- International Monetary Fund
- Published Date:
- May 1988
© 1988 International Monetary Fund
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Implications of fund-supported adjustment programs for poverty.
(Occasional paper / International Monetary Fund; 58)
1. Income distribution—Developing countries. 2. Poor—Developing countries. 3. Economic development projects—Developing countries. 4. International Monetary Fund—Developing countries. I. Heller, Peter S. II. Series: Occasional paper (International Monetary Fund); no. 58.
Hch059.72.15146 1988 339.2’09172’4 88-12723
Price: US$7.50 (US$4.50 university libraries, faculty members, and students)
Address orders to: External Relations Department, Publication Services International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431
- Prefatory Note
- I. Introduction
- II. The Sample Countries and Programs
- III. Some Methodological Issues in the Analysis of the Impact of Adjustment Programs on Poverty
- Basic Methodology of the Study
- The Impact of Policy Measures on Poverty: An Overview of Channels
- Some Conceptual and Empirical Questions
- Methodology on Using a Poverty Typology to Assess Adjustment Programs
- IV. Macroeconomic and Other Nonfiscal Policies and Their Implications for Poverty
- V. Fiscal Policy Measures and Their Implications for Poverty
- Expenditure Measures and Their Implications for Poverty
- Revenue Measures and Their Implications for Poverty
- VI. Lessons of the Review
- Appendix. Summary of Country Case Studies
The following symbols have been used throughout this paper:
… to indicate that data are not available;
—to indicate that the figure is zero or less than half the final digit shown, or that the item does not exist;
–between years or months (e.g., 1984-85 or January-June) to indicate the years or months covered, including the beginning and ending years or months;
/ between years (e.g., 1985/86) to indicate a crop or fiscal (financial) year.
“Billion” means a thousand million.
Minor discrepancies between constituent figures and totals are due to rounding.
This study reflects the continuing interest by the Executive Board and management of the Fund in understanding and taking account of the impact of Fund-supported adjustment programs on poverty groups. Following an earlier study, Fund-Supported Programs, Fiscal Policy, and Income Distribution, which examined the distributional impact of the policy instruments commonly observed in Fund-supported programs, there was a need to examine these effects in the context of actual country cases. Nine programs that were in place in seven countries in the early 1980s were chosen, with a view to obtaining a geographical balance and a range of policy and adjustment experiences. The countries chosen for analysis were Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Kenya, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. This study provides an overview of the results obtained in the seven case studies.
The case studies were prepared by Lans Bovenberg (Chile), Thanos Catsambas (the Philippines and Ghana), Ke-Young Chu (Sri Lanka), Donogh McDonald (Kenya), and Partho Shome (Thailand and the Dominican Republic). Both the individual case studies and this study have benefited from comments by staff in the Fiscal Affairs Department and other departments of the Fund as well as by members of the Executive Board. However, the opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of other staff members or of Executive Directors. The authors are particularly indebted to the secretarial efforts of Anamaria Handford and Fiona Birrell. The authors also wish to thank the editor, Elin Knotter, of the External Relations Department.
I should like… to express two convictions. The first is that adjustment does not have to lower basic human standards. In this context, the efforts of fellow agencies of the UN family both to protect social programs in the face of unavoidable budget cuts and to make such programs more efficient—delivering better services at less cost—exemplify the types of things that are essential. My second conviction is that the more adjustment efforts give proper weight to social realities—especially the implications for the poorest—the more successful they are likely to be.