for whom charges would represent an additional fiscal burden. Other Directors, however, saw merit in revisiting the issue of charges, noting that charges could contribute toward promoting greater ownership and commitment, and that the burden could be eased through cost-sharing.

    Recommendation 2: The IMF should develop more systematic approaches to track progress on major TA activities and to identify reasons behind major shortfalls.

    Directors supported the recommendation that at the outset of major TA activities, staff and the authorities should agree on measurable indicators of progress covering all the major stages of the activity. They noted that the TAIMS could become the vehicle through which enhanced, transparent, and standardized monitoring practices are implemented across the institution. Directors saw a need for better tracking progress by unbundling the different stages of the TA project life cycle, careful explanation of the shortfalls in project execution, and candid reporting by the staff on obstacles to progress. The wider dissemination of TA reports could also contribute to improve tracking of progress. However, it was pointed out that, in tracking progress, care should be taken to avoid imposing conditions on members without their consent. While Directors generally supported the view that a country’s record of implementation should be an important guide in weighing requests for TA, a number of Directors cautioned against using tracking indicators mechanistically for making decisions on future TA allocations.

    Recommendations 3 and 4 Greater involvement by the authorities and counterparts in the design of TA activities and arrangements for follow-up should be emphasized as a signal of ownership and commitment. Stronger efforts should be made by TA experts to identify options and discuss alternatives with local officials prior to drafting TA recommendations.

    Directors concurred that greater involvement and ownership by the recipient authorities and discussion of options are crucial to greater TA effectiveness. They welcomed the proposals for more participation by country authorities in drawing up terms of reference (TORs) building on the discussions that already take place. This will require systematic dialogue by all parties to specify clearly progress milestones, resource commitments, and critical policy steps required for the final success of TA. The need to develop local capacity by allowing country authorities to participate effectively in this process was also emphasized. Directors recommended that tangible commitments to the contemplated TA strategy or advice be systematically sought from the authorities at the design stage. At the same time, a number of Directors cautioned that these indications of commitment should not be treated as conditionality for access to TA. As regards TA recommendations, Directors were of the view that more informal discussions with the authorities, including on identifying possible alternatives, would help enhance implementation, while emphasizing that the quality of TA advice should be maintained.

    Recommendation 5: The program of ex post evaluations of TA should be widened and more systematic procedures of disseminating lessons put in place, thereby strengthening recent trends, including through periodic stocktaking exercises and regular reviews.

    Directors highlighted the importance, in this context, of ensuring that the scope of the ex post evaluations is considered carefully and integrated fully into a broader strategy aimed at more effective TA delivery. They concurred that external evaluations are a useful tool to enhance accountability and provide a fresh perspective. The Office of Technical Assistance Management (OTM), in collaboration with other departments, should continue to prepare and update its program of ex post evaluations and to assess shifts in TA demands across subject areas. There is also a continuing role for self-assessments by TA-providing departments. While recognizing the importance of ongoing evaluations and reviews, Directors stressed that the trade-off between TA evaluations and TA delivery needs to be carefully weighed.

    Recommendation 6: The prioritization filters should be discontinued or replaced by ones that would more effectively guide TA allocation.

    Directors concurred that the case for discontinuing the current filters was strong, although several Directors observed that some elements of this approach might usefully be preserved. Directors considered that prioritization of TA resources should flow from a shared vision of the Fund’s overall medium-term objectives—reflecting its core competencies—while at the same time retaining the flexibility to respond to the urgent needs of members. In discussing the challenges that the implementation of this principle would involve, Directors generally were of the view that an approach led by area departments could allow TA to be closely aligned with specific country needs and circumstances, and better integrated into the Fund’s surveillance and program activities. At the same time, however, the discussion also highlighted that this approach might risk spreading expertise too thinly. Several Directors stressed that some centralized guidance on broad policy priorities for Fund TA could help build a critical mass of expertise, but recognized that this could be at the expense of adaptability to country circumstances. In this context, some concern was expressed over the volume of TA that is being driven by Fund-wide initiatives.

    Directors agreed that the IEO’s recommendations would entail more staff-intensive approaches to providing TA, including greater collaboration with country authorities and other TA providers. They called for a careful consideration and quantification of these resource implications. A number of Directors noted that, absent an increase in resources, the report’s proposals would result in fewer but more effective TA activities. At the same time, however, it was also stressed that given the pressing needs for low-income country TA in the context of meeting the MDGs, implementation of the report’s recommendations should not involve any reduction in the volume of TA delivered to these members.

    Going forward, Directors welcomed management’s proposal to task staff to make concrete proposals on how to implement the IEO recommendations, taking into account budgetary costs, and implications for work practices and TA delivery, and looked forward to future discussion of these proposals, including on prioritization, before their implementation. In developing these proposals, the staff will, of course, fully take into account Directors’ views expressed today, including the many operational as well as financing issues which Directors highlighted as deserving careful assessment in moving toward implementation of the IEO recommendations. Many Directors felt that these issues should include a thorough review of the performance of RTACs, and their role going forward. It was also suggested that the issues include the training of country officials provided by the IMF Institute. Directors also noted that the IEO report raises a range of broad issues which they looked forward to discussing in the context of the ongoing strategic review of the Fund.

    For example, we can easily measure the number of officials who have been trained or information systems that have been deployed, but these outputs say little about final outcomes.

    A good example of the need to consider carefully any quantitative indicator of impact is that these indicators may be heavily influenced by better transparency and information systems resulting from the TA itself. For example, TA may increase the ability of the respective agencies to document and measure tax evasion, tax arrears, or the volume of problem assets in banks. In these cases, a “deterioration” in indicators may be welcomed, and it should not automatically be interpreted as arising from ineffective TA.

    The 2003 HIPC Assessment and Action Plan (April 2004 draft report) concluded that “Overall, Zambia’s PEM system still requires substantial upgrading in the areas of budget formulation and execution in order to make the budget a functioning tool for implementing fiscal policy.”

    Harkisnowo and others (2004).

    There are no good measures of unmet demand for IMF TA. The only indicator available is the share of formal TA requests by the authorities (submitted to the functional departments) that were not met. In both FY2002 and FY2003, this excess demand was about 20 percent and 8 percent for FAD and MFD, respectively.

    See Figure 3.2 and Chapter 3, “Overall Resources Used by the Functional Departments.”

    Excludes the INS and OTM, which accounted for 67 person-years on average during this period.

    Field work TA for different countries financed by the IMF is readily available. Headquarters TA resources of the functional departments were allocated in proportion to the total field work (IMF and externally financed) in the different countries (Appendix 2).

      Other Resources Citing This Publication