IMF Policy Paper: FY2020–FY2022 Medium-Term Budget

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

doi:10.5089/9781498311168.007.A001

Author:

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Publication Date:: 22 Apr 2019

eISBN:: 9781498311168

ISBN:: 9781498311168

Language:: English

Keywords:: PP; IMF's budget deflator; budget; FY2020-FY2022; dollar budget; CD activity; CD envelope; CD operation; resource allocation; office of budget

Download PDF (1.9 MB)

FY2020-FY2022 Medium-Term Budget

Abstract

FY2020-FY2022 Medium-Term Budget

Overview

Proposed FY 20 Budget and Medium-term Spending Envelopes

Table 1.

Administrative and Capital Budget Envelopes, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings held abroad; Indonesia in FY 19, and Morocco in FY 22.

^{^2/}For FY 20, reflects compensation adjustment as approved by the Executive Board (EBAP/19/18, Supplement 1). Outer years are technical placeholders.

^{^3/}Reflects most recent updates for the April 2019 WEO projections of U.S. CPI.

Table 1.

Administrative and Capital Budget Envelopes, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

							Proposed	Indicative
		FY 19		Budget changes			FY 20	FY 21	FY 22
Current USD		Budget ^1/	Est. Outturn	Demands	Savings	Ext.-financed	Budget	Budget	Budget ^1/
Total operational income		1,683	2,190				3,410	3,202	3,566
Gross administrative budget		1,371	1,363				1,397	1,435	1,479
Receipts		-236	-228				-239	-246	-252
Net Administrative Budget		1,135	1,135				1,158	1,190	1,227
Capital Budget (IT and Facilities)		71	75				86	96	82
Constant FY 19 USD
Gross administrative budget		1,371	1,363	31	33	-1	1,362	1,362	1,368
Receipts		-236	-228	2	0	1	-233	-233	-233
Net Administrative Budget		1,135	1,135	33	33	-	1,129	1,129	1,135
	of which Annual Meetings	6	5						6
Capital Budget (IT and Facilities)		71	75				84	91	76
Memo items:
Carry forward (upper limit)		46	…				47	…	…
	Allocated up-front	19	…				25	…	…
Global external deflator (change)		2.3	…				2.6	2.7	2.6
	Personnel component (70 percent) ^2/	22	…				2.7	2.7	2.7
	Non-personnel (30 percent) ^3/	2.6	…				2.3	2.6	2.2

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings held abroad; Indonesia in FY 19, and Morocco in FY 22.

^{^2/}For FY 20, reflects compensation adjustment as approved by the Executive Board (EBAP/19/18, Supplement 1). Outer years are technical placeholders.

^{^3/}Reflects most recent updates for the April 2019 WEO projections of U.S. CPI.

Table 1.

Administrative and Capital Budget Envelopes, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

							Proposed	Indicative
		FY 19		Budget changes			FY 20	FY 21	FY 22
Current USD		Budget ^1/	Est. Outturn	Demands	Savings	Ext.-financed	Budget	Budget	Budget ^1/
Total operational income		1,683	2,190				3,410	3,202	3,566
Gross administrative budget		1,371	1,363				1,397	1,435	1,479
Receipts		-236	-228				-239	-246	-252
Net Administrative Budget		1,135	1,135				1,158	1,190	1,227
Capital Budget (IT and Facilities)		71	75				86	96	82
Constant FY 19 USD
Gross administrative budget		1,371	1,363	31	33	-1	1,362	1,362	1,368
Receipts		-236	-228	2	0	1	-233	-233	-233
Net Administrative Budget		1,135	1,135	33	33	-	1,129	1,129	1,135
	of which Annual Meetings	6	5						6
Capital Budget (IT and Facilities)		71	75				84	91	76
Memo items:
Carry forward (upper limit)		46	…				47	…	…
	Allocated up-front	19	…				25	…	…
Global external deflator (change)		2.3	…				2.6	2.7	2.6
	Personnel component (70 percent) ^2/	22	…				2.7	2.7	2.7
	Non-personnel (30 percent) ^3/	2.6	…				2.3	2.6	2.2

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings held abroad; Indonesia in FY 19, and Morocco in FY 22.

^{^2/}For FY 20, reflects compensation adjustment as approved by the Executive Board (EBAP/19/18, Supplement 1). Outer years are technical placeholders.

^{^3/}Reflects most recent updates for the April 2019 WEO projections of U.S. CPI.

Main Components of the Budget Proposal (Table 1)

Structure of the Paper

The Strategic Context

1. Over the medium to long term, the size of the Fund’s budget and its allocation reflect long-standing twin objectives:

Financial sustainability, underpinned by appropriately conservative assumptions for net income projections and prudent management of budgetary resources. With net operational income projected to remain positive over the longer term (Figure 1), and higher in the near term than projected at the time the FY 19 budget was formulated, precautionary balances can be adequately built up to manage financial risks. This assumption holds under appropriately conservative longer-term assumptions in the context of the New Income Model.⁵ Additionally, reflecting prudent management, budgetary resources have been held flat in real terms over the past eight years, notwithstanding rising demands and the launching of new products and activities (Appendix III on the Evolution of the Budget).
Meeting the evolving needs and priorities of members in an agile, integrated, and member-focused way. The IMF’s conjunctural priorities are elaborated in the GPA and shift in response to the global economic conditions as well as underlying structural trends affecting members (e.g., challenges arising from rapid technological and financial innovations, with impacts such as Fintech and concerns about the future of work). Multi-year reviews of the Fund’s main activities, such as the Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR) and IEO evaluations, help ensure that the toolkit evolves in line with the needs of its membership. Budgetary resources need to be flexible enough to respond to changing priorities, including through the ability to reallocate across departments, and the provision of transitional funds to accommodate temporary demands.

2. Capacity development (CD) activities have allowed the Fund to increase its level of support to the membership and its effectiveness overall, but limits to this expansion may have been reached. Supported by greater external financing, the balance of the Fund’s outputs has shifted significantly toward CD. Since FY 12, the share of CD spending has grown by 7 percentage points to reach 31 percent of total gross administrative expenditures (including indirect costs).⁶ While demand continues to exceed supply, several interlinked factors argue for broadly containing the level of CD at current levels:

Synergies with other outputs and comparative advantage: Ensuring that CD is integrated with the Fund’s other outputs means that the topics and scale of CD should be guided by the synergies created with lending programs and surveillance.⁷ The Fund should also deliver CD only in areas of its core mandate and where it has a comparative advantage relative to other CD providers. While in some topical areas the IMF is the only CD provider, in other areas it is not.
The need to ensure high quality: CD’s high value to the membership is derived from the quality and consistency of its advice. This means that quality control can be a limiting factor on the size of CD. There is a limited pool of experienced permanent staff to oversee and deliver CD, and this constraint can only be partially relieved by hiring external experts, given the limits on their availability and the critical need for back-stopping by HQ-based staff.
Financing constraints: A greater reliance on external funding increases risks to the Fund’s budget given the inherent volatility of external funding, and changing donor priorities may also affect the Fund’s ability to meet country needs on certain topics (see Section on Budget Risks). In addition, increases in externally financed CD activities, while a possibility, have a knock-on effect to the Fund-financed budget via indirect costs that cannot be recovered from external partners (e.g., facilities, human resource services, etc.). The Fund-financed budget therefore represents a constraint even on the externally financed activities.
Need for modernization: Processes and systems to support CD budget, planning and results monitoring, as well as related reporting, have not kept pace with the large and complex portfolio resulting from CD growth. The Fund is investing in modernizing CD systems which will lead to more effective and efficient delivery, and potentially support further scaling up of donor financing in the future.

3. In the near term, the budget is set within the priorities laid out in the GPA and fleshed out more fully in the BWP.⁸ Global growth has weakened, and risks are increasingly tilted to the downside amid growing policy uncertainty, mounting vulnerabilities, and greater volatility. Responding to these challenges, priority areas for the current budget cycle include:

Country operations: The GPA calls for the Fund to help members face global economic challenges by providing advice on macroeconomic policies tailored to their circumstances.⁹ This includes program support and intensive surveillance of countries and regions, as well as CD provision. The current number of formal Fund financial arrangements is relatively low, particularly for the PRGT and PSI facilities (Figure 2), though recent cases have proven more complex. In addition, staff expect an uptick in program work in FY 20. These expectations have been built into the budget proposal with additional resources. Based on area departments’ view on the prospective engagement status for their countries and other risk analysis, the budget provides for a reallocation of resources to where engagement is most likely to pick up—reflecting the type of arrangements for which a similar amount of staff resources is expected, some of which may be non-financial arrangements such as PCI, PSI, or PPM. Beyond this, short-term unforeseen pressures are typically met through intra- and inter-departmental reallocations and use of the contingency. Priorities include strengthening support to low-income countries (LICs) and fragile states, implementing the enhanced governance framework, as well as strengthening macro-financial surveillance.
Analytical work to support policy advice. The GPA outlines several areas for further analysis, such as supporting efforts toward a strengthened, rules-based multilateral trade system (new multilateralism) through work on trade; contributing to the international tax debate; and work on the digital economy and on public debt. Resources are proposed for BWP items such as Fintech and digitalization, social spending, as well as work still under development such as the integrated policy framework.
Major Fund policy reviews of surveillance (Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), FSAP review, data provision), lending (conditionality, LIC facilities), and debt issues (debt limits).

4. To improve the quality of the Fund’s outputs, with increased emphasis on results, several major modernization efforts are underway. These include implementation of the Fund’s human resource (HR) strategy, which seeks to ensure an agile, diverse, and inclusive workplace, supported by a new modern human resources IT system, in addition to completion of the Comprehensive Compensation and Benefits Review (CCBR). Other initiatives are focused on better leveraging knowledge management, improving data management, enhancing the management and administration of capacity development, and transforming work processes through an integrated digital workplace. These so-called “Big 5” major initiatives will require substantial investments over a number of years, with commensurate savings and efficiency gains bearing fruit over the medium-term (Box 1). In addition, follow-up work to the recommendations of the 2018 Modernization and Streamlining Advisory Group is underway in areas outside the scope of the Big 5, including but not limited to support services. Together, these efforts aim to simplify processes and practices to achieve greater efficiency, freeing up resources to directly support the membership. The objective is to ultimately improve the quality of the Fund’s outputs, with increased emphasis on results. In the near-term, some temporary resources (including staff resources) and capital investments will be needed to support these efforts.

Box 1.

Modernization and the “Big 5” Programs

The Fund is modernizing internal processes and capabilities in an effort to increase its effectiveness and adapt to the members’ needs. This includes five transformational programs (the “Big 5”) that are in various stages of implementation: transformation of the HR system and operating model (1HR), reformed Capacity Development Management and Administration Processes (CDMAP), development of an Integrated Digital Workplace (IDW), a next generation economic data platform (iDATA), and knowledge management (KM).

Benefits common to all the programs include replacement and consolidation of obsolete technology platforms, mitigation of operational and reputational risks, and updated features and functionality provided by modern and mobile technology. The programs provide the opportunity to redesign and streamline work processes and practices to take advantage of automation and other productivity enhancements.

Big 5 implementation will require considerable administrative and capital resources. The FY 20 administrative budget includes close to $4 million in transitional resources for project management activities; departments are additionally devoting considerable staff time to program governance, requirements gathering, vendor selection, process reengineering, testing and training. The medium-term capital budget includes funding for technology and consulting components that are specific to each program, but also include a number of prerequisite, or foundational, IT elements that must be present for successful implementation. In FY 20, the initial capital budget allocation for the Big 5 has been set at $30 million, but additional resources may be required (see Section on Capital Budget).

The modernization effort, underpinned by the Big 5, is expected over the medium term to result in efficiencies and more cost-effective delivery. Each program team is preparing a comprehensive business case and cost-benefit analysis, which will document performance indicators and quantify expected cost reductions and efficiency gains. Savings resulting from the programs can be used to finance other priorities in support of the membership.

1HR will modernize, simplify, and transform the way the Fund delivers its HR services, through streamlined business practices, best in class cloud software, and enhanced controls, providing flexibility to accommodate future policy, practice or regulatory changes (e.g., HR Strategy and CCBR).
CDMAP will transform CD operations, supporting more efficient and transparent implementation of the CD governance framework. It will address process and systems weaknesses, support better decision-making, and help strengthen the integration with surveillance and lending in line with the CD strategy.
iDW will provide a modern user interface where staff have improved access to knowledge, applications, and other platforms to do their work. The goal is to address the pain points experienced from existing fragmented content, information silos, and obsolete technology.
KM provides a framework for efficiently capturing, storing and sharing knowledge, thereby enabling staff to more easily draw lessons and insights from the Fund’s rich cross-country experience and subject-matter expertise. This includes a new document management system and enterprise search capabilities.
iDATA will deliver a modern economic data lifecycle management platform that can be further extended to meet the growing business needs for creating and maintaining databases for multilateral surveillance and economic research.

The Budget: How are Priorities Supported?

This section discusses the proposed use of budget resources across the Fund’s main output areas according to the Fund’s Thematic Categories as presented in the BWP (Table 2).¹⁰

Overall Shift in Outputs

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Estimated Allocation by Output, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES). Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}The “Miscellaneous” classification covers expenditures that currently cannot be allocated within the ACES model. For FY 19 it includes $6 million for the 2018 annual meetings, no adjustment for the annual meetings was made in FY 20.

^{^2/}Includes the contingency for staff OED, and IEO. Not included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED to staff, curently recorded under IMF Governance.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Estimated Allocation by Output, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

			FY 19				FY 20
			Structural	Transitional	Total	Est. Outturn	Structural Demands	Structural Savings	Structural	Transitional	Total
			(a)	(b)	(c)= (a)+ (b)		(d)	(e)	(f) = (a)+ (d)-(e)	(g)	(h) = (f)+ (g)
Gross expenditures			1,175	19.4	1,194	1,171	31.4	33.0	1,167	25.4	1,193
	Country engagement		467	7.7	475	479	11.3	9.0	469	10.7	480
	Policy advice and economic analysis		166	2.0	168	170	3.3	4.7	164	2.9	167
	Contributions to global stability		23	0.3	23	23	0.3	0.4	23	0.5	23
	Fund policies		26	0.7	27	30	7.2	5.9	28	0.9	29
	IMF governance		118	0.1	118	114	1.1	0.5	119	0.8	120
	Internal organization/support		335	8.5	343	342	8.1	12.6	330	9.5	340
	Miscellaneous ^1/		28		28	13			22		22
	Contingency ^2/		12	…	12	...			12	…	12
Receipts			(40)		(40)	(36)	1.6	0.0	(38)		(38)
Net expenditures			1,135		1,155	1,135	33.0	33.0	1,129		1,155
Carry forward (upper limit)					46						47
		Allocated up-front in budget process			19						25
Total available resources					1,181						1,176

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES). Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes the contingency for staff OED, and IEO. Not included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED to staff, curently recorded under IMF Governance.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Estimated Allocation by Output, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

			FY 19				FY 20
			Structural	Transitional	Total	Est. Outturn	Structural Demands	Structural Savings	Structural	Transitional	Total
			(a)	(b)	(c)= (a)+ (b)		(d)	(e)	(f) = (a)+ (d)-(e)	(g)	(h) = (f)+ (g)
Gross expenditures			1,175	19.4	1,194	1,171	31.4	33.0	1,167	25.4	1,193
	Country engagement		467	7.7	475	479	11.3	9.0	469	10.7	480
	Policy advice and economic analysis		166	2.0	168	170	3.3	4.7	164	2.9	167
	Contributions to global stability		23	0.3	23	23	0.3	0.4	23	0.5	23
	Fund policies		26	0.7	27	30	7.2	5.9	28	0.9	29
	IMF governance		118	0.1	118	114	1.1	0.5	119	0.8	120
	Internal organization/support		335	8.5	343	342	8.1	12.6	330	9.5	340
	Miscellaneous ^1/		28		28	13			22		22
	Contingency ^2/		12	…	12	...			12	…	12
Receipts			(40)		(40)	(36)	1.6	0.0	(38)		(38)
Net expenditures			1,135		1,155	1,135	33.0	33.0	1,129		1,155
Carry forward (upper limit)					46						47
		Allocated up-front in budget process			19						25
Total available resources					1,181						1,176

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES). Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes the contingency for staff OED, and IEO. Not included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED to staff, curently recorded under IMF Governance.

