Do Imf Supported Programs Work A Survey Of The Cross Country Empirical Evidence Mohsin Khan

Over the last two decades a number of cross-country empirical studies have been undertaken to assess whether IMF-supported adjustment programs have led to an improved balance of payments and current account balance, lower inflation, and higher growth. These studies use a variety of methodologies and cover different country samples and time periods. This paper critically surveys the evidence yielded by the cross-country studies, paying special attention to the pros and cons of the respective empirical methodologies employed. These studies, particularly the more recent ones, conclude that IMF-supported programs have generally been successful in stabilizing the economy.

Over the last two decades a number of cross-country empirical studies have been undertaken to assess whether IMF-supported adjustment programs have led to an improved balance of payments and current account balance, lower inflation, and higher growth. These studies use a variety of methodologies and cover different country samples and time periods. This paper critically surveys the evidence yielded by the cross-country studies, paying special attention to the pros and cons of the respective empirical methodologies employed. These studies, particularly the more recent ones, conