2018 Interim Surveillance Review—Background Paper

Fund surveillance has become better adapted to the global conjuncture, and more integrated and risk-based.


Fund surveillance has become better adapted to the global conjuncture, and more integrated and risk-based.


1. This background paper provides additional information on the approach and methodology of the assessment undertaken for the Interim Surveillance Review (ISR). The assessment is anchored on the recommendations of the 2014 TSR and actions expected to be taken on the surveillance objectives set in the Board’s Work Program. The overall approach was designed to evaluate advances in key surveillance inputs and in the quality of multilateral and bilateral surveillance outputs. Staff also sought to gauge the trajectory of ongoing work to help identify areas where midcourse corrections may be needed.

2. The ISR assessment involved taking stock of implementation of the TSR recommendations as well as the Fund’s response to evolving policy challenges facing the membership. The 2014 TSR established three surveillance priorities: enhancing risk and spillover analysis; supporting resilience and sustainable growth; and achieving greater impact. To advance implementation of these surveillance priorities, the TSR formulated fourteen key recommendations, which were further refined and operationalized in the MD’s Action Plan (Box 1). Since then, there has been a continuous engagement with the Board on work in these areas and on other surveillance topics (Annex I).

3. The assessment considered surveillance inputs and outputs within a structured framework. The assessment of surveillance inputs included resources, analytical approaches, and engagement, reflecting the principles for risk-adjusted surveillance under the evenhandedness framework approved by the Executive Board in 2016 (Annex II). In this context, progress on risk-based resource allocation within surveillance and lending activities was also evaluated. The assessment of advances in outputs— multilateral surveillance products and Article IV reports—was supported by a range of diagnostics, including surveys of Executive Directors1 and staff,2 structured review of Article IV reports, and broad consultations across Fund departments. These diagnostics assessed the quality of surveillance outputs as well as progress for each operational action. The ISR assessment also took stock of experience in using pilots to advance surveillance priorities, including on emerging issues, as well as a cost analysis of recent pilot initiatives (Annex IV).

4. The results of the diagnostic approaches inform the overall ISR assessment.

Consultations across departments along with a stocktaking of Board engagements on surveillance focused on key areas of activity, complementing other elements of the review, notably surveys of Executive Directors and staff and the structured review of Article IV reports. Annex III provides more detail on each of these elements, including the main results from both surveys and additional detail on the sample selection and themes for the structured review of Article IV reports. The main findings based on these diagnostics were discussed across departments, which helped inform development of recommendations on the way forward.

2014 TSR Recommendations and Action Items 1/

  • Continue integration of bilateral and multilateral surveillance:

    • The topics for the analytical chapters of the flagships will reflect other departments’ views.

    • The flagship authors will give tailored presentations to area departments, summarizing the key flagship messages (including the analytical chapters) and highlighting the implications of global risks for different country groupings (depending on their level of development).

    • REOs will discuss the implications of global risks and spillovers for their regions/countries.

    • The World Economic Outlook (WEO) will summarize the key global risks highlighted in the Global Risk Assessment Matrix (G-RAM).

    • Staff will issue the G-RAM to the Board for information on a quarterly basis.

    • Article IV consultations for economies whose policies are likely to have systemic spillovers will include greater quantification of the impact of outward spillovers and spillbacks.

    • Country teams will discuss this analysis with authorities during Article IV consultations.

  • Integrate analysis of risks and spillovers:

    • Country teams will use an eclectic approach, applying a range of specialized analytical techniques where needed.

    • ICD will support deepening risk and spillover analysis through focused training.

    • Include an alternative quantified risk scenario in Article IV reports on countries where one or a combination of risks could materially affect the outlook. Prepare alternative scenarios for a first wave of 20 countries.

    • To support alternative quantified risk scenarios for global risks, the WEO team will prepare alternative global assumptions for risks identified in the G-RAM.

    • Develop a dataset to support the balance sheet approach, along with a template and guidance for use by country teams and support this by setting up a task force.

    • Where possible and relevant, Article IV reports will include matrices showing assets and liabilities, their maturity and currency composition, for each sector.

    • Identify and implement 5 pilot cases for balance sheet analysis in Article IV reports, one for each area department.

    • SPR to expand external DSA to assess shocks to external flows.

    • Work with G20 to develop plans for phase 2 of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative starting in 2016.

    • Intensify efforts to develop a global flow of funds at least for the largest global economies.

  • Strengthen external sector assessment:

    • Gradually replace CGER with EBA for a broader set of countries, subject to data availability to help inform staff’s overall external assessments.

    • Develop an EBA-lite type external sector assessment methodology for low-income countries.

    • Prepare a paper describing the EBA-lite methodology and make the dataset and programs underpinning the EBA-lite results publicly available by end-2015.

    • Undertake a comprehensive assessment of the external position using a broader set of indicators than just the exchange rate.

    • In countries where the EBA methodology is applied, discuss the contribution of domestic policies to external imbalances, and use these results in relevant policy discussions.

  • Mainstream macrofinancial surveillance:

    • Undertake efforts to identify themes for countries from different regions and income groups.

    • Provide inter-departmental support to develop and reflect this analysis in Article IV consultations.

    • Develop leading practices in integrating macrofinancial issues into analysis and advice.

    • Develop analytical frameworks for macrofinancial analysis and a macrofinancial training program.

    • Share good practice examples through effective knowledge management.

    • Focused review to help strengthen macrofinancial analysis and advice in Article IV staff reports.

  • Address data gaps, Implement the G-20 Data Gap Initiative:

    • Address data weaknesses (sectoral accounts, GFS, external exposures).

    • Maintain momentum behind the implementation of international data agreements.

    • Intensify efforts to develop a global flow of funds at least for the largest global economies

  • Strengthen surveillance of macroprudential policies:

    • Anchor staff advice on microprudential and macroprudential policies.

    • Focused review to help strengthen analysis of macroprudential policies.

  • Continue accounting for growth and sustainability implications in fiscal advice:

    • Undertake institutional analysis to strengthen the basis for structural fiscal balances.

    • Present fiscal advice in terms of a clear and well-justified anchor.

  • Be selective in advising on structural policies:

    • Recognize all macro-critical structural issues and their implications on an economy. Follow principles to determine where to provide advice: macro-criticality, and Fund expertise or interest from ‘critical mass’ of the membership (e.g., financial deepening and labor market issues).

    • In other areas, leverage advice from other international organizations.

    • Strategically invest in strengthening capacity in certain aspects of labor market policies.

    • Leverage internal expertise to help design and deliver training for relevant country desks.

    • Establish an interdepartmental task force to help identify priority areas, and develop working links with relevant international agencies and institutions.

  • Provide more cohesive policy advice in Article IVs

    • Update the Article IV guidance note to clarify that Article IV reports should explicitly discuss the policy mix.

    • Strengthen knowledge management (KM) activities by better documenting, sharing, and utilizing the Fund’s knowledge of country policy experience and the lessons for the broader membership.

    • Establish a small KM Unit, reporting to Management, to help design, coordinate, and communicate the Fund’s knowledge sharing activities.

    • The KM Working Group to finalize a draft KM strategy and work program.

  • Better leverage expert analysis and advice:

    • Concerted efforts to draw on cross-country policy experiences.

    • Strengthen TA integration in surveillance.

    • Enhance collaboration with other organizations in specific areas.

  • Strengthen the policy dialogue:

    • Strengthen accountability by expanding the discussion on past advice in Article IV reports to include changes in staff advice, and, where relevant, the implementation of different policies by the authorities.

    • Country teams will engage with member countries on a more continuous basis, and seek opportunities for informal discussions, including through staff visits and private workshops.

    • Area departments will monitor the quality of engagement and policy dialogue through targeted surveys and informal feedback mechanisms.

  • Ensure clear and candid surveillance messages:

    • Ensure clear and candid surveillance messages, particularly on spillovers from systemic economies.

    • Strengthen the clarity and coherence of multilateral surveillance messages.

    • Integrate key messages from the Spillover Report and the Pilot ESR into the WEO and GFSR.

    • Synthesize key Fund policy messages in the GPA.

    • Undertake more targeted communications with relevant stakeholders.

  • Establish a clearer understanding on how to gauge evenhandedness in surveillance:

    • Building on efforts of an interdepartmental working group, set clear principles/benchmarks for an evenhanded approach to surveillance.

    • Use these principles/benchmarks to help in assessing evenhandedness when concerns are raised.

    • Adjust the resources allocated for surveillance (staffing, engagement and coverage) to reflect countries’ individual and/or systemic risk factors.

    • Reflect—using policy advice—sound, objective analysis tailored to country circumstances, including the choice of issues analyzed, depth of analysis, and analytical approaches and tools.

  • Create a mechanism for authorities to report concerns:

    • Establish a mechanism for authorities to report concerns and provide Executive Directors with a dedicated e-mailbox to submit written concerns.

1/ Source: MD’s Action Plan, December 2014.

Annex I. Executive Board Engagement on Surveillance Priorities (2014–17)

Close to 90 Board meetings (both formal and informal) were held on topics related to the 2014 TSR priorities during September 2014–December 2017, excluding WEO and GFSR presentations and area-specific briefings. These Board engagements have supported continued advances in implementation of surveillance priorities.

article image
article image
article image

Topics are classified based on relevance to a surveillance priority; Items for information only are not included.

Annex II. Risk-Based Resource Allocation

Risk-based resource allocation was assessed on the basis of full time equivalents (FTE) allocated to countries with varying levels of vulnerabilities. The source of FTE data is the Fund’s Time reporting of Analytic Costing and Estimation System (TRACES) database. The data cover area department and functional department Surveillance and Lending activities, while resource allocations related to Capacity Development and FSAPs were excluded from the exercise.1 Country vulnerability levels were informed by the Fund’s Vulnerability Exercise.2

Determinants of Resource Allocation

article image
Least Squares Dummy Variables estimates (includes country and time dummies). Data cover 189 countries for the 2014q1 – 2017q1. FTEs are calculated from the Fund’s time recording system; the selection of vulnerable countries was informed by the Vulnerability Exercise (VE).

The Fund is gradually moving towards a more risk-based allocation of resources. Empirical evidence indicates that vulnerable countries are allocated significantly more resources than non-vulnerable countries, even when controlling for other country characteristics and Fund-supported programs. On average vulnerable countries have 0.67 more FTEs than non-vulnerable countries. In terms of other country characteristics, being a G20 or program country also corresponds with more FTEs. At the same time, resource allocation seems to have a negative correlation with country income levels (i.e., surveillance and lending activities in advanced and emerging economies are undertaken with relatively less resources than in LICs).

Annex III. Surveys and Structured Review of Article IV Reports

A. Surveys

The ISR assessment is guided by two surveys, soliciting stakeholders’ views on various aspects of surveillance. The response rates of the two surveys of IMF Executive Directors, and IMF country mission chiefs were relatively high, 75 percent (18 responses from the 24 Executives Directors) and 51 percent (91 responses from 178 solicited views). Tables 1 and 2 report the overall results of the two surveys.

Response Rates and Regional Distribution

article image
Source: Survey of Executive Directors, Staff Survey, Structured Article IV Review.

The geographic information is not specified.

B. Structured Review of Article IV Consultation Staff Reports

The ISR assessment was also guided by structured review of Article IV consultation reports. A representative sample of 34 Article IV consultation reports discussed by the IMF Executive Board between June 2016 and July 2017 was identified using stratified random sampling approach, based on income level, geographical location, pilot participation, program participation, ESR coverage, and G20 membership. Based on the findings of the initial assessment, a further review of 23 reports was undertaken to assess coverage of outward spillovers. This supplemental review covered Article IV reports of the US, UK, China, Germany, Japan, and the Euro Area published between 2014 and 2017.

article image
Annex Table 1.

Survey of Executive Directors

(in percent of respondents)

article image
article image
Annex Table 2.

Survey of Mission Chiefs

(in percent of respondents)

article image
article image
Annex Table 3.

Structured Review of Article IV Consultation Staff Reports

article image
article image
article image

Annex IV. Lessons from the Pilot Approach

Pilot initiatives have played a critical role in enabling agile responses to challenges facing the membership, supported by high-quality analysis and advice. The evolving global environment has required that the Fund deepen its analysis in some areas and cover new, emerging issues that lie within its overall surveillance mandate.1 Unlike in traditional areas (e.g. external sector assessment) where there are well-established conceptual frameworks and operational experience, challenges can be more complex in other areas, particularly in the initial stages of learning. To address challenges, staff has deployed a more flexible learning approach using pilots to build knowledge and institutional experience in some areas where the Fund needs to diffuse in-house expertise or has not had sufficient operational experience in the past.2

Once staff has built internal expertise and gained sufficient experience, the pilots are concluded and the body of knowledge is available across the institution. Some more mature pilots have already succeeded in disseminating tools, building cross-country policy experience, establishing collaboration with external experts where appropriate, and these areas of work are being integrated effectively into bilateral surveillance.

Pilots are built on strong internal collaboration. Staff have pursued a collaborative approach that promotes learning by doing, knowledge exchange, and leveraging external expertise.

  • Identification of countries and issues. Area departments identify pilot countries based on the degree of macroeconomic significance of the issues. They also determine how work on these topics will be organized in their own departments and provide feedback on where functional department support can be most useful.

  • Customized support. Early brainstorming with functional departments, and in some cases also external experts, is often integral to the process. The support also includes developing and providing better access to tools and cross-country data; identifying relevant cross-country experience and lessons from Fund TA; and feedback on analytical approaches. In some cases, staff Advisory Groups also facilitated knowledge exchange.

  • Review. Where dedicated review supports pilot initiatives, it focuses on integration of targeted issues into the broader macroeconomic and policy context.

  • Training. Purpose-specific training courses help familiarize teams and reviewers with more technical aspects of the work.

Sharing of good practices within and across pilots has been essential in promoting institutional learning, and an improved dialogue with a broader set of authorities. Key lessons include:

  • Learning is more effective when pilots are rolled out in waves. Operational experience gained from the first wave helps staff (i) refine and extend existing frameworks (e.g., to clarify expectations on how to deepen surveillance of macrostructural issues in emerging markets and developing countries more broadly; or to share approaches to macrofinancial analysis that effectively complement traditional modeling frameworks); and (ii) build lessons for good practices for the second wave.

  • Selectivity is essential. The intensity of these processes has at times taxed area and functional departments. Selectivity in prioritizing coverage of issues and streamlined review would in some cases result in more in-depth analysis and granular, tailored policy advice. Further development of the infrastructure for knowledge sharing across teams could help maintain focus after the pilot is concluded.

  • Brainstorming sessions enhance dialogue outside the formal review process. They ensure sufficient attention to prioritization, relevant peer country experience, and how to integrate specific analytical approaches into staff’s broader analysis. There is scope for more systematic dissemination of conclusions from these meetings across teams, including through Knowledge Exchange websites. Staff have also strengthened the mechanisms for more exchanges of knowledge with other agencies in areas where perceived benefits are high.

  • Learning also takes place across initiatives. Lessons from macrofinancial training, for instance, have helped inform the inter-departmental macrostructural training clinics currently underway.

  • The Fund has developed different ways to leverage outside expertise. While there have been some positive experiences of collaboration with other agencies in particular instances or specific topics, challenges to effective collaboration are rooted in institutional differences in objectives, approaches, and incentives. On the other hand, there could be more scope for externally financed consultants, which have been used extensively in the gender, inequality and climate pilots to keep resource costs manageable.3

Pilots have improved the quality of Fund advice at relatively modest cost, with greater resources directed to those with higher perceived payoffs.

  • Payoffs are positive. A survey of mission chiefs indicates that staff believe participation in pilots has improved the quality of policy advice. Payoffs are perceived to be relatively high for the macrostructural and gender pilots, for example (Annex Figure).

  • Cost was relatively modest. The estimated cost of four pilot initiatives currently underway was US$8–9 million per year in total.4 The cost per initiative varies with its potential scope and country coverage but direct comparisons of costs across initiatives is somewhat problematic. For example, the fiscal space initiative was the least costly (US$0.9 million per year), reflecting the specific and more limited scope of the analysis, and the costs of the gender and inequality pilots were only somewhat higher. In contrast, the macrostructural initiative has been costlier (US$3–4 million per year), as the potential range of issues within this area is much broader and staff’s familiarity with these issues varies, sometimes requiring significant start-up costs. At the same time, some of the work costed for the macrostructural initiative would likely have been done irrespective of whether there was a macrostructural pilot or not, which may be less of an issue for some of the other pilots.

  • Cost has declined in more mature pilots. As country teams have built up knowledge and capacity has been developed, the annual cost of incorporating this work into surveillance should decline (although some ongoing efforts may be required for new teams just beginning to undertake this work). For instance, the cost decline is already reflected in the income inequality and gender initiatives, as intensive work in some country cases need not be repeated.

  • The cost-benefit relationship should improve over time. Experience shows that the knowledge creation phase could take longer under an initiative that tackles more complicated topic areas, making that pilot costlier to operate initially while perceived benefits would only be fully derived at a later, more mature stage. (For example, in the macrofinancial work, persistent positive benefits are observed in the depth and integration of analysis by country teams that were originally part of the pilot effort.)

Annex Figure.
Annex Figure.

Selected Pilots: Estimated Payoffs and Costs

Citation: Policy Papers 2018, 018; 10.5089/9781498307406.007.A002

Source: ISR Mission Chief Survey and OBP costing survey (covering area and functional departments). The size of the bubble corresponds to the number of countries in each pilot.Y axis: Responses to the question “To what extent participation in the pilot helped to strengthen policy advice?” (4-to great extent; 3-to some extent; 2 – to a limited extent; 1- not at all), Mission Chief Survey.

Background Information

This section provides background information on nine pilot initiatives since the 2014 TSR.


The goal of the pilot phase was to strengthen staff’s capacity to provide advice on macrofinancial questions by developing a consistent, integrated, and forward-looking view on how financial sector developments affect each member’s economic outlook, risks, and policies. The macrofinancial initiative was launched in 2014 and staff identified 24 pilot cases in 2015, increasing the number to 66 in 2016. Area departments had the primary responsibility for formulating financial sector analysis in Article IVs, and selected the countries involved as well as the themes and analytical approaches, drawing on support (including tools and review) from functional departments. There has also been a heavy emphasis on internal training to strengthen staff’s macrofinancial skills, including via a dedicated curriculum. The March 2017 Board paper Approaches to Macrofinancial Surveillance in Article IV Reports presented a stocktaking on the experience, setting good practice approaches taken by staff in macrofinancial analysis to tackle challenges in countries across a range of levels of development and highlighting areas requiring further work. The Board agreed that this approach had strengthened Fund advice, and supported the intention to further expand the number of teams involved in 2017 and to fully mainstream the integration of macrofinancial analysis and policy advice across the membership in 2018. Departments plan ongoing efforts to support this process.

Fiscal Space Assessment

The fiscal space framework was developed to facilitate a consistent framework that brings together various approaches developed by Fund staff to assess fiscal space. At this point, the framework is geared towards countries with market access. It has been applied in 24 pilot countries. The pilot has resulted in deeper and more structured assessments of fiscal space, and in some cases led country teams to adjust their views and policy advice. Pilots are concluding now, and a stock taking of the experience and way forward will be discussed at the Board in spring of 2018. Key issues include: (i) refinement of indicators; (ii) additional indicators tailored to commodity exporters; and (iii) extension of the framework for low-income countries.


The macrostructural pilot initiative was launched in response to the membership’s call to step up analysis and policy advice on macro-critical structural reforms in surveillance. Staff has developed an analytical framework for identifying and prioritizing structural reforms that places the discussion of macro-critical structural reforms in the macroeconomic context. The approach also supports a more integrated discussion of demand and supply policies. The enhanced approach is being applied to a first wave of 32 pilot countries, with Area Departments in the lead. The initiative consists of several components: A “how to” note was developed to explore how country teams could diagnose structural issues in a member country, and identify and prioritize structural reforms. An online toolkit has brought together good practice examples, and useful analytical tools and research. A core element of the initiative is to bring an enhanced review process to structural issues in pilot countries. A full stocktaking of the first wave of this initiative and a way forward will be reflected in the update to the Board in March 2018.

Domestic Revenue Mobilization (DRM)

This initiative is one of two tracks to strengthen the integration of revenue issues into bilateral surveillance (international taxation being the other—see below). The initiative was launched in December 2015 and focuses on making taxation a more prominent component of staff reports for developing countries by underpinning important points for macroeconomic surveillance with a revenue mobilization assessment based on technical assistance provided by FAD. Since inception, 25 pilots have been completed under DRM.

International Taxation (IT)

This initiative involves expanded technical work on international corporate tax issues. The IT track covered a broad spectrum of issues, reflecting varying situations of the very diverse group of 10 pilot countries covered so far; synergies have already been derived for regional-level analysis, for example for ASEAN.


The goal of this initiative is to explicitly consider the interaction between economic policies and income inequality, growth, and poverty outcomes. By end 2017, 28 pilots had been completed. Country consultations covered a broad range of topics, including comparative analysis of inequality and poverty outcomes, impact of proposed policy measures (such as fiscal consolidation and fiscal redistribution) on inequality, regional inequality, strengths and weaknesses of social safety nets, and impact of commodity price cycles on inequality. The initiative helped build considerable internal expertise in inequality and enhance collaboration with external institutions. The Board was briefed on this initiative in October 2018.


The operationalizing gender initiative emphasizes macro-criticality of women’s economic empowerment and the role of policies in addressing gender issues in bilateral surveillance. By end-2017, 27 pilots had been completed. Country consultations covered a diverse set of issues, including impact of female labor force participation on productivity and growth, financial inclusion of women, labor market reforms, and impact of policy measures on gender inequality. The initiative expanded policy dialogue with the authorities and strengthened policy advice on gender issues by examining the link between gender equity and income inequality and growth, pushing forward the work on gender budgeting, and addressing gender data gaps in financial inclusion. In several countries, gender objectives have been included in national employment and planning strategies, fiscal policies, and labor market reforms. The Board was briefed on this initiative in October 2018.


This initiative has developed tools to strengthen dialogue on climate resilience and energy price reform and help guide practical implementation of countries’ mitigation pledges for the Paris Agreement. This pilot covers the traditional areas of energy pricing and subsidy reforms, where Fund expertise is strong, and the relatively new areas of climate mitigation and adaptation which are macro-critical for some members. Twenty-six countries have participated in this pilot initiative. Staff developed spreadsheet tools for estimating carbon prices needed to meet mitigation commitments, their broader environmental, fiscal, and economic impacts, and tradeoffs with other (fiscal and regulatory) instruments. The tool has been applied to advanced and some large EM economies. The IMF and WB have also launched a joint Climate Change Policy Assessment (CCPA) to provide country-specific frameworks for assessing preparedness to climate change, climate mitigation and adaptation plans, and risk management strategies. Initial CCPA pilots were island economies and the initiative is expected to continue with 2–3 cases per year in the next two years. Other country consultations examined more traditional energy issues, particularly energy pricing and subsidy reforms, using FAD’s country-level databases on efficient energy prices and the gains from reform. The Board was briefed on this initiative in October 2018 including on the finding that while the staff had extensive in-house expertise in areas such as energy pricing and subsidy reforms, that was less so in the area of climate mitigation.

Infrastructure Policy Support Initiative (IPSI)

This pilot initiative helps member countries increase the efficiency of public investment and explore ways to sustainably scale up such spending. While the tools can be employed independently, IPSI pilots seek to exploit synergies among them where infrastructure issues are particularly salient (e.g., large infrastructure gaps and/or major infrastructure investment plans). In addition, IPSI facilitates peer learning among teams (and, potentially, among countries), including through a new Knowledge Exchange site on infrastructure and a seminar series. IPSI has covered 9 pilot countries. It is expected that periodic coverage of these issues in Article IV consultations would continue, particularly to support the Compact with Africa.


The survey of Board members sought consolidated responses from each Executive Director’s Office.


The survey of staff solicited views of mission chiefs.


The choice to include surveillance and lending activities in the analysis reflects the difficulty in extracting data only on surveillance-related activity from available TRACES data for countries with active or prospective lending arrangements.


Ahuja et. al. (2017) Assessing Country Risk—Selected Approaches—Reference Note, IMF Technical Notes and Manuals No. 17/08.


In selecting issues for in-depth coverage in staff-reports, country teams should exercise judgment, take a risk-based approach and be guided their macro-criticality. An issue is judged to be macro-critical if it affects, or has the potential to affect, domestic or external stability, or global stability. See Guidance Note for Surveillance under Article IV Consultations.


This Annex distills lessons from pilot efforts in the following areas: macrofinancial, macrostructural, fiscal space assessment, domestic revenue mobilization, international taxation, inequality, gender, energy/climate, and the Infrastructure Policy Support Initiative. Pilots initiatives prior to the 2014 TSR offered valuable lessons for recent efforts (for example, from the seven pilots on Enhancing Financial Sector Surveillance in LICs in 2012–14).


The IMF and the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK Government have an 8-year strategic partnership in research, which started in 2012. At the moment, the DFID covers salaries for one full time gender economist, two inequality economists, and two inequality RAs.


Cost calculations do not include the macrofinancial initiative, in line with the Board’s March 2017 decision to mainstream this work across the full membership in 2018.