Country Engagement/Country Work

Box 2.

Financial Surveillance

Financial surveillance (FS) encompasses both multilateral and bilateral surveillance activities. Spending on multilateral surveillance is focused on the GFSR and analysis of vulnerabilities and risks. SPR and LEG also participate in FS activities, for example on Fintech. In bilateral surveillance, spending includes FSAPs in around 13 jurisdictions each year as well as support provided by MCM, LEG, RES, and SPR to area departments, both at Headquarters and through Article IV missions.

Spending on FS is estimated at around $40 million. While not tracked separately, this estimate is based on direct spending on (i) the GFSR, and on analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances in MCM of around $10 million; and (ii) within bilateral surveillance of $30 million, which contrasts to around $200 million in direct spending on overall bilateral surveillance.¹

One of the priorities for FY 20 is to redirect resources to bilateral FS. This is in keeping with the IEO Review of Financial Surveillance, which called for devoting significant additional resources to FS, and principally bilateral FS. In FY 20, $1.7 million (5½ percent increase) is allocated in gross terms to MCM to enhance bilateral FS. This covers support to area departments, deepening the integration of FSAPs and Article IVs (as recommended by IEO), easing FSAP staffing constraints, and governance. This is achieved in part through savings of $0.9 million from implementation of modernization measures (GFSR streamlining).

As a complement, the Financial Sector Stability Review (FSSR) was launched in FY 18 as a donor-funded, TA instrument. The FSSR helps low and lower-middle income countries diagnose financial sector vulnerabilities and prioritize financial sector reforms. It provides a TA roadmap that in turn may be used to support members’ efforts to strengthen and reinforce their financial stability frameworks. The FSSR work plan allows for around five FSSR diagnostics each year, totaling about $1.5 million in FY 19. In FY 20, spending on FSSR diagnostics and follow up TA is projected to increase to $1.8 million, a 22 percent increase. Going forward, a larger proportion of the targeted $30 million in donor financing will be allocated to follow up TA as diagnostic missions are completed.

In addition, MCM is in the process of establishing a Monetary Modeling Unit. This unit is aimed at buttressing the Fund’s position as a global center of excellence on financial and macrofinancial topics and maintaining the value added of the Fund’s financial surveillance for our membership. The unit will advance the integrated policy framework, model development, and support members in the implementation of monetary and foreign exchange operations. It is expected to consist of 6.5 FTE positions, of which one will be contractual. This will be funded mostly through reallocation within and more cost-effective travel by MCM, together with one additional FTE to be financed initially with transitional funds.

Beyond FY 20, the IEO’s call for additional resources for FS will be taken up in the context of the ongoing CSR and FSAP reviews that are scheduled to be completed in 2020. Consideration of a further increase in resources along with ways to make FS more efficient will be deferred until those reviews are completed.

¹ This includes bilateral surveillance undertaken by MCM (including FSAPs), dedicated macro-financial units in RES and SPR, and cost estimates of area department work at the time of the macro-financial pilot. This is likely an underestimate, as it excludes macro-financial surveillance in area departments outside of the pilots, and LEG’s work on bilateral surveillance beyond FSAPs.

Box 3.

Spending on Fragile and Conflict States

Spending on fragile states has averaged around $96 million per year in real terms since FY 15 (10 percent of total direct spending). Over 40 percent is CD, including external financing. The set of over 40 countries designated as fragile is diverse, encompassing small islands and high security risk locations, and includes surveillance and program countries. Accordingly, spending varies widely, from below $200,000 in countries with little engagement due to security risks, to several million dollars per year in countries where engagement is intense.

In FY 20, increased resources for fragile states could come from an internal reallocation of existing departmental resources and from net new resources provided to departments. Budget discussions suggest that country work on fragile states will increase by $1.2 million, mostly for AFR countries. This includes support from FAD, which plans to shift six fiscal economists to LICs and fragile states from other countries. Based on the outturn so far, spending on fragile states outside of CD is expected to increase by 8 percent in FY 19, on a base of around $59 million. If spent as planned, FY 20 would see an additional rise of 2 percent in real terms. CD to fragile states is a priority (see Box 4) and should also increase.

Gross Administrative Resources for CD: Estimated Allocation, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning and CCB.

^{^1/}Differs from ACES data in Appendix Tables 8a and 8b where some CD expenditures are classified as Miscellaneous and the totals include support and governance costs.

^{^2/}Nominal structural budget (i.e., excluding transitional resources).

^{^3/}Operational targets established by the CCB. Outturn is based on receipts.

^{^4/}Covers administration of the sub-account and not indirect costs linked mainly to IT and facilities.

Gross Administrative Resources for CD: Estimated Allocation, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 19		FY 20
		Budget	Est. Outturn	Budget
Direct Spending on CD ^1/		338.2	335.5	345.2
	Fund-Financed CD ^2/	141.9	143.4	145.2
	Externally-Financed CD ^3/	196.3	192.1	200.0
Memorandum Items:
	CD (plus indirect costs) as a share of total Fund output	30.4	30.9	31.0
	Trust Fund Management Fee (receipts) ^4/	13.7	13.4	14.0
	Fund-Financed CD in FY 19 dollars	141.9	143.4	141.5
	Estimated Indirect Cost of Externally Financed CD	17.7	17.3	18.0

Source: Office of Budget and Planning and CCB.

^{^1/}Differs from ACES data in Appendix Tables 8a and 8b where some CD expenditures are classified as Miscellaneous and the totals include support and governance costs.

^{^2/}Nominal structural budget (i.e., excluding transitional resources).

^{^3/}Operational targets established by the CCB. Outturn is based on receipts.

^{^4/}Covers administration of the sub-account and not indirect costs linked mainly to IT and facilities.

Gross Administrative Resources for CD: Estimated Allocation, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 19		FY 20
		Budget	Est. Outturn	Budget
Direct Spending on CD ^1/		338.2	335.5	345.2
	Fund-Financed CD ^2/	141.9	143.4	145.2
	Externally-Financed CD ^3/	196.3	192.1	200.0
Memorandum Items:
	CD (plus indirect costs) as a share of total Fund output	30.4	30.9	31.0
	Trust Fund Management Fee (receipts) ^4/	13.7	13.4	14.0
	Fund-Financed CD in FY 19 dollars	141.9	143.4	141.5
	Estimated Indirect Cost of Externally Financed CD	17.7	17.3	18.0

Source: Office of Budget and Planning and CCB.

^{^1/}Differs from ACES data in Appendix Tables 8a and 8b where some CD expenditures are classified as Miscellaneous and the totals include support and governance costs.

^{^2/}Nominal structural budget (i.e., excluding transitional resources).

^{^3/}Operational targets established by the CCB. Outturn is based on receipts.

^{^4/}Covers administration of the sub-account and not indirect costs linked mainly to IT and facilities.

Box 4.

Strengthening the Framework for Capacity Development Prioritization

Capacity Development (CD) work has grown rapidly in the past decade and now accounts for about a third of all Fund spending. This increase has largely been driven by external financing, which grew by 16 percent per year on average in the same period. The share of CD in total spending is now programmed to stabilize.

The framework for CD monitoring and prioritization is continuing to evolve. As noted in the 2018 CD Strategy Review, this framework has been significantly strengthened in recent years, with further reforms now underway aimed at facilitating more timely and analytically useful information on CD-related activities and spending. These reforms and a planned strengthening of systems and processes under the CDMAP project will facilitate better monitoring and reporting. This will support better resource allocation and strategic review of the alignment of CD activities with country demand and Fund strategic priorities.

The prioritization process follows a three-step process:

The budget process establishes resources for CD. This includes an envelope for externally financed activities and resources made available by CD departments within their Fund-financed budgets.
The CCB sets the areas targeted for growth for the coming three-year period and the departmental spending limits on externally financed CD activities.
The Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) sets out detailed delivery of CD activities between CD and Area Departments, in line with the agreed priorities. Details of the FY 20–22 RAP, conducted in Spring, will be included in the summer budget outturn report to the Board.

The prioritization framework recognizes that all Fund CD should target high-impact activities. Core CD areas, such as revenue mobilization, public financial management, and financial supervision and regulation, statistics and macroeconomic training will continue to account for the bulk total CD. The updated tracking system will support analysis of trends in these areas. This year’s CCB agreed a narrower set of “growth areas” where an increase in the share of CD over the medium-term is being targeted, recognizing that measurable growth may take time as new tools are developed. An initial list of growth areas includes:

Topics: Anti-corruption; debt sustainability and debt statistics; expenditure policy and public investment management; tax policy, fintech, and cyber risks.
Country-type: Fragile states, highly vulnerable countries, and Caucasus-Central Asia-Mongolia.

As the CD envelope stabilizes, much of this growth will need to be accommodated within existing areas for Fund CD, e.g. increases in fintech as part of work on financial regulation.

1/ Prepared by ICD.

Policy Advice and Economic Analysis

Box 5.

The Board Work Program and Resource Allocation

The strategic planning cycle is updated twice a year as the GPA and the IMFC Communiqué (issued during the Spring/Annual Meetings) are translated into a Board Work Program that covers the subsequent twelvemonth period. This budget proposal reflects the priorities laid out in the 2018 GPA and the latest Board Work Program (BWP). Internally, these priorities feed into Management’s Key Goals and the Accountability Frameworks that set out departmental objectives and shape budget priorities.

The BWP covers non-country items, primarily economic analysis to support policy advice, work on Fund policies (which helps provide the framework for country engagement), multilateral surveillance products (flagships, the External Sector Report, and REOs), IMF governance, and IMF finances. The BWP also covers many operational and administrative items such as on HR issues, risk, and the budget.

Since 2016, staff have been costing nonrecurrent policy and administrative items of the BWP. In 2018, this was broadened to cover recurring items (though the cost of producing the flagships and REOs was already being captured in ACES). In the Fall 2018 BWP, the estimated cost of non-recurrent items was 72 FTEs, or roughly $23 million. Together with the cost of items recurring annually or more frequently, the total cost of the BWP is estimated at around $68 million. This represents around 30 percent of non-country work.

The BWP influences the allocation of resources through both leads and lags. For example, policy reviews may require extensive analytical or exploratory work ahead of Board discussion and may thus span several BWPs, while follow-up work could stretch over several years. The budget proposal includes funding for several BWP-related workstreams, such as:

$2.4 million to support implementation of the recently adopted Framework for Enhanced Engagement on Governance, mainly to functional departments as they implement a structured assessment process and support area departments’ work.
$1.8 million for work on the Comprehensive Surveillance Review which will span BWPs.
$0.3 million for follow-up to the recent Review of AML/CFT.
$0.5 million to develop the integrated policy framework.

Contributions to Global Stability

Fund Policies

IMF Governance

Internal Support (Internal Organization in BWP)

From Outputs to Inputs

Output Spending Shifts are Reflected in Departmental Budgets

Table 3.

Budget Adjustments by Department, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes offices with Accountability Framework discussions with Management.

^{^3/}Includes the Offices of the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Directors, Innovation Lab, Knowledge Management, Office for Asia and the Pacific, Office in Europe, Overseas Trainining Offices, Economic Data Team, HQ1 Task Force, Mediator, Ethics Office, Office of Internal Investigation, Secretarial Support Group.

^{^4/}Includes revenue losses from HQ2 leases and publications, and price adjustments in commercial data subscriptions.

^{^5/}The table does not account for FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF and EDT to STA.

Table 3.

Budget Adjustments by Department, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

				FY 20 Proposed Adjustments
		FY 19 Approved Budget	FY 19 Transitional Funds ^1/	New Structural Needs	Structural Savings & Reallocations	Net Structural Increase (+)	Transitional Resources
Area		295.1	4.3	6.2	5.2	1.0	7.0
	AFR	86.8	1.8	2.4	0.3	2.1	2.1
	APD	42.8	0.9	1.1	0.8	0.3	0.8
	EUR	67.6	0.9	0.9	2.7	(1.8)	2.8
	MCD	51.2	0.7	0.9	0.6	0.3	0.2
	WHD	46.7	-	1.0	0.8	0.2	1.1
Functional Non-CD		159.5	2.9	13.6	13.0	0.6	3.9
	COM	37.7	0.2	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.1
	FIN	35.1	0.5	5.5	5.5	(0.0)	0.5
	RES	34.3	0.6	0.3	0.3	-	0.2
	SPR	52.5	1.7	7.3	6.8	0.4	3.1
Functional CD		246.9	4.6	5.5	4.3	1.3	4.7
	FAD	60.9	0.6	1.0	0.9	0.1	1.2
	ICD	33.8	0.7	0.1	0.1	-	0.7
	LEG	27.6	0.7	1.5	0.8	0.7	0.6
	MCM	83.5	2.1	2.9	2.4	0.5	2.0
	STA	41.1	0.4	-	-	-	0.3
Support		271.5	4.1	5.3	5.7	(0.3)	8.7
	CSF	96.3	2.7	1.0	1.0	0.0	1.6
	HRD	34.6	1.6	-	0.3	(0.3)	5.0
	ITD	104.9	1.3	3.3	4.0	(0.7)	1.0
	OBP	5.0	-	0.3	0.3	-	-
	OIA	5.1	-	-	-	-	-
	ORM	2.9	0.1	-	-	-	0.2
	SEC	22.6	1.0	0.8	-	0.8	0.8
Total Departments ^2/		973.0	18.5	30.7	28.1	2.6	24.3
Small offices ^3/		39.1	0.8	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.6
Total Departments/offices		1,012.1	19.3	31.1	28.5	2.7	24.9
OED, IEO, others		116.4	-	-	-	-	-
Other ^4/		6.7	-	1.8	-	1.8	0.4
Central Savings (estimated)					4.5	(4.5)
Total ^5/		1,135.2	19.3	33.0	33.0	0.0	25.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes offices with Accountability Framework discussions with Management.

^{^4/}Includes revenue losses from HQ2 leases and publications, and price adjustments in commercial data subscriptions.

^{^5/}The table does not account for FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF and EDT to STA.

Table 3.

Budget Adjustments by Department, FY 19–20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

				FY 20 Proposed Adjustments
		FY 19 Approved Budget	FY 19 Transitional Funds ^1/	New Structural Needs	Structural Savings & Reallocations	Net Structural Increase (+)	Transitional Resources
Area		295.1	4.3	6.2	5.2	1.0	7.0
	AFR	86.8	1.8	2.4	0.3	2.1	2.1
	APD	42.8	0.9	1.1	0.8	0.3	0.8
	EUR	67.6	0.9	0.9	2.7	(1.8)	2.8
	MCD	51.2	0.7	0.9	0.6	0.3	0.2
	WHD	46.7	-	1.0	0.8	0.2	1.1
Functional Non-CD		159.5	2.9	13.6	13.0	0.6	3.9
	COM	37.7	0.2	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.1
	FIN	35.1	0.5	5.5	5.5	(0.0)	0.5
	RES	34.3	0.6	0.3	0.3	-	0.2
	SPR	52.5	1.7	7.3	6.8	0.4	3.1
Functional CD		246.9	4.6	5.5	4.3	1.3	4.7
	FAD	60.9	0.6	1.0	0.9	0.1	1.2
	ICD	33.8	0.7	0.1	0.1	-	0.7
	LEG	27.6	0.7	1.5	0.8	0.7	0.6
	MCM	83.5	2.1	2.9	2.4	0.5	2.0
	STA	41.1	0.4	-	-	-	0.3
Support		271.5	4.1	5.3	5.7	(0.3)	8.7
	CSF	96.3	2.7	1.0	1.0	0.0	1.6
	HRD	34.6	1.6	-	0.3	(0.3)	5.0
	ITD	104.9	1.3	3.3	4.0	(0.7)	1.0
	OBP	5.0	-	0.3	0.3	-	-
	OIA	5.1	-	-	-	-	-
	ORM	2.9	0.1	-	-	-	0.2
	SEC	22.6	1.0	0.8	-	0.8	0.8
Total Departments ^2/		973.0	18.5	30.7	28.1	2.6	24.3
Small offices ^3/		39.1	0.8	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.6
Total Departments/offices		1,012.1	19.3	31.1	28.5	2.7	24.9
OED, IEO, others		116.4	-	-	-	-	-
Other ^4/		6.7	-	1.8	-	1.8	0.4
Central Savings (estimated)					4.5	(4.5)
Total ^5/		1,135.2	19.3	33.0	33.0	0.0	25.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes offices with Accountability Framework discussions with Management.

^{^4/}Includes revenue losses from HQ2 leases and publications, and price adjustments in commercial data subscriptions.

^{^5/}The table does not account for FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF and EDT to STA.

Table 4.

FTE Changes by Department Type, FY 19–20

(Full-time equivalents (FTEs), excluding donor funding)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes 4 FTEs transfer from EDT to STA.

^{^3/}Includes 6 FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF.

Table 4.

FTE Changes by Department Type, FY 19–20

(Full-time equivalents (FTEs), excluding donor funding)

				FY 19	FY 20 Proposed		Transitional
				Approved Budget	Structural Adjustments	Total	FY 19 ^1/	FY 20 Proposed
Area				785	3	789	12	18
			AFR	220	5	226	5	5
			APD	112	2	114	2	1
			EUR	186	(6)	180	3	8
			MCD	134	2	136	2	1
			WHD	133	(0)	133	-	3
Total
Functional Non-CD				501	1	502	6	10
			COM	92	-	92	-	-
			FIN	130	(0)	130	-	-
			RES	110	-	110	2	1
			SPR	169	1	170	4	9
Functional CD				717	11	728	10	8
			FAD	161	1	162	1	3
			ICD	124	-	124	2	1
			LEG	82	2	84	2	2
			MCM	218	4	222	5	3
			STA ^2/	133	4	137	-	-
Support				510	6	516	3	7
			CSF ^3/	157	6	163	-	-
			HRD	91	-	91	3	6
			ITD	153	-	153	-	-
			OBP	16	-	16	-	-
			OIA	16	-	16	-	-
			ORM	10	-	10	-	-
			SEC	68	-	68	0	1
Small offices				79	(9)	70	1	1
		HQT		7	(6)	1	-	-
		ILU		1	1	2	1	1
OED, IEO, others				275	(3)	272	-	-
	Total			2,868	9	2,878	31	44

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes 4 FTEs transfer from EDT to STA.

^{^3/}Includes 6 FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF.

Table 4.

FTE Changes by Department Type, FY 19–20

(Full-time equivalents (FTEs), excluding donor funding)

				FY 19	FY 20 Proposed		Transitional
				Approved Budget	Structural Adjustments	Total	FY 19 ^1/	FY 20 Proposed
Area				785	3	789	12	18
			AFR	220	5	226	5	5
			APD	112	2	114	2	1
			EUR	186	(6)	180	3	8
			MCD	134	2	136	2	1
			WHD	133	(0)	133	-	3
Total
Functional Non-CD				501	1	502	6	10
			COM	92	-	92	-	-
			FIN	130	(0)	130	-	-
			RES	110	-	110	2	1
			SPR	169	1	170	4	9
Functional CD				717	11	728	10	8
			FAD	161	1	162	1	3
			ICD	124	-	124	2	1
			LEG	82	2	84	2	2
			MCM	218	4	222	5	3
			STA ^2/	133	4	137	-	-
Support				510	6	516	3	7
			CSF ^3/	157	6	163	-	-
			HRD	91	-	91	3	6
			ITD	153	-	153	-	-
			OBP	16	-	16	-	-
			OIA	16	-	16	-	-
			ORM	10	-	10	-	-
			SEC	68	-	68	0	1
Small offices				79	(9)	70	1	1
		HQT		7	(6)	1	-	-
		ILU		1	1	2	1	1
OED, IEO, others				275	(3)	272	-	-
	Total			2,868	9	2,878	31	44

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Ex-ante, in line with FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget paper; actual transfers may vary.

^{^2/}Includes 4 FTEs transfer from EDT to STA.

^{^3/}Includes 6 FTEs transfer from HQT to CSF.

Budget Input Structure

Table 5.

Administrative Budget Envelope, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}The GED is applied to the administrative budget (formulated in real terms) to obtain the nominal budget. For calculation of GED see Appendix I.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO. Included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED’s budget to staff as additional reserve for institutional priorities.

Table 5.

Administrative Budget Envelope, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

				FY 19			Proposed FY 20
				Approved Budget	Transitional demands	Available Resources	Approved Budget	Transitional demands	Available Resources
Net administrative budget (in FY 19 U.S. dollars)				1,135		1,154	1,129		1,184
		of which Annual Meetings		6
Net administrative budget (nominal terms) ^1/				1,135		1,154	1,158		1,184
		of which Annual Meetings		6
Total Gross (nominal terms)				1,371		1,417	1,397		1,444
	*Fund-financed*
		Gross administrative budget		1,175	19	1,194	1,197	25	1,223
			Personnel	870	12	882	894	17	911
			Travel	87	0	88	81	1	81
			Buildings and other expenses	205	7	211	209	8	216
			Contingency ^2/	12	…	12	14	…	14
		Receipts		-40		-40	-39		-39
			Net administrative resources	1,135		1,154	1,158		1,184
		Carry forward (upper limit)		46		27	47		22
		Total net available resources		1,181		1,181	1,205		1,205
	*Externally-financed*
		Gross administrative budget		196		196	200		200
			Personnel	139		139	141		141
			Travel	47		47	48		48
			Buildings and other expenses	10		10	10		10
		Receipts		-196		-196	-200		-200
		Net administrative budget		-		-	-		-

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}The GED is applied to the administrative budget (formulated in real terms) to obtain the nominal budget. For calculation of GED see Appendix I.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO. Included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED’s budget to staff as additional reserve for institutional priorities.

Table 5.

Administrative Budget Envelope, FY 19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

				FY 19			Proposed FY 20
				Approved Budget	Transitional demands	Available Resources	Approved Budget	Transitional demands	Available Resources
Net administrative budget (in FY 19 U.S. dollars)				1,135		1,154	1,129		1,184
		of which Annual Meetings		6
Net administrative budget (nominal terms) ^1/				1,135		1,154	1,158		1,184
		of which Annual Meetings		6
Total Gross (nominal terms)				1,371		1,417	1,397		1,444
	*Fund-financed*
		Gross administrative budget		1,175	19	1,194	1,197	25	1,223
			Personnel	870	12	882	894	17	911
			Travel	87	0	88	81	1	81
			Buildings and other expenses	205	7	211	209	8	216
			Contingency ^2/	12	…	12	14	…	14
		Receipts		-40		-40	-39		-39
			Net administrative resources	1,135		1,154	1,158		1,184
		Carry forward (upper limit)		46		27	47		22
		Total net available resources		1,181		1,181	1,205		1,205
	*Externally-financed*
		Gross administrative budget		196		196	200		200
			Personnel	139		139	141		141
			Travel	47		47	48		48
			Buildings and other expenses	10		10	10		10
		Receipts		-196		-196	-200		-200
		Net administrative budget		-		-	-		-

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}The GED is applied to the administrative budget (formulated in real terms) to obtain the nominal budget. For calculation of GED see Appendix I.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO. Included is the proposed transfer of $0.8 million from OED’s budget to staff as additional reserve for institutional priorities.

FY 20–22 Capital Budget Proposal

The Capital Budget

The capital budget appropriation covers investment, maintenance, and improvement in the Fund’s building facilities, information technology (IT) and other fixed assets. The proposed appropriation for FY 20 is about $15 million (21 percent) higher than assumed in the FY 19–21 Medium-Term Budget (MTB) (Table 6). The increase reflects needed improvements and security enhancement projects to the campus and investments in the Big 5 which promise to modernize and transform the way we work.

Table 6.

Medium-term Capital Budget, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning, and departments for Corporate Services and Facilities, and Information Technology.

^{^1/}Long-term plans included in Appendix VII.

^{^2/}Includes HQ1 electrical and cooling systems that have reached end-of-life and are not included in the HQ1 renewal project.

^{^3/}FY 20–22 resource needs contingent on approval of cost benefit analysis and finalized business cases.

Table 6.

Medium-term Capital Budget, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

						Approved	Proposed	Estimated
						FY 19	FY 20	FY 21	FY 22
Total						71	86	96	82
	Building Facilities					36	41	49	33
	Of which:
		Life-cycle, buildings and systems ^1/				21	16	28	25
				Of which: Furniture		11	4	11	7
					Audio-Visual	7	5	5	5
					HQ1 Building Systems ^2/		0	10	10
		Improvements				10	16	8	4
		HQ Security					5	9
	Information Technology					36	45	47	48
	Of which:
			Big 5 programs & prerequisites ^3/			26	30	31	16
			Infrastructure End-of-life ^1/			9	6	10	12

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning, and departments for Corporate Services and Facilities, and Information Technology.

^{^1/}Long-term plans included in Appendix VII.

^{^2/}Includes HQ1 electrical and cooling systems that have reached end-of-life and are not included in the HQ1 renewal project.

^{^3/}FY 20–22 resource needs contingent on approval of cost benefit analysis and finalized business cases.

Table 6.

Medium-term Capital Budget, FY 19–22

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

						Approved	Proposed	Estimated
						FY 19	FY 20	FY 21	FY 22
Total						71	86	96	82
	Building Facilities					36	41	49	33
	Of which:
		Life-cycle, buildings and systems ^1/				21	16	28	25
				Of which: Furniture		11	4	11	7
					Audio-Visual	7	5	5	5
					HQ1 Building Systems ^2/		0	10	10
		Improvements				10	16	8	4
		HQ Security					5	9
	Information Technology					36	45	47	48
	Of which:
			Big 5 programs & prerequisites ^3/			26	30	31	16
			Infrastructure End-of-life ^1/			9	6	10	12

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning, and departments for Corporate Services and Facilities, and Information Technology.

^{^1/}Long-term plans included in Appendix VII.

^{^2/}Includes HQ1 electrical and cooling systems that have reached end-of-life and are not included in the HQ1 renewal project.

^{^3/}FY 20–22 resource needs contingent on approval of cost benefit analysis and finalized business cases.

Over the past year, considerable work has gone into defining IT capital budget needs. However, the overall level of effort, timing and sequencing of the Big 5 programs are still being refined as teams are working through the pre-implementation phases and developing cost benefit analyses to justify approval and release of funding. The proposed capital budget appropriation is based on what is currently known and expected delivery capacity, and changes in the timing and capital budget envelope may be warranted as the work matures.

A Big 5 governance structure has been established to provide strong ownership and accountability. The Board will be engaged as work on the Big 5 programs progress. In particular, the business cases and CBAs will be presented to the Board as they become available, and the Board will be kept informed of implementation progress.

Facilities Capital

Information Technology Capital

Risks to the Budget

Risk Preparedness, Mitigation and Management

Risk Preparedness Matrix

Risk Identified	Vulnerability	Impact Assessment	Mitigation and Management
Increased demand for Fund programs and other services.	Staffing is inadequate for new level of country engagement.	Budget and work pressures increase to meet the needs of membership.	Policy response involves a combination of reallocation, increased overtime, use of contingency. As last resort, increased funding.
Shortfalls in donor funding for Capacity Development.	Rollover risk is inherent to donor financing.	Pressures on CD delivery in short-term, difficulty prioritizing.	Careful planning of fundraising activities and alignment with Fund priorities via the CCB, including preference to CD in support of program work.
Price increases, e.g., related to travel or economic data.	Increased utilization of administrative budget provides limited scope to absorb unexpected price increases.	Pressure on resources for core services.	In short term, internal reprioritization and use of central contingency. In medium term, identification of offsetting savings. Working group led by STA to review budget formulation process for commercial data.
Information security breach.	The Fund is a cyber target like any other international organization.	The budgetary cost to respond and recover from a breach, and subsequent vulnerability remediation, could be significant.	Use of central contingency. Efforts underway to reduce information security risks.
Modernization projects costlier or implementation longer than expected.	Implementation of projects meet unexpected complications requiring further resources. Delays require costly changes to legacy systems.	Staff resources diverted towards implementation of major projects, higher costs crowd out core services.	Development of robust business cases, regular monitoring of implementation timelines, and upfront commitment for savings to be returned to the center for reallocation to Fund priorities.
Modernization efforts do not yield expected efficiencies or benefits.	Change management capacity is stretched too thinly. Project teams overpromise and/or underdeliver.	Inefficient work practices reduce the Fund’s ability to address new work streams; staff morale negatively impacted.	Seek institutional consensus on implementation of measures, pay sufficient attention to needed changes in underlying business practices and change management efforts, and continue to seek modernization opportunities.

Risk Preparedness Matrix

Risk Identified	Vulnerability	Impact Assessment	Mitigation and Management
Increased demand for Fund programs and other services.	Staffing is inadequate for new level of country engagement.	Budget and work pressures increase to meet the needs of membership.	Policy response involves a combination of reallocation, increased overtime, use of contingency. As last resort, increased funding.
Shortfalls in donor funding for Capacity Development.	Rollover risk is inherent to donor financing.	Pressures on CD delivery in short-term, difficulty prioritizing.	Careful planning of fundraising activities and alignment with Fund priorities via the CCB, including preference to CD in support of program work.
Price increases, e.g., related to travel or economic data.	Increased utilization of administrative budget provides limited scope to absorb unexpected price increases.	Pressure on resources for core services.	In short term, internal reprioritization and use of central contingency. In medium term, identification of offsetting savings. Working group led by STA to review budget formulation process for commercial data.
Information security breach.	The Fund is a cyber target like any other international organization.	The budgetary cost to respond and recover from a breach, and subsequent vulnerability remediation, could be significant.	Use of central contingency. Efforts underway to reduce information security risks.
Modernization projects costlier or implementation longer than expected.	Implementation of projects meet unexpected complications requiring further resources. Delays require costly changes to legacy systems.	Staff resources diverted towards implementation of major projects, higher costs crowd out core services.	Development of robust business cases, regular monitoring of implementation timelines, and upfront commitment for savings to be returned to the center for reallocation to Fund priorities.
Modernization efforts do not yield expected efficiencies or benefits.	Change management capacity is stretched too thinly. Project teams overpromise and/or underdeliver.	Inefficient work practices reduce the Fund’s ability to address new work streams; staff morale negatively impacted.	Seek institutional consensus on implementation of measures, pay sufficient attention to needed changes in underlying business practices and change management efforts, and continue to seek modernization opportunities.

Summary Proposal for FY 20

Within the total administrative appropriation, separate appropriations and expenditure ceilings are proposed for the Offices of the Executive Directors (OED), the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), and other administrative expenditure in the Fund. The capital budget is made up of two components: building facilities and information technology.

Table 7.

Proposed Appropriations, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}The actual amount that can be carried forward is the lesser amount of the underspend in the current year or the specified ratio (shown in the table) of the current year’s net administrative budget.

^{^2/}Includes for IEO a one-time increase in the carry forward limit from 5 percent to 10 percent as approved by the Evaluation Committee.

Table 7.

Proposed Appropriations, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

		Other	OED	IEO	Total
Net administrative budget		1,076.6	75.3	6.4	1,158.4
Receipts		237.6	1.4	0.0	238.9
FY 19 carry forward (upper limit) ^1/		31.5	14.8	0.6	46.9
Total gross expenditures (limit)		1,345.6	91.5	7.1	1,444.2
Capital budget					85.8
	Information Technology				45.0
	Building facilities				40.8
Memorandum items:
	FY 19 Net administrative budget	1,052.6	76.2	6.4	1,135.1
	Carry forward, upper limit (in percent) ^2/	3.0	20.0	10.0	n.a.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes for IEO a one-time increase in the carry forward limit from 5 percent to 10 percent as approved by the Evaluation Committee.

Table 7.

Proposed Appropriations, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

		Other	OED	IEO	Total
Net administrative budget		1,076.6	75.3	6.4	1,158.4
Receipts		237.6	1.4	0.0	238.9
FY 19 carry forward (upper limit) ^1/		31.5	14.8	0.6	46.9
Total gross expenditures (limit)		1,345.6	91.5	7.1	1,444.2
Capital budget					85.8
	Information Technology				45.0
	Building facilities				40.8
Memorandum items:
	FY 19 Net administrative budget	1,052.6	76.2	6.4	1,135.1
	Carry forward, upper limit (in percent) ^2/	3.0	20.0	10.0	n.a.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes for IEO a one-time increase in the carry forward limit from 5 percent to 10 percent as approved by the Evaluation Committee.

Proposed Decisions

The following decisions, which may be adopted by a majority of the votes cast, are proposed for adoption by the Executive Board:

Decision No. 1: Administrative Budget for the Fund, FY 2020

A. Appropriations for net administrative expenditures for Financial Year 2020 are approved in the total amount of US$1,158.4 million, of which: (a) up to US$75.3 million may be used for the administrative expenditures of the Offices of Executive Directors, (b) up to US$6.4 million may be used for the administrative expenditures of the Independent Evaluation Office, and (c) up to US$1,076.6 million may be used for the other administrative expenditures of the Fund.

B. In addition to the amounts for net administrative expenditures appropriated under paragraph A, amounts appropriated for net administrative expenditures for Financial Year 2019 that have not been spent by April 30, 2019 are authorized to be carried forward and used for administrative expenditures in Financial Year 2020 in a total amount of up to US$46.9 million, with sub limits of (a) US$14.8 million for the Offices of Executive Directors, (b) US$0.6 million for the Independent Evaluation Office, and (c) US$31.5 million for the other administrative expenditures of the Fund.
A limit on gross administrative expenditures in Financial Year 2020 is approved in the total amount of US$1,444.2 million, with sub limits of (a) US$91.5 million for the administrative expenditures of the Offices of Executive Directors, (b) US$7.1 million for the administrative expenditures of the Independent Evaluation Office, and (c) US$1,345.6 million for the other administrative expenditures of the Fund.

Decision No. 2: Capital Budget Appropriations for Financial Year 2020

Appropriations for capital projects underway or beginning in Financial Year 2020 are approved in the total amount of US$85.8 million and are applied to the following project categories:
- (i) Information Technology: US$45.0 million
- (ii) Building Facilities: US$40.8 million

Appendix I. Key Budget Concepts and Deflator

Appendix II. Projected FY 19 Outturn

This appendix provides an overview of projected spending for FY 19 based on information available through end-January. It reports on spending projections in both the Fund’s Thematic Categories and main budget categories. Also included is an overview of capital investments.

A. Spending by the Fund’s Thematic Categories

1. The FY 19 budget aimed to support the continued strengthening of the global recovery and to efficiently and effectively respond to evolving needs of the membership, including through increased modernizing efforts. Within a flat structural budget and an upfront allocation of $19 million in transitional funding, the budget provisioned for increased country work and policy advice and economic analysis. Resources were also provided for modernization efforts, including 1HR and IT systems for data and knowledge management. Additionally, the budget reflected reallocation efforts of about $25 million (2.5 percent of the net budget), including modest savings from departmental efficiencies and central savings, such as holding the travel budget constant in nominal terms.

1. Spending on outputs is expected to be broadly in line with plans, with Fund-financed resources projected to shift towards country work and away from internal support (Table 1 and Appendix V). Projections for FY 19 suggest that spending is consistent with the key priorities. In particular, a shift towards country work is reflected in higher than planned spending on bilateral surveillance and on work related to non-financial instruments. So far in FY 19, functional departments have increased support to country work in area departments, covering surveillance and programs (including non-financial instruments). FSAP spending has also increased because of a larger number of systemic FSAPs than in FY 18. AFR and APD have shifted some spending from country work to regional or analytical work (for APD, this is in part due to work in the run-up to the Annual Meetings in Indonesia). Policy advice and economic analysis saw an uptick, particularly in the area of monetary and financial policies, reflecting analytical work such as central bank digital currency and the Bali Fintech Agenda and follow-up regional workshops.

Table 1.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Allocation by Output, FY 17–19

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}The “Miscellaneous” classification covers expenditures that currently cannot be allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.

^{^2/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system .

Table 1.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Allocation by Output, FY 17–19

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

				FY 19
		FY 17 Outturn	FY 18 Outturn	Estimated Resources	Projected Outturn
Total		1,163	1,167	1,175	1,171
	Country engagement	463	461	467	479
	Policy advice and economic analysis	158	164	166	170
	Contributions to global stability	25	22	23	23
	Fund policies	28	29	26	30
	IMF Governance	118	117	118	114
	Internal organization/support	320	345	335	342
	Miscellaneous ^1/	25	20	28	13
	Contingency	…	…	12	…
	Reconciliation item ^2/	28	8	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}The “Miscellaneous” classification covers expenditures that currently cannot be allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.

^{^2/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system .

Table 1.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources: Allocation by Output, FY 17–19

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

				FY 19
		FY 17 Outturn	FY 18 Outturn	Estimated Resources	Projected Outturn
Total		1,163	1,167	1,175	1,171
	Country engagement	463	461	467	479
	Policy advice and economic analysis	158	164	166	170
	Contributions to global stability	25	22	23	23
	Fund policies	28	29	26	30
	IMF Governance	118	117	118	114
	Internal organization/support	320	345	335	342
	Miscellaneous ^1/	25	20	28	13
	Contingency	…	…	12	…
	Reconciliation item ^2/	28	8	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}The “Miscellaneous” classification covers expenditures that currently cannot be allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.

^{^2/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system .

B. Spending by Inputs

2. The FY 19 approved structural budget is projected to be fully spent, with carry-forward funds intact and available for short-term needs in FY 20 (Figure 1). Under a flat real budget since FY 12, budget utilization has steadily increased given the more aggressive upfront allocation of carry-forward resources to departments in recent years. Better budget utilization has also contributed to improvements in workload indicators—in the recent past, the Fund-wide average overtime rate has remained at around 11 percent and the median rate at about 6 percent. Pockets of higher overtime continue to exist, particularly among staff working on complex program countries and among senior staff, more generally.¹

3. The overall high utilization is reflected in the main budget categories (Table 2). Spending on personnel and under buildings and other expenses is projected to be higher than the structural budget but can be offset with lower spending in travel.² At the aggregate, carry forward funds were not tapped into and are available to meet transitional needs in FY 20. Externally funded activities, symmetrically captured in receipts and expenses, are estimated to end the year slightly below the established operational target. Details by main budget category are presented below.

Table 2.

Net Administrative Budget: Estimated Outturn, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and PeopleSoft Financials. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Table 2.

Net Administrative Budget: Estimated Outturn, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget			Projected Outturn
			Total	Total	Fund-financed	Externally-funded	Total	Fund-financed	Externally-funded	Total
Gross expenditures			1,315	1,309	1,175	196	1,371	1,171	192	1,363
	Personnel		969	962	870	139	1,009	876	128	1,004
	Travel		126	121	87	47	135	79	48	127
		Of which: Annual Meetings			6		6	5		5
	Buildings and other expenses		209	226	205	10	215	216	16	233
	Contingency ^1/		11	…	12	0	12	…	…	…
	Receipts		(211)	(211)	(40)	(196)	(236)	(36)	(192)	(228)
Net expenditures			1,104	1,099	1,135	0	1,135	1,135	0	1,135
Memorandum items:
	Carry forward from previous year		44		46		46
	Total net available resources and spending		1,148		1,181		1,181	1,135		1,135

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and PeopleSoft Financials. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Table 2.

Net Administrative Budget: Estimated Outturn, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget			Projected Outturn
			Total	Total	Fund-financed	Externally-funded	Total	Fund-financed	Externally-funded	Total
Gross expenditures			1,315	1,309	1,175	196	1,371	1,171	192	1,363
	Personnel		969	962	870	139	1,009	876	128	1,004
	Travel		126	121	87	47	135	79	48	127
		Of which: Annual Meetings			6		6	5		5
	Buildings and other expenses		209	226	205	10	215	216	16	233
	Contingency ^1/		11	…	12	0	12	…	…	…
	Receipts		(211)	(211)	(40)	(196)	(236)	(36)	(192)	(228)
Net expenditures			1,104	1,099	1,135	0	1,135	1,135	0	1,135
Memorandum items:
	Carry forward from previous year		44		46		46
	Total net available resources and spending		1,148		1,181		1,181	1,135		1,135

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and PeopleSoft Financials. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Personnel

4. Spending on Fund-financed personnel is projected to slightly exceed the structural budget. Measured relative to structural FTE levels, departments are projected to end the year with an average vacancy rate of just below zero percent, which in effect means that at the aggregate level all structural vacancies are filled with some spillover into transitional positions. Vacancies vary by department type: while area and functional non-CD departments are projected to slightly exceed their approved structural FTEs and making use of transitional positions, functional CD departments are projected to be at structural levels and support departments below.

5. The actual average salary is projected to be lower than the average mid-point salary in the FY 19 budget. This is consistent with the experience of recent years. Turnover generally results in departing staff being replaced with staff with salaries below the grade mid-points, which causes the Fund-wide average salary to fall below the budgeted average. This erosion determines the merit envelope and is calculated as the difference between the average midpoint and actual average salary at the end of the financial year. The annual merit envelope is capped at 1.9 percent of actual salaries of eligible staff. Individual merit increases are tied to performance ratings and paid July 1 of the following year.

Travel

6. Utilization of the travel budget is projected to be around 90 percent. Travel volume increased, particularly to Asia due to the Annual Meetings in Indonesia but also to Africa and the Middle East, mostly related to intensified engagement on surveillance and program activities. Largely driven by higher prices to Asia, the cost per mile rose slightly from $0.37 to $0.38 in the first six months of the year. Notwithstanding this increase, continued prudent travel management should help to keep costs down. The travel budget will again be held constant in nominal terms for FY 20.

Travel, FY 18–19

(Fund-Financed, millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}FY 19 budget includes $6 million for travel to the Annual Meetings in Indonesia.

Travel, FY 18–19

(Fund-Financed, millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total		81	76	87	79
	Business ^1/	65	60	72	66
	Seminars/Participants	5	5	4	3
	Settlement	9	9	9	7
	Miscellaneous travel	2	2	2	3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}FY 19 budget includes $6 million for travel to the Annual Meetings in Indonesia.

Travel, FY 18–19

(Fund-Financed, millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total		81	76	87	79
	Business ^1/	65	60	72	66
	Seminars/Participants	5	5	4	3
	Settlement	9	9	9	7
	Miscellaneous travel	2	2	2	3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}FY 19 budget includes $6 million for travel to the Annual Meetings in Indonesia.

Average Cost per Mile, FY 12–19

(U.S. dollars)

Source: Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Costing methodology for cost-per-mile changed beginning with FY 14.

^{^2/}FY 19 Cost per mile is based on the first six months of data (May-October).

^{^3/}Indicator is based on international travel only.

Average Cost per Mile, FY 12–19

(U.S. dollars)

	FY 12	FY 13	FY 14^1/	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19 ^2/
Average cost per mile^3/	0.41	0.39	0.41	0.39	0.37	0.36	0.37	0.38

Source: Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Costing methodology for cost-per-mile changed beginning with FY 14.

^{^2/}FY 19 Cost per mile is based on the first six months of data (May-October).

^{^3/}Indicator is based on international travel only.

Average Cost per Mile, FY 12–19

(U.S. dollars)

	FY 12	FY 13	FY 14^1/	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19 ^2/
Average cost per mile^3/	0.41	0.39	0.41	0.39	0.37	0.36	0.37	0.38

Source: Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Costing methodology for cost-per-mile changed beginning with FY 14.

^{^2/}FY 19 Cost per mile is based on the first six months of data (May-October).

^{^3/}Indicator is based on international travel only.

7. Spending on buildings and other expenses is projected to continue to be above the approved budget (see Table 3 and Box on Security Spending). Higher outlays on building occupancy include increased costs of the HQ Guard services contract, as well as for utilities and leases. Slightly higher spending in information technology is mainly related to temporary vendor support for critical legacy data systems until the system is replaced as part of the Big 5 transformation programs. An increased need for specialized legal and audit expertise, as well as HR-related initiatives (CCBR and HR Strategy) is reflected under contractual services. Taken together, spending under the remaining categories is at budget.

Table 3.

Building and Other Expenditures, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 3.

Building and Other Expenditures, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total Buildings and other Expenditures			209	226	215	233
	Fund-financed		199	213	205	216
		Building occupancy	60	64	63	69
		Information technology	65	69	69	70
		Contractual services	35	38	33	37
		Subscriptions and printing	21	21	20	21
		Communications	7	7	7	7
		Supplies and equipment	4	7	4	6
		Other	8	6	8	6
	Externally-financed		10	13	10	16

Source: Office of Budget and Planning Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 3.

Building and Other Expenditures, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total Buildings and other Expenditures			209	226	215	233
	Fund-financed		199	213	205	216
		Building occupancy	60	64	63	69
		Information technology	65	69	69	70
		Contractual services	35	38	33	37
		Subscriptions and printing	21	21	20	21
		Communications	7	7	7	7
		Supplies and equipment	4	7	4	6
		Other	8	6	8	6
	Externally-financed		10	13	10	16

Source: Office of Budget and Planning Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Box 1.

Security Spending

Overall, security spending is projected at about $37 million in FY 19. Due to the one-off and cyclical nature of certain security costs (e.g., evacuations, armored vehicles, improvements to systems or assets), security spending by category can vary considerably from year to year. Higher spending on IT Security supports improvements to the management of administrator access to IT and increased penetration testing for critical Fund IT Systems. This increase was mostly offset by lower spending in Field and Headquarters (HQ) Security. Lower-than-planned spending in Field Security reflects less spending on security alterations to field offices and residences and that there have not been any security evacuations thus far. An increase in the operating cost of the Guard Services contract at HQ was mostly offset by lower-than-planned spending on personnel, reflecting vacancies in the security team. Spending on Business Continuity remained constant.

Receipts

8. Receipts from externally financed capacity development activities and Fund-financed operations are expected to end the year below planned levels (Table 4). Externally funded receipts are projected to grow by about 11 percent compared with FY 18, reflecting increased capacity development activities. An overall shortfall in general receipts is projected due to lower publication sales and lower occupancy rates at the Concordia (due to the loss of a major client and the Annual Meetings being held abroad). Also included in general receipts is a refund of $2 million from the Group Life Insurance (GLI) Premium Stabilization Reserve (PSR) that MetLife maintains for the Fund. Due to favorable basic GLI claims over the past few years, the PSR had grown to levels significantly higher than the $1 million considered sufficient as a reserve by MetLife. Basic GLI premiums reflect the Fund’s contributions paid through the administrative budget.

Table 4.

Receipts, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^2/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^3/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

Table 4.

Receipts, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total			211	211	236	228
Externally-financed capacity development
(direct cost only)			172	174	196	192
General receipts			39	37	40	36
	Of which: Administrative and trust fund
		management fees ^1/	12	12	14	13
		Publications income	2	2	3	1
		Fund-sponsored sharing agreements ^2/	4	3	4	3
		HQ2 lease ^3/	4	5	2	2
		Concordia	4	3	4	3
		Parking	3	2	3	3
		Group Life Insurance refund			…	2

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^2/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^3/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

Table 4.

Receipts, FY 18–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18		FY 19
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Total			211	211	236	228
Externally-financed capacity development
(direct cost only)			172	174	196	192
General receipts			39	37	40	36
	Of which: Administrative and trust fund
		management fees ^1/	12	12	14	13
		Publications income	2	2	3	1
		Fund-sponsored sharing agreements ^2/	4	3	4	3
		HQ2 lease ^3/	4	5	2	2
		Concordia	4	3	4	3
		Parking	3	2	3	3
		Group Life Insurance refund			…	2

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^2/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^3/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

C. Capital Investments

9. Capital spending is projected at $159 million for FY 19, significantly higher than last year (Table 5). The HQ1 Renewal program is on schedule with a projected spending in FY 19 of $85 million. All public spaces are now open, office space through the 10^th floor has been reoccupied, and construction is well underway on the remaining floors and on ancillary projects, such as the roof resurfacing and renovation of elevator lobbies. The project is expected to be completed by Fall 2019. Spending on IT capital projects is projected at $38 million, reflecting spending on modernization initiatives. Building facilities expenditures are projected at $37 million, covering in part the audio-visual program and furniture replacement, enhancement to HQ1 Atrium including initial work on the digital wall, and various office and conference room renovations. After projected spending of $159 million, the remaining unspent appropriations from prior years are earmarked largerly for completion of HQ1 Renewal and related projects (such as furniture replacement, audiovisual, office renovations, and claiming of swing space). Approximately $6 million in earmarked capital funding for security enhancements will expire at the end of FY 19 as additional time was required for the feasibility analysis of the recommendations of an external security consultant.

Table 5.

Capital Expenditures, FY 19 ^1/

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

Table 5.

Capital Expenditures, FY 19 ^1/

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 18 Spending	Total Funds Available in FY 19	FY 19 Spending (Proj.)
Facilities		22	83	37
Information Technology		31	54	38
HQ1 Renewal		62	121	85
	Total	116	258	159

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

Table 5.

Capital Expenditures, FY 19 ^1/

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 18 Spending	Total Funds Available in FY 19	FY 19 Spending (Proj.)
Facilities		22	83	37
Information Technology		31	54	38
HQ1 Renewal		62	121	85
	Total	116	258	159

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

Appendix III. Budget Evolution

The size and shape of the Fund’s budget has changed considerably during the past decade.

1. Overall budget trend. In FY 08, the IMF embarked on a budget reduction of 13 percent following a period of low lending and income. Immediately thereafter, the onset of the global financial crisis led to a temporary budget allocation of 5 percent to meet crisis needs, which was followed by a 3 percent structural increase in FY 12 in recognition of the Fund’s enhanced role. As the institution’s activities shifted over time from crisis resolution to strengthened surveillance, the temporary allocation was made permanent. Since FY 12, the Fund has operated under a flat real budget in relation to the Fund budget deflator, except for a small ½ percentage point increase in FY 17 ($6 million) to accommodate increased security costs. In real terms, close to 45 percent of the downsizing savings have been preserved, and the Fund’s budget envelope remains significantly below its pre-crisis level.

2. Reallocation to support new priorities. Even though the budget was flat in real terms between FY 12 and FY 16, over 100 additional staff positions were created from non-personnel savings achieved through a variety of measures, including adjustments in benefits, not applying a deflator to travel budgets, the release of central margins, and efficiencies in departments.¹ An additional 40 positions were funded by donors, helping to support the strong expansion in CD activities. New outputs such as the External Sector Report and spillover work were introduced during this period. The implementation of the Categories of Employment reform explains most of the rise in budgeted FTE positions during FY 16–18 by 120 staff positions, for work that was previously done by contractual employees. In FY 16, the budget included a package of cross-cutting streamlining measures of about $20 million to fund new demands such as better integrating macro-financial surveillance, fiscal space analysis, and enhanced macro-structural analysis as well as to begin work on new topics such as Fintech.

Appendix IV. Strategic Planning Process Timeline, FY 19–20

Appendix V. Fund’s Thematic Categories and ACES Output Structure

1. As part of efforts to better align the budget process with strategic planning as laid out in the GPA and the BWP, this year’s budget document presents the proposed resource allocation according to the Fund’s Thematic Categories (FTC). In previous years, the discussion of resource use by output area has been based on the Fund’s Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES). ACES is a cost estimation model designed to allocate gross administrative expenditures to the Fund’s five outputs: multilateral surveillance (MS), oversight of global systems (OGS), bilateral surveillance (BS), lending (L), and capacity development (CD).

2. The work on FTCs is part of efforts to improve knowledge management and establish a common corporate taxonomy, which would also help to align strategic planning with resource allocation. The FTCs are still work in progress, with finalization expected in 2019. In the meantime, this paper utilizes a preliminary mapping between ACES and FTCs, which will likely be revised after FTC finalization. Figure 1 shows this mapping. The changes of note include:

Country work will combine bilateral surveillance, lending, and CD activities (while still being able to distinguish between them).
Policy advice and economic analysis will encompass most of MS (flagships, work on vulnerability and cross cutting analysis) and part of OGS (other monetary, financial and capital markets issues).
Another part of OGS forms a separate category named Contributions to Global Stability, which would include work with other international bodies (G7, G20, G24, but also the Financial Stability Board, WB, WTO).
The remainder of OGS, Fund policies, would form its own category.
IMF governance would encompass the work of the IMFC, Executive Board, SEC, and management.
General outreach activities, currently in MS in ACES, would move into Internal Support/Organization.

3. Staff have also begun work on a new time reporting system that integrates the FTCs and allows for greater granularity, underpinned by more modern technology and connected more directly with other workflows. Part of 1HR implementation, this is a complicated project that will take some time and will be followed by work on updating ACES to reflect the FTCs, while ensuring comparability with the current output structure.

Appendix VI. Implementation Status of Streamlining and Modernization Measures

In mid-2018, Management endorsed a broad-based package of modernization and streamlining measures. The measures aim at continuing to modernize operations and work practices through more strategic and targeted approaches; leverage opportunities in a fast-changing world for greater traction; and further modernize back-office functions. The measures affect the institution at all levels, in frontline and support activities.

1. Many of the measures could be implemented immediately. In bilateral surveillance, country teams are taking a more focused and selective approach in their coverage of issues, including in how these are communicated (e.g., alternatives to Selected Issues Papers). This is being supported by a more strategic internal review process. Shorter and more reader-friendly flagships and REOs are enhancing the impact of our multilateral surveillance products. Greater prioritization is also being reflected in the Board Work Program, with 51 policy items in the Fall 2018 program, down from nearly 70 in the Spring 2018 program. Staff are also taking steps to “go green”, by eliminating statistical publications in print, reducing the volume of printing for internal purposes, aiming to eliminate all print subscriptions. Better use of lower-cost telecoms (e.g., VOIP) and video options can also contribute some small savings.

2. Other measures require further analysis and consultation before deciding how best to proceed. Some of these are being addressed by the Big 5 programs: CDMAP will help improve the efficiency of CD-related resource management, while 1HR (and other HR reforms) will streamline HR processes and related staffing. Staff is also exploring the scope to modernize non-CD resource management (e.g., the budget function), and how to increase the impact and focus of our engagement through large conferences and management outreach. In the back-office area, staff will be assessing the potential for relocating, outsourcing, and/or automating processes. One notable example is robotic process automation (RPA), a technology that allows the automation of routine tasks (e.g., processing invoices and purchase orders). Pilots are being planned in FIN and ICD, which will help assess the scale of potential savings over the medium-term. Other support departments are considering possible applications to their work processes.

3. The modernization and streamlining measures will deliver some modest savings in the near term, and potentially greater ones over the medium term. For FY 20, savings of about $2.2 million are expected from these measures. Roughly half of these savings stem from streamlined multilateral surveillance (GFSR and REOs); about a quarter relate to publications, printing, and other such measures; and the remainder stems from streamlining Board engagement and SIPs. Over the longer term, reforms related to support services could yield larger savings. However, some significant upfront investments in both staff resources and systems will likely be needed to reap efficiency gains down the road. These needs are reflected in the higher capital budget proposal for this year.

Appendix VII. Long-Term Capital Investment Plan

The components of the capital budget that are related to life-cycle replacements are subject to long-term planning. These plans are reviewed and revised regularly based on new assessments, information and updated strategy.

1. The long-term facilities capital plan (LTP) covers the portion of the budget that relates to the replacement of equipment, critical building systems and major renovations for HQ1, HQ2 and Concordia. These projects are a subset of the overall facilities capital budget which also includes facilities improvement projects that are planned within a shorter timeframe. The LTP is informed by third-party Facilities Condition Assessments (FCA) conducted every three to five years. FCAs considers the age of the assets and best practice assumptions on the useful life to establish broad parameters for replacement costs. As end-of-life milestones are reached, engineering and other feasibility studies are performed to confirm the actual condition and need to replace the asset. The requested appropriation in a given year is therefore based on the actual needs which may reflect an acceleration or delay compared to the previous LTP. The updated LTP is based on a 2018 FCA which was campus-wide, with the exception of assets inaccessible due to HQ1 construction.

2. The current projections indicate a higher level of investment in the first few years, mainly due to the inclusion of $36 million for projects to replace or renovate certain HQ1 assets (mainly cooling and electrical systems) that are now reaching end of life.¹ The spikes in FY 25–26 mark when HQ2 reaches 20 years and renovations are anticipated. This timing is subject to some uncertainty, in particular since HQ2 has experienced a substantially higher level of occupancy throughout HQ1 renewal which can shorten the expected life of building systems and other assets.

3. The IT infrastructure long term plan covers networks, servers and storage, and end-user devices. The updated LTP indicates a continued smoothing of expenditure needs, where there used to be periodic spikes, and an overall reduction in the later years resulting from migrations to cloud platforms.

End-of-life replacement assumptions for personal computers and laptops previously reflected cyclical patterns related to the timing of upgrades to operating systems. With the transition to Office 365 this dependency has been eliminated. Accordingly, beginning with a portion of the inventory in FY 21, laptops and PCs can be replaced on a rolling cycle, smoothing the investments.
The plan also reflects a reduction in the cost of network, server and storage equipment resulting from the migration of applications and computing needs to cloud platforms. Some of the cost may, however, shift to the administrative budget in the form of higher annual licensing and subscription fees; this will be quantified in the context of the cost-benefit analyses of relevant capital projects.
Purchase of mobile devices show a steady trend in the long-term, although the useful life for the current fleet of devices has been longer than originally anticipated and the planned refresh has been postponed until FY 21.

Appendix VIII. Big 5 Program Objectives, Timelines, and Governance

Appendix IX. Statistical Tables

Table 1.

Administrative Budget, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Table 1.

Administrative Budget, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Personnel		820	799	835	802	861	829	896	862	907	896	934	922	969	962	1,009	1,004
Travel		112	105	125	119	123	117	128	112	130	120	123	115	126	121	135	127
Buildings and other expenditures		181	178	181	180	190	203	193	204	200	199	205	218	209	226	215	233
Contingency ^1/		11	0	18	0	12	0	7	0	10	0	11	0	11	0	12	0
Total Gross Expenditures		1,123	1,082	1,159	1,102	1,186	1,149	1,224	1,177	1,247	1,215	1,273	1,255	1,315	1,309	1,371	1,363
	Less: Receipts	138	135	161	154	179	160	197	167	196	176	200	189	211	211	236	228
Total Net Expenditures		985	947	997	948	1,007	988	1,027	1,010	1,052	1,038	1,072	1,066	1,104	1,099	1,135	1,135
Memorandum item:
	Carry Forward	34		41		42		42		42		43		44		46

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Table 1.

Administrative Budget, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Personnel		820	799	835	802	861	829	896	862	907	896	934	922	969	962	1,009	1,004
Travel		112	105	125	119	123	117	128	112	130	120	123	115	126	121	135	127
Buildings and other expenditures		181	178	181	180	190	203	193	204	200	199	205	218	209	226	215	233
Contingency ^1/		11	0	18	0	12	0	7	0	10	0	11	0	11	0	12	0
Total Gross Expenditures		1,123	1,082	1,159	1,102	1,186	1,149	1,224	1,177	1,247	1,215	1,273	1,255	1,315	1,309	1,371	1,363
	Less: Receipts	138	135	161	154	179	160	197	167	196	176	200	189	211	211	236	228
Total Net Expenditures		985	947	997	948	1,007	988	1,027	1,010	1,052	1,038	1,072	1,066	1,104	1,099	1,135	1,135
Memorandum item:
	Carry Forward	34		41		42		42		42		43		44		46

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Travel, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings in Tokyo ($6 million in FY 13), Lima ($5 million in FY 16), Bali ($6 million in FY 19).

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Travel, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 12		FY 13 ^1/		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16 ^1/		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19 ^1/
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Expenditures			112	105	125	119	123	117	128	112	130	120	123	115	126	121	135	127
	Business travel		87	82	98	95	94	91	100	87	104	92	98	88	99	92	111	100
		Transportation	87	48	98	54	94	52	100	48	104	50	98	49	99	52	111	54
		Per diem	…	34	…	41	…	39	…	39	…	42	…	39	…	40	…	46
	Seminars & other		14	11	16	13	18	14	17	15	15	17	14	15	15	18	14	18
	Other travel		11	11	11	11	11	12	11	10	12	11	12	11	12	11	10	9

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings in Tokyo ($6 million in FY 13), Lima ($5 million in FY 16), Bali ($6 million in FY 19).

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Travel, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 12		FY 13 ^1/		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16 ^1/		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19 ^1/
			Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Expenditures			112	105	125	119	123	117	128	112	130	120	123	115	126	121	135	127
	Business travel		87	82	98	95	94	91	100	87	104	92	98	88	99	92	111	100
		Transportation	87	48	98	54	94	52	100	48	104	50	98	49	99	52	111	54
		Per diem	…	34	…	41	…	39	…	39	…	42	…	39	…	40	…	46
	Seminars & other		14	11	16	13	18	14	17	15	15	17	14	15	15	18	14	18
	Other travel		11	11	11	11	11	12	11	10	12	11	12	11	12	11	10	9

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes travel to the Annual Meetings in Tokyo ($6 million in FY 13), Lima ($5 million in FY 16), Bali ($6 million in FY 19).

Table 3.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Buildings and Other Expenditure, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Mainly for contractual services, for example, translation and interpretation services, external audit, as well as other consulting services on business practices and processes.

Table 3.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Buildings and Other Expenditure, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Buildings and other expenses		181	178	181	180	190	203	193	204	200	199	205	218	209	226	215	233
	Building occupancy	57	56	58	57	58	62	60	61	59	60	59	65	63	68	67	76
	Information technology	43	46	47	47	54	59	57	60	60	59	61	65	65	69	69	70
	Subscriptions and printing	17	17	19	18	20	19	20	20	20	20	19	21	21	22	20	21
	Communications	10	9	10	9	8	9	7	9	7	8	7	8	8	8	8	8
	Supplies and equipment	8	9	7	8	9	8	6	7	8	6	6	6	4	7	4	6
	Miscellaneous ^1/	46	41	41	41	42	46	42	47	46	46	52	53	50	52	46	52

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Mainly for contractual services, for example, translation and interpretation services, external audit, as well as other consulting services on business practices and processes.

Table 3.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Buildings and Other Expenditure, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Buildings and other expenses		181	178	181	180	190	203	193	204	200	199	205	218	209	226	215	233
	Building occupancy	57	56	58	57	58	62	60	61	59	60	59	65	63	68	67	76
	Information technology	43	46	47	47	54	59	57	60	60	59	61	65	65	69	69	70
	Subscriptions and printing	17	17	19	18	20	19	20	20	20	20	19	21	21	22	20	21
	Communications	10	9	10	9	8	9	7	9	7	8	7	8	8	8	8	8
	Supplies and equipment	8	9	7	8	9	8	6	7	8	6	6	6	4	7	4	6
	Miscellaneous ^1/	46	41	41	41	42	46	42	47	46	46	52	53	50	52	46	52

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Mainly for contractual services, for example, translation and interpretation services, external audit, as well as other consulting services on business practices and processes.

Table 4.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Receipts, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Trust Fund Management Fees.

Table 4.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Receipts, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Receipts		138	135	161	154	179	160	197	167	196	176	200	189	211	211	236	228
	Externally-financed	107	100	127	118	138	124	154	131	157	142	160	153	172	174	196	192
	General receipts ^1/	32	36	34	36	41	36	43	37	39	34	40	35	39	37	40	36

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Trust Fund Management Fees.

Table 4.

Gross Administrative Expenditures: Receipts, FY 12–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 12		FY 13		FY 14		FY 15		FY 16		FY 17		FY 18		FY 19
		Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Outturn	Budget	Proj. Outturn
Receipts		138	135	161	154	179	160	197	167	196	176	200	189	211	211	236	228
	Externally-financed	107	100	127	118	138	124	154	131	157	142	160	153	172	174	196	192
	General receipts ^1/	32	36	34	36	41	36	43	37	39	34	40	35	39	37	40	36

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Trust Fund Management Fees.

Table 5a.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^2/}Includes Post Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative-I (MDRI-I), MDRI-II, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN), Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT), and trade integration mechanisms.

^{^3/}The “Miscellaneous” classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model. Difference to FTC allocation represents mapping of direct departmental costs to IMF governance.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 5a.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
				FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,145	1,153	1,163	1,158	1,175	1,171	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			266	258	255	266	262	261	23.2	22.4	21.9	23.0	22.3	22.3
		Global economic analysis		130	127	126	127	120	120	11.4	11.0	10.8	10.9	10.2	10.2
			WEO	18	18	17	17	14	14	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5	1.2	1.2
			GFSR	16	16	15	16	13	13	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.4	1.1	1.1
			General research	41	42	38	37	39	39	3.6	3.6	3.3	3.2	3.3	3.3
			General outreach	55	51	55	56	54	54	4.8	4.4	4.8	4.8	4.6	4.6
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		23	24	23	22	25	25	2.0	2.1	2.0	1.9	2.1	2.1
			Multilateral consultations	7	7	6	5	4	4	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	17	17	17	17	21	21	1.4	1.5	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.8
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	62	66	75	72	72	5.6	5.4	5.7	6.5	6.1	6.1
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	18	17	18	20	21	21	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.8
			Other cross cutting analysis	43	41	44	48	45	45	3.8	3.6	3.8	4.2	3.8	3.8
			Fiscal Monitor	3	4	5	7	6	6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.5
		Regional approaches to economic stability		48	45	40	42	45	45	4.2	3.9	3.5	3.6	3.8	3.8
			REOs	19	21	19	19	23	23	1.6	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.0	2.0
			Surveillance of regional bodies	13	10	9	8	8	8	1.1	0.9	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
			Other regional projects	16	14	13	15	14	14	1.4	1.2	1.1	1.3	1.2	1.2
	Oversight of global systems			134	130	135	139	137	148	11.7	11.3	11.6	12.0	11.6	12.7
		Development of international financial architecture		42	38	42	40	42	45	3.7	3.3	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.9
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	6	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	36	31	35	33	35	38	3.1	2.7	3.0	2.9	3.0	3.3
		Data transparency		40	37	38	41	43	47	3.4	3.2	3.3	3.5	3.7	4.0
			Statistical information/data	29	29	30	33	33	36	2.5	2.5	2.6	2.8	2.8	3.0
			Statistical manuals	4	3	2	2	2	2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	7	5	6	6	8	9	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.8
		The role of the Fund		52	56	55	58	52	56	4.6	4.8	4.7	5.0	4.4	4.8
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	21	20	20	26	24	26	1.9	1.7	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.2
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	11	12	11	11	12	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.0	0.9	1.0
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	7	8	9	9	7	8	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.7
			Quota and voice	6	7	6	7	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.7
			SDR issues	7	9	8	5	3	4	0.6	0.8	0.7	0.4	0.3	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			300	311	325	327	322	331	26.2	27.0	27.9	28.2	27.4	28.3
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		267	274	276	285	279	287	23.3	23.8	23.7	24.6	23.7	24.5
			Article IV consultations	195	204	204	216	209	215	17.0	17.7	17.5	18.6	17.8	18.4
			Other bilateral surveillance	71	71	72	70	70	72	6.2	6.1	6.2	6.0	5.9	6.1
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		23	27	39	32	34	35	2.0	2.3	3.3	2.8	2.9	3.0
		Standards and Codes evaluations		11	10	10	9	10	10	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
			ROSCs	3	2	2	1	0	0	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AM L/C FT	2	2	2	2	3	3	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2
			GDDS/SDDS	5	7	6	5	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.6
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			190	189	175	167	174	177	16.6	16.4	15.0	14.4	14.8	15.1
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		145	144	142	145	128	131	12.7	12.5	12.3	12.5	10.9	11.2
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		81	82	75	71	62	63	7.1	7.1	6.4	6.1	5.3	5.4
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		64	63	68	74	66	68	5.6	5.4	5.8	6.4	5.6	5.8
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		45	45	32	22	45	46	3.9	3.9	2.8	1.9	3.9	3.9
	Capacity development			207	217	218	236	235	238	18.0	18.8	18.8	20.4	20.0	20.3
		Technical assistance		161	169	171	189	186	188	14.1	14.6	14.7	16.3	15.8	16.1
		Training		45	48	47	47	49	50	3.9	4.2	4.1	4.1	4.2	4.2
	Miscellaneous ^3/			37	30	28	23	34	16	3.2	2.6	2.4	2.0	2.9	1.3
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	1.0	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			12	17	28	0	…	…	1.0	1.5	2.4	0.0	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 5a.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
				FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,145	1,153	1,163	1,158	1,175	1,171	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			266	258	255	266	262	261	23.2	22.4	21.9	23.0	22.3	22.3
		Global economic analysis		130	127	126	127	120	120	11.4	11.0	10.8	10.9	10.2	10.2
			WEO	18	18	17	17	14	14	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5	1.2	1.2
			GFSR	16	16	15	16	13	13	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.4	1.1	1.1
			General research	41	42	38	37	39	39	3.6	3.6	3.3	3.2	3.3	3.3
			General outreach	55	51	55	56	54	54	4.8	4.4	4.8	4.8	4.6	4.6
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		23	24	23	22	25	25	2.0	2.1	2.0	1.9	2.1	2.1
			Multilateral consultations	7	7	6	5	4	4	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	17	17	17	17	21	21	1.4	1.5	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.8
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	62	66	75	72	72	5.6	5.4	5.7	6.5	6.1	6.1
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	18	17	18	20	21	21	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.8
			Other cross cutting analysis	43	41	44	48	45	45	3.8	3.6	3.8	4.2	3.8	3.8
			Fiscal Monitor	3	4	5	7	6	6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.5
		Regional approaches to economic stability		48	45	40	42	45	45	4.2	3.9	3.5	3.6	3.8	3.8
			REOs	19	21	19	19	23	23	1.6	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.0	2.0
			Surveillance of regional bodies	13	10	9	8	8	8	1.1	0.9	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
			Other regional projects	16	14	13	15	14	14	1.4	1.2	1.1	1.3	1.2	1.2
	Oversight of global systems			134	130	135	139	137	148	11.7	11.3	11.6	12.0	11.6	12.7
		Development of international financial architecture		42	38	42	40	42	45	3.7	3.3	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.9
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	6	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	36	31	35	33	35	38	3.1	2.7	3.0	2.9	3.0	3.3
		Data transparency		40	37	38	41	43	47	3.4	3.2	3.3	3.5	3.7	4.0
			Statistical information/data	29	29	30	33	33	36	2.5	2.5	2.6	2.8	2.8	3.0
			Statistical manuals	4	3	2	2	2	2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	7	5	6	6	8	9	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.8
		The role of the Fund		52	56	55	58	52	56	4.6	4.8	4.7	5.0	4.4	4.8
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	21	20	20	26	24	26	1.9	1.7	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.2
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	11	12	11	11	12	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.0	0.9	1.0
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	7	8	9	9	7	8	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.7
			Quota and voice	6	7	6	7	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.7
			SDR issues	7	9	8	5	3	4	0.6	0.8	0.7	0.4	0.3	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			300	311	325	327	322	331	26.2	27.0	27.9	28.2	27.4	28.3
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		267	274	276	285	279	287	23.3	23.8	23.7	24.6	23.7	24.5
			Article IV consultations	195	204	204	216	209	215	17.0	17.7	17.5	18.6	17.8	18.4
			Other bilateral surveillance	71	71	72	70	70	72	6.2	6.1	6.2	6.0	5.9	6.1
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		23	27	39	32	34	35	2.0	2.3	3.3	2.8	2.9	3.0
		Standards and Codes evaluations		11	10	10	9	10	10	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
			ROSCs	3	2	2	1	0	0	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AM L/C FT	2	2	2	2	3	3	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2
			GDDS/SDDS	5	7	6	5	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.6
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			190	189	175	167	174	177	16.6	16.4	15.0	14.4	14.8	15.1
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		145	144	142	145	128	131	12.7	12.5	12.3	12.5	10.9	11.2
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		81	82	75	71	62	63	7.1	7.1	6.4	6.1	5.3	5.4
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		64	63	68	74	66	68	5.6	5.4	5.8	6.4	5.6	5.8
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		45	45	32	22	45	46	3.9	3.9	2.8	1.9	3.9	3.9
	Capacity development			207	217	218	236	235	238	18.0	18.8	18.8	20.4	20.0	20.3
		Technical assistance		161	169	171	189	186	188	14.1	14.6	14.7	16.3	15.8	16.1
		Training		45	48	47	47	49	50	3.9	4.2	4.1	4.1	4.2	4.2
	Miscellaneous ^3/			37	30	28	23	34	16	3.2	2.6	2.4	2.0	2.9	1.3
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	1.0	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			12	17	28	0	…	…	1.0	1.5	2.4	0.0	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 5b.

Total Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^3/}The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model. Difference to FTC allocation represents mapping of direct departmental costs to IMF governance.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

Table 5b.

Total Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
				FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,287	1,303	1,321	1,345	1,371	1,363	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			266	258	255	267	262	261	20.7	19.8	19.3	19.8	19.1	19.2
		Global economic analysis		130	127	126	127	120	120	10.1	9.7	9.5	9.4	8.8	8.8
			WEO	18	18	17	17	14	14	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.0	1.0
			GFSR	16	16	15	16	13	13	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	0.9	0.9
			General research	41	42	38	37	39	39	3.2	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	2.9
			General outreach	55	51	55	56	54	54	4.3	3.9	4.2	4.2	4.0	4.0
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		23	24	23	23	25	25	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.8
			Multilateral consultations	7	7	6	5	4	4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	17	17	17	17	21	21	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.5
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	62	66	75	72	72	5.0	4.8	5.0	5.6	5.2	5.3
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	18	17	18	20	21	21	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.6
			Other cross cutting analysis	43	41	44	48	45	45	3.4	3.2	3.3	3.6	3.3	3.3
			Fiscal Monitor	3	4	5	7	6	6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4
		Regional approaches to economic stability		48	45	40	42	45	45	3.7	3.5	3.0	3.1	3.3	3.3
			REOs	19	21	19	19	23	23	1.5	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.7	1.7
			Surveillance of regional bodies	13	10	9	8	8	8	1.0	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6
			Other regional projects	16	14	13	15	14	14	1.3	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.0	1.0
	Oversight of global systems			134	130	135	139	137	148	10.4	10.0	10.2	10.3	10.0	10.9
		Development of international financial architecture		42	38	42	40	42	45	3.3	2.9	3.2	3.0	3.0	3.3
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	6	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	36	31	35	33	35	38	2.8	2.4	2.6	2.5	2.6	2.8
		Data transparency		40	37	38	41	43	47	3.1	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.2	3.4
			Statistical information/data	29	29	30	33	33	36	2.2	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.6
			Statistical manuals	4	3	2	2	2	2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	7	5	6	6	8	9	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.6
		The role of the Fund		52	56	55	58	52	56	4.1	4.3	4.1	4.3	3.8	4.1
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	21	20	20	26	24	26	1.7	1.5	1.5	1.9	1.7	1.9
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	11	12	11	11	12	0.9	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.9
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	7	8	9	9	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.6
			Quota and voice	6	7	6	7	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.6
			SDR issues	7	9	8	5	3	4	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			300	311	325	327	322	331	23.3	23.9	24.6	24.3	23.5	24.3
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		267	274	276	286	279	287	20.7	21.1	20.9	21.2	20.3	21.0
			Article IV consultations	195	204	204	216	209	215	15.2	15.6	15.5	16.0	15.2	15.8
			Other bilateral surveillance	71	71	72	70	70	72	5.6	5.4	5.4	5.2	5.1	5.2
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		23	27	39	32	34	35	1.8	2.1	2.9	2.4	2.5	2.5
		Standards and Codes evaluations		11	10	10	9	10	10	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
			ROSCs	3	2	2	1	1	1	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	2	2	2	3	3	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2
			GDDS/SDDS	5	7	6	5	7	7	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.5
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			190	189	175	167	174	177	14.8	14.5	13.2	12.4	12.7	13.0
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		145	144	143	145	128	131	11.3	11.1	10.8	10.8	9.4	9.6
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		81	82	75	71	62	63	6.3	6.3	5.7	5.2	4.5	4.6
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		64	63	68	74	66	68	5.0	4.8	5.1	5.5	4.8	5.0
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		45	45	32	22	45	46	3.5	3.4	2.4	1.7	3.3	3.4
	Capacity development			339	356	363	408	431	430	26.4	27.3	27.5	30.4	31.4	31.5
		Technical assistance		283	297	303	343	360	359	22.0	22.8	23.0	25.5	26.2	26.3
		Training		56	59	60	65	71	71	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.8	5.2	5.2
	Miscellaneous ^3/			49	44	48	29	34	16	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.1	2.5	1.2
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	0.9	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			9	14	20	8	…	…	0.7	1.1	1.5	0.6	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

Table 5b.

Total Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
				FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,287	1,303	1,321	1,345	1,371	1,363	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			266	258	255	267	262	261	20.7	19.8	19.3	19.8	19.1	19.2
		Global economic analysis		130	127	126	127	120	120	10.1	9.7	9.5	9.4	8.8	8.8
			WEO	18	18	17	17	14	14	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.0	1.0
			GFSR	16	16	15	16	13	13	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	0.9	0.9
			General research	41	42	38	37	39	39	3.2	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	2.9
			General outreach	55	51	55	56	54	54	4.3	3.9	4.2	4.2	4.0	4.0
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		23	24	23	23	25	25	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.8
			Multilateral consultations	7	7	6	5	4	4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	17	17	17	17	21	21	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.5
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	62	66	75	72	72	5.0	4.8	5.0	5.6	5.2	5.3
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	18	17	18	20	21	21	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.6
			Other cross cutting analysis	43	41	44	48	45	45	3.4	3.2	3.3	3.6	3.3	3.3
			Fiscal Monitor	3	4	5	7	6	6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4
		Regional approaches to economic stability		48	45	40	42	45	45	3.7	3.5	3.0	3.1	3.3	3.3
			REOs	19	21	19	19	23	23	1.5	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.7	1.7
			Surveillance of regional bodies	13	10	9	8	8	8	1.0	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6
			Other regional projects	16	14	13	15	14	14	1.3	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.0	1.0
	Oversight of global systems			134	130	135	139	137	148	10.4	10.0	10.2	10.3	10.0	10.9
		Development of international financial architecture		42	38	42	40	42	45	3.3	2.9	3.2	3.0	3.0	3.3
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	6	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	36	31	35	33	35	38	2.8	2.4	2.6	2.5	2.6	2.8
		Data transparency		40	37	38	41	43	47	3.1	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.2	3.4
			Statistical information/data	29	29	30	33	33	36	2.2	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.6
			Statistical manuals	4	3	2	2	2	2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	7	5	6	6	8	9	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.6
		The role of the Fund		52	56	55	58	52	56	4.1	4.3	4.1	4.3	3.8	4.1
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	21	20	20	26	24	26	1.7	1.5	1.5	1.9	1.7	1.9
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	11	12	11	11	12	0.9	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.9
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	7	8	9	9	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.6
			Quota and voice	6	7	6	7	7	8	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.6
			SDR issues	7	9	8	5	3	4	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			300	311	325	327	322	331	23.3	23.9	24.6	24.3	23.5	24.3
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		267	274	276	286	279	287	20.7	21.1	20.9	21.2	20.3	21.0
			Article IV consultations	195	204	204	216	209	215	15.2	15.6	15.5	16.0	15.2	15.8
			Other bilateral surveillance	71	71	72	70	70	72	5.6	5.4	5.4	5.2	5.1	5.2
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		23	27	39	32	34	35	1.8	2.1	2.9	2.4	2.5	2.5
		Standards and Codes evaluations		11	10	10	9	10	10	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
			ROSCs	3	2	2	1	1	1	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	2	2	2	3	3	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2
			GDDS/SDDS	5	7	6	5	7	7	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.5
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			190	189	175	167	174	177	14.8	14.5	13.2	12.4	12.7	13.0
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		145	144	143	145	128	131	11.3	11.1	10.8	10.8	9.4	9.6
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		81	82	75	71	62	63	6.3	6.3	5.7	5.2	4.5	4.6
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		64	63	68	74	66	68	5.0	4.8	5.1	5.5	4.8	5.0
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		45	45	32	22	45	46	3.5	3.4	2.4	1.7	3.3	3.4
	Capacity development			339	356	363	408	431	430	26.4	27.3	27.5	30.4	31.4	31.5
		Technical assistance		283	297	303	343	360	359	22.0	22.8	23.0	25.5	26.2	26.3
		Training		56	59	60	65	71	71	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.8	5.2	5.2
	Miscellaneous ^3/			49	44	48	29	34	16	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.1	2.5	1.2
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	0.9	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			9	14	20	8	…	…	0.7	1.1	1.5	0.6	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

Table 5c.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (direct costs), FY 15–19 ^1/

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are shown as a separate item.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 5c.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (direct costs), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
								FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,145	1,153	1,163	1,158	1,175	1,171	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			177	171	169	175	173	170	15.5	14.9	14.6	15.1	14.7	14.5
		Global economic analysis		89	87	87	87	83	82	7.8	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.0	7.0
			WEO	11	11	11	10	9	9	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.7
			GFSR	10	10	9	10	8	8	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.9	0.7	0.7
			General research	25	26	24	23	25	24	2.2	2.3	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1
			General outreach	43	40	43	43	42	41	3.7	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.5	3.5
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		15	15	15	14	16	16	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.3
			Multilateral consultations	4	4	4	3	2	2	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	11	11	11	11	13	13	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.1
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		41	39	42	47	45	45	3.6	3.4	3.6	4.0	3.9	3.8
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	11	10	11	12	13	13	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.1	1.1
			Other cross cutting analysis	28	27	28	30	29	28	2.4	2.3	2.4	2.6	2.4	2.4
			Fiscal Monitor	2	2	3	4	4	4	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3
		Regional approaches to economic stability		32	30	26	27	29	28	2.8	2.6	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4
			REOs	12	14	12	12	15	14	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2
			Surveillance of regional bodies	9	7	5	5	5	5	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4
			Other regional projects	11	9	8	10	9	9	1.0	0.8	0.7	0.9	0.8	0.8
	Oversight of global systems			88	86	88	89	88	99	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.7	7.5	8.5
		Development of international financial architecture		27	24	27	26	26	30	2.4	2.1	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.5
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	4	5	5	5	4	5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	23	20	22	21	22	25	2.0	1.7	1.9	1.8	1.9	2.1
		Data transparency		25	23	24	25	29	32	2.2	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.4	2.7
			Statistical information/data	18	18	19	20	22	24	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.1
			Statistical manuals	2	2	1	1	1	1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
			Statistical methodologies	4	3	4	4	6	6	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.5
		The role of the Fund		36	38	37	38	33	37	3.2	3.3	3.2	3.2	2.8	3.2
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	15	14	13	17	15	17	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.3	1.5
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	7	7	8	7	6	7	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.6
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	4	6	6	6	4	5	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4
			Quota and voice	4	5	4	5	5	5	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5
			SDR issues	5	7	5	3	2	3	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.2
	Bilateral surveillance			197	203	209	210	208	215	17.2	17.6	18.0	18.1	17.7	18.4
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		176	180	179	184	180	187	15.4	15.6	15.4	15.9	15.3	15.9
			Article IV consultations	129	134	131	138	134	139	11.3	11.6	11.3	11.9	11.4	11.8
			Other bilateral surveillance	47	46	47	46	46	48	4.1	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.9	4.1
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		14	16	24	20	21	22	1.2	1.4	2.1	1.8	1.8	1.9
		Standards and Codes evaluations		7	6	6	6	6	7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.6
			ROSCs	2	1	1	1	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	1	1	2	2	2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
			GDDS/SDDS	3	4	4	3	4	5	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			130	127	115	110	117	120	11.3	11.0	9.9	9.5	10.0	10.3
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		100	97	94	95	87	89	8.7	8.4	8.1	8.2	7.4	7.6
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		56	55	50	47	43	44	4.9	4.7	4.3	4.0	3.6	3.7
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		43	42	44	49	44	45	3.8	3.6	3.8	4.2	3.8	3.8
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		30	30	21	15	31	31	2.6	2.6	1.8	1.3	2.6	2.7
	Capacity development			136	139	139	141	142	143	11.9	12.1	12.0	12.2	12.1	12.2
		Technical assistance		101	103	104	107	108	109	8.9	8.9	8.9	9.2	9.2	9.3
		Training		34	37	35	34	34	34	3.0	3.2	3.0	2.9	2.9	2.9
	Support and Governance			368	379	387	411	401	407	32.2	32.9	33.3	35.5	34.1	34.8
	Miscellaneous ^3/			37	30	28	23	34	16	3.2	2.6	2.4	2.0	2.9	1.3
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	1.0	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			12	17	28	0	…	…	1.0	1.5	2.4	0.0	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are shown as a separate item.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 5c.

Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (direct costs), FY 15–19 ^1/

				Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars						Percent of total
								FY 19						FY 19
				FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn	FY 15	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	Est. Resources	Proj. Outturn
Total				1,145	1,153	1,163	1,158	1,175	1,171	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			177	171	169	175	173	170	15.5	14.9	14.6	15.1	14.7	14.5
		Global economic analysis		89	87	87	87	83	82	7.8	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.0	7.0
			WEO	11	11	11	10	9	9	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.7
			GFSR	10	10	9	10	8	8	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.9	0.7	0.7
			General research	25	26	24	23	25	24	2.2	2.3	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1
			General outreach	43	40	43	43	42	41	3.7	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.5	3.5
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		15	15	15	14	16	16	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.3
			Multilateral consultations	4	4	4	3	2	2	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	11	11	11	11	13	13	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.1
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		41	39	42	47	45	45	3.6	3.4	3.6	4.0	3.9	3.8
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	11	10	11	12	13	13	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.1	1.1
			Other cross cutting analysis	28	27	28	30	29	28	2.4	2.3	2.4	2.6	2.4	2.4
			Fiscal Monitor	2	2	3	4	4	4	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3
		Regional approaches to economic stability		32	30	26	27	29	28	2.8	2.6	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4
			REOs	12	14	12	12	15	14	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2
			Surveillance of regional bodies	9	7	5	5	5	5	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4
			Other regional projects	11	9	8	10	9	9	1.0	0.8	0.7	0.9	0.8	0.8
	Oversight of global systems			88	86	88	89	88	99	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.7	7.5	8.5
		Development of international financial architecture		27	24	27	26	26	30	2.4	2.1	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.5
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	4	5	5	5	4	5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	23	20	22	21	22	25	2.0	1.7	1.9	1.8	1.9	2.1
		Data transparency		25	23	24	25	29	32	2.2	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.4	2.7
			Statistical information/data	18	18	19	20	22	24	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.1
			Statistical manuals	2	2	1	1	1	1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
			Statistical methodologies	4	3	4	4	6	6	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.5
		The role of the Fund		36	38	37	38	33	37	3.2	3.3	3.2	3.2	2.8	3.2
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	15	14	13	17	15	17	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.3	1.5
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	7	7	8	7	6	7	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.6
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	4	6	6	6	4	5	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4
			Quota and voice	4	5	4	5	5	5	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5
			SDR issues	5	7	5	3	2	3	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.2
	Bilateral surveillance			197	203	209	210	208	215	17.2	17.6	18.0	18.1	17.7	18.4
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		176	180	179	184	180	187	15.4	15.6	15.4	15.9	15.3	15.9
			Article IV consultations	129	134	131	138	134	139	11.3	11.6	11.3	11.9	11.4	11.8
			Other bilateral surveillance	47	46	47	46	46	48	4.1	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.9	4.1
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		14	16	24	20	21	22	1.2	1.4	2.1	1.8	1.8	1.9
		Standards and Codes evaluations		7	6	6	6	6	7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.6
			ROSCs	2	1	1	1	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	1	1	2	2	2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
			GDDS/SDDS	3	4	4	3	4	5	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			130	127	115	110	117	120	11.3	11.0	9.9	9.5	10.0	10.3
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		100	97	94	95	87	89	8.7	8.4	8.1	8.2	7.4	7.6
		Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources		56	55	50	47	43	44	4.9	4.7	4.3	4.0	3.6	3.7
		Programs supported by PRGT resources		43	42	44	49	44	45	3.8	3.6	3.8	4.2	3.8	3.8
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		30	30	21	15	31	31	2.6	2.6	1.8	1.3	2.6	2.7
	Capacity development			136	139	139	141	142	143	11.9	12.1	12.0	12.2	12.1	12.2
		Technical assistance		101	103	104	107	108	109	8.9	8.9	8.9	9.2	9.2	9.3
		Training		34	37	35	34	34	34	3.0	3.2	3.0	2.9	2.9	2.9
	Support and Governance			368	379	387	411	401	407	32.2	32.9	33.3	35.5	34.1	34.8
	Miscellaneous ^3/			37	30	28	23	34	16	3.2	2.6	2.4	2.0	2.9	1.3
	Contingency			…	…	…	…	12	…	…	…	…	…	1.0	…
	Reconciliation item ^4/			12	17	28	0	…	…	1.0	1.5	2.4	0.0	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Support and governance costs are shown as a separate item.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 16 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^3/}Unspent Concordia funds appropriated in FY 12 expired at the end of FY 14 with the exception of $0.6 million that was specifically reappropriated for FY 15 to complete the remaining work under the project.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10) + (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		132.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15) + (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20) + (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25) + (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30) + (31)	82.9	54.1		120.6		257.7
	Expenditures (Proj.)	(33)	36.6	38.0		84.6		159.2
	Remaining funds (Proj.) ^2/	(34) = (32)-(33)	46.3	16.1		36.0		98.5

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 16 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10) + (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		132.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15) + (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20) + (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25) + (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30) + (31)	82.9	54.1		120.6		257.7
	Expenditures (Proj.)	(33)	36.6	38.0		84.6		159.2
	Remaining funds (Proj.) ^2/	(34) = (32)-(33)	46.3	16.1		36.0		98.5

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 16 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Excluding $6 million for the 2018 Annual Meetings in Indonesia.

Subject to approval by the Executive Board, the budget envelope also assumes an unchanged net administrative budget in real terms for the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), while the net administrative budget for the Offices of Executive Directors (OED) is proposed to be unchanged in real terms, except for a reduction of $0.8 million that is transferred to the staff budget as an additional reserve available for institutional priorities.

Using the U.S. CPI instead of the GED would have resulted in a slightly lower path for the nominal budget or about ¼ percent per year for the same period.

Personnel represents 70 percent of the GED. See Appendix I for background on key budget concepts and the deflator.

Key assumptions in the longer-term (FY 29) include a lending volume of SDR 20 billion (versus an average stock of SDR 51.4 billion in FY 19); an SDR interest rate of 3 percent, with an unchanged margin of 100 basis points for the rate of charge; 50 basis points excess return over the SDR rate in the Fixed Income Subaccount; a constant USD payout from the Endowment; and no surcharge income.

For more background information on CD, see Annex I in FY2018 – Output Cost Estimates and Budget Outturn.

As discussed in the 2018 Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy.

See Appendix IV for a timeline of the main elements involved in the annual strategic planning cycle.

The Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda: Rising Risks: A Call for Policy Cooperation, October 2018.

Appendix V discusses the correspondence between the Fund’s Thematic Categories (FTQ and the output areas used in the Fund’s Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES). As noted in the BWP, staff are working on improving the interoperability between the categories used in the budget and the BWP to further strengthen strategic planning and prioritization. This is work in progress and based on a mapping between ACES and the preliminary FTC.

Internal support, or “internal organization” as presented in the BWP, comprises spending on direct and indirect support activities such as HR, information technology, corporate services, and general outreach.

The output numbers in this section are estimates of resource allocation and are not control totals. Appropriations will continue to be approved at an aggregate level based on input accounts.

Departments identified contingency measures of some 2 percent of approved budget as part of the budget formulation exercise.

Initial savings from implementing Streamlining and Modernization measures are estimated at $2.2 million, mostly from more focused analytical work, including in multilateral surveillance. See Appendix VI for an update on the status of implementation of this initiative.

In the infographics in each thematic category, the text in the top half of the center shows the expenditure projection for FY 19 and its share of total spending including donor-financed CD. The bottom half shows the increase in total available resources (structural and transitional) in FY 20 compared with FY 19, corresponding to the difference between columns (h) and (c) in Table 2.

The steady-state resource cost for work on four topics (gender, inequality, fiscal space, macro-structural) amounts to $3–4½ million per year, of which country work would be $2½-3¼ million (about 1–1½ percent of bilateral surveillance). See Box 1 in FY2019-FY2012 Medium-Term Budget.

Charge-back involves charging departments for corporate services (language and creative services), while show-back aims at bringing greater visibility into cost and supporting prioritization (IT services).

Appendix VII provides the updated long-term plans for both facilities and IT infrastructure.

The Program Sponsor for KM is a Deputy Director with knowledge in that area.

Overtime rates are much lower for support staff (A1-A8), the only group eligible for overtime compensation.

A more detailed breakdown of expenditures over the past years is presented in the Statistical Tables, Appendix IX.

The Board paper FY2017–FY2019 Medium-Term Budget provides additional details.

The original plan for HQ1 Renewal did not provide for replacement or renovation of these assets because they were not reaching end-of-life until after the project was planned to be completed.

Other Publishers

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/007/2019/009/article-A001-en.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

FY2020–FY2022 Medium-Term Budget

Author:

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

Volume/Issue:: Volume 2019: Issue 009

Publisher:: International Monetary Fund

ISBN:: 9781498311168

ISSN:: 2663-3493

Pages:: 68

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498311168.007

View raw image

Figure 1.

Actual and Projected Income and Expenses, FY 08–29

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Figure 2.

Fund Arrangements, FY 00–19 ^1/

(Number of countries)

View raw image

Change in Share of Spending, by FTC, FY 19 vs FY 12 ^1/

(Percent of Fund-financed Spending)

View raw image

Proposed Changes in Resources, by FTC, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in Country Engagement, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Spending on Fragile States, projected FY 19

View raw image

Spending on CD, FY 13–21

View raw image

Planned CD Spending FY 19

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in Policy Advice and Economic Analysis, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Board Work Program, Estimated Cost, FY 19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in Contributions to Global Stability, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in Fund Policies, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in IMF Governance, FY20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Proposed Shifts in Internal Support, FY 20

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Figure 3.

FY 20 Budget Adjustments, by Department Type and FTCs ^1/

(Millions of FY 19 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Figure 4.

Big 5: High-level Overview of Status

View raw image

Figure 5.

FY 20–22 Budget Risk Matrix

View raw image

Figure 6.

Externally Financed Spending and Operational Targets

View raw image

FY 19 Administrative Budget (Millions USD)

View raw image

Composition of Gross Spending, FY 19 (Millions USD)

View raw image

Figure 1.

Budget and Workload Indicators

View raw image

Budgeted Staff Positions vs. Projected Outturn by Department Type, FY 19 ^1/

(FTEs)

View raw image

Security-related Spending, FY 17–19

(Millions of FY 19 dollars, unless otherwise indicated)

View raw image

Net Budget Envelope and Personnel, FY 12–19

View raw image

View raw image

Figure 1.

Mapping of ACES Outputs to FTCs ^1/

View raw image

Facilities Capital Plan, FY 20–34 ^1/

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

IT Infrastructure Capital Plan, FY 20–29

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

IT Infrastructure Capital Long-term Plan, FY 20–29 by Equipment Type

(Millionsof U.S. dollars)

Foresee

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–19

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10) + (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		132.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15) + (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20) + (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25) + (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30) + (31)	82.9	54.1		120.6		257.7
	Expenditures (Proj.)	(33)	36.6	38.0		84.6		159.2
	Remaining funds (Proj.) ^2/	(34) = (32)-(33)	46.3	16.1		36.0		98.5

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 16 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

A multi-year strategic agenda	The FY 20 budget proposal is formulated against the backdrop of a weakened global outlook and financial volatility. The budget reflects a strategic agenda— operationalized in the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda (GPA) and Board Work Program (BWP)—to help members rebuild policy space, strengthen resilience, and implement structural reforms. This will be supported by continued work to review policies and strategies to enhance Fund advice.
Flat budget in real terms in FY 20	While the Fund’s income position remains healthy over the medium-term, the budget stance remains disciplined and mindful of long-term constraints, and the proposed net administrative budget envelope for FY 20 is unchanged in real terms in relation to the Fund budget deflator.¹ The proposal reflects reallocation towards new needs and priorities of some 3 percent of the net budget.
	The FY 20 budget would support important modernization projects. These projects (the so-called “Big 5”) aim to improve processes and capabilities in areas including human resources, capacity development, and data and knowledge management. By leveraging technological innovations and streamlining business processes, these projects should increase efficiency, improve the quality of service delivery, and reduce risk. Because significant resources (capital and administrative) will be needed up-front to pay for these projects, robust cost-benefit analyses are being undertaken to ensure that the projects deliver a satisfactory return on investment. Proactive change management will also be critical given the significant changes that the projects will bring to how work is done.
	The increased upfront distribution of carry-forward resources means that the buffers for handling unexpected resource needs will be reduced. This makes it all the more important that departments manage their budgets carefully, to reduce the risk of overruns. Staff’s ongoing efforts to strengthen internal capacity to cost the Fund’s work should contribute to more robust estimates of expected expenses, and better prioritization of available resources.
Flat resource envelope over the medium term	The same level of real resources is assumed for the medium term, without prejudging the outcome of internal reviews and modernization efforts, nor of the impact of new work streams that may arise. Table 1 sets out the main budget components: net and gross administrative budget envelopes, and capital budget envelope, expressed in current and constant USD.

A multi-year strategic agenda	The FY 20 budget proposal is formulated against the backdrop of a weakened global outlook and financial volatility. The budget reflects a strategic agenda— operationalized in the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda (GPA) and Board Work Program (BWP)—to help members rebuild policy space, strengthen resilience, and implement structural reforms. This will be supported by continued work to review policies and strategies to enhance Fund advice.
Flat budget in real terms in FY 20	While the Fund’s income position remains healthy over the medium-term, the budget stance remains disciplined and mindful of long-term constraints, and the proposed net administrative budget envelope for FY 20 is unchanged in real terms in relation to the Fund budget deflator.¹ The proposal reflects reallocation towards new needs and priorities of some 3 percent of the net budget.
	The FY 20 budget would support important modernization projects. These projects (the so-called “Big 5”) aim to improve processes and capabilities in areas including human resources, capacity development, and data and knowledge management. By leveraging technological innovations and streamlining business processes, these projects should increase efficiency, improve the quality of service delivery, and reduce risk. Because significant resources (capital and administrative) will be needed up-front to pay for these projects, robust cost-benefit analyses are being undertaken to ensure that the projects deliver a satisfactory return on investment. Proactive change management will also be critical given the significant changes that the projects will bring to how work is done.
	The increased upfront distribution of carry-forward resources means that the buffers for handling unexpected resource needs will be reduced. This makes it all the more important that departments manage their budgets carefully, to reduce the risk of overruns. Staff’s ongoing efforts to strengthen internal capacity to cost the Fund’s work should contribute to more robust estimates of expected expenses, and better prioritization of available resources.
Flat resource envelope over the medium term	The same level of real resources is assumed for the medium term, without prejudging the outcome of internal reviews and modernization efforts, nor of the impact of new work streams that may arise. Table 1 sets out the main budget components: net and gross administrative budget envelopes, and capital budget envelope, expressed in current and constant USD.

FY 20 net administrative budget	$1,129 million in constant FY 19 dollars, defined in relation to the Fund’s global external deflator, representing a flat real resource envelope for the eighth year in a row (excluding a $6 million security related increase in FY 17).²^, ³
	$1,158 million in nominal terms, reflecting a preliminary assumption for the increase in the Global External Deflator (GED) of 2.6 percent.⁴ The personnel component of the deflator reflects the Board’s decision on the FY 20 compensation adjustment.
FY 20 gross administrative budget	$1,397 million in nominal terms, reflecting $239 million in receipts, most of which consist of reimbursements for externally financed CD activities.
Savings and demands	$33 million in constant FY 19 dollars of net additional structural demands, offset by reallocations and savings of the same amount.
Transitional needs	As the expected FY 19 outturn is projected to be roughly at the level of the approved structural budget (see Appendix II), some $30 million in carry-forward resources from the previous year would still be available to staff. Of this, $25 million is to be allocated up front to departments in the FY 20 budget process. This is some $6 million more than last year, largely due to temporary modernization costs.
FY 20 capital budget	$86 million in nominal terms, comprising $41 million for building facilities and $45 million for information technology. The latter includes $30 million for the Big 5 programs for which summaries of business cases and cost benefit analyses will be presented to the Board as they are finalized. Indicative estimates are provided for the outer years.

FY 20 net administrative budget	$1,129 million in constant FY 19 dollars, defined in relation to the Fund’s global external deflator, representing a flat real resource envelope for the eighth year in a row (excluding a $6 million security related increase in FY 17).²^, ³
	$1,158 million in nominal terms, reflecting a preliminary assumption for the increase in the Global External Deflator (GED) of 2.6 percent.⁴ The personnel component of the deflator reflects the Board’s decision on the FY 20 compensation adjustment.
FY 20 gross administrative budget	$1,397 million in nominal terms, reflecting $239 million in receipts, most of which consist of reimbursements for externally financed CD activities.
Savings and demands	$33 million in constant FY 19 dollars of net additional structural demands, offset by reallocations and savings of the same amount.
Transitional needs	As the expected FY 19 outturn is projected to be roughly at the level of the approved structural budget (see Appendix II), some $30 million in carry-forward resources from the previous year would still be available to staff. Of this, $25 million is to be allocated up front to departments in the FY 20 budget process. This is some $6 million more than last year, largely due to temporary modernization costs.
FY 20 capital budget	$86 million in nominal terms, comprising $41 million for building facilities and $45 million for information technology. The latter includes $30 million for the Big 5 programs for which summaries of business cases and cost benefit analyses will be presented to the Board as they are finalized. Indicative estimates are provided for the outer years.

Business outcomes	Streamlined and standardized processes Alignment with best practices Manage operational and reputational risk Flexiblity to adapt to policy/practice changes Improved access to data and information Productivity and efficiency gains
Big 5	1HR	CDMAP	IDW	KM	iDATA
Prerequisite projects	Identity and access management Cloud development and integration Corporate data warehouse

Topics

Countries

Series

About

Resources

Abstract

Overview

The Strategic Context

The Budget: How are Priorities Supported?

From Outputs to Inputs

FY 20–22 Capital Budget Proposal

The Capital Budget

Risks to the Budget

Summary Proposal for FY 20

Proposed Decisions

Appendix I. Key Budget Concepts and Deflator

Appendix II. Projected FY 19 Outturn

A. Spending by the Fund’s Thematic Categories

B. Spending by Inputs

Personnel

Travel

Receipts

C. Capital Investments

Appendix III. Budget Evolution

Appendix IV. Strategic Planning Process Timeline, FY 19–20

Appendix V. Fund’s Thematic Categories and ACES Output Structure

Appendix VI. Implementation Status of Streamlining and Modernization Measures

Appendix VII. Long-Term Capital Investment Plan

Appendix VIII. Big 5 Program Objectives, Timelines, and Governance

Appendix IX. Statistical Tables

Same Series

Other IMF Content

Other Publishers

Asian Development Bank

Inter-American Development Bank

The World Bank

Share Link

Table of Contents

Headings

Figures

Metrics

Foresee