Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 47 items for :

  • Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements x
  • Asia and Pacific x
  • Financial services industry x
Clear All
International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

The IEO completed an evaluation of the governance of the IMF in 2008 when the stability of the international monetary system was under threat and the relevance and legitimacy of the IMF was in question. The 2008 evaluation assessed the extent to which IMF governance was effective and efficient, and whether it provided sufficient accountability and channels for stakeholder voices to be heard. It concluded that effectiveness had been the strongest aspect of the Fund’s governance while accountability and voice had been the weakest, with the potential to undermine legitimacy and effectiveness if not addressed.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

The 2008 evaluation assessed the degree to which Fund governance was effective and efficient, and whether it provided sufficient accountability and channels for stakeholders to have their views heard. It focused on institutional structures as well as on the formal and informal relationships among the Fund’s main governance bodies: the Executive Board (“Board”), Management (the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Directors), and the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC). Overall, it found that effectiveness had been the strongest aspect of Fund governance, which allowed for quick and consistent action particularly in times of systemic crisis. On the other hand, accountability and voice had been the weakest aspects, which the evaluation considered would likely undermine legitimacy and effectiveness over the medium term if left unaddressed.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

Significant progress has been made over the past decade towards reforming IMF governance, notably towards realigning quota and voice with member country positions in the global economy. There have also been numerous developments relative to the Board, Management, and the IMFC since the IEO evaluation. This chapter summarizes these developments as well as highlights areas where there has not been much change since 2008.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

As laid out in Chapter 3, Fund governance has evolved since the 2008 evaluation, aided by various reform initiatives. This chapter analyzes the current state of Fund governance, considering each of the Fund’s main governance bodies—the Board, Management, and the IMFC—in turn. The assessment in this chapter is informed by a desk review of internal documents; data analysis; the views of EDs, country authorities, Management, and senior Fund staff obtained through interviews; and discussions with external experts. Survey responses are presented as supplementary information but are not used as the primary source for findings given low response rates.24

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

Since 2008, a series of reforms have strengthened IMF governance in a number of ways. The 2008 and 2010 quota and voice reforms achieved a sizable reduction in misalignments of member country voting power with the evolving global economy while protecting representation of low-income members. Other reforms, mainly in the area of Board practices and procedures, have improved efficiency and raised the Board’s capacity to deliver on its executive, strategic, and oversight roles. The recent introduction of Board self-evaluation, a more open archives policy, modifications to the MD’s accountability framework, and the establishment of the Office of Risk Management are steps toward greater accountability and learning. These changes as well as the underlying efforts by IMF governance bodies to make them happen deserve full recognition.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

1. The IEO obtained the views of three sets of participants in interactions between the IMF and its member countries. The evaluation team surveyed the authorities and civil society representatives across the membership, and also those IMF staff members who had interacted with authorities and others. The team drafted three separate questionnaires, and engaged Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI)—an independent survey research firm—to help design and administer the surveys.1

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

1. As noted in the main report, the evaluation used three main sources of primary evidence—surveys, interviews, and internal documents. This background paper focuses on the internal documents. It has three sections. The first describes the documents themselves, as well as how they were obtained. The second sets out how the documents were used in the context of the evaluation’s work on the 49 sample countries, which covered the entire evaluation period. The third discusses the evaluation’s cross-country document review of selected issues in interactions, which focused on the last two years of the evaluation period.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

1. This document provides an overview of interview evidence for the evaluation of IMF interactions with member countries. It summarizes the number and type of interviews conducted; sets out the methodological approach to the interviews; and discusses particular issues that arose in the context of the interviews with members, as well as staff working with them, in different country groups.

International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office

Abstract

1. The IEO obtained the views of three sets of participants in interactions between the IMF and its member countries. The evaluation team surveyed the authorities and civil society representatives across the membership, and also those IMF staff members who had interacted with authorities and others. The team drafted three separate questionnaires, and engaged Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI)—an independent survey research firm—to help design and administer the surveys.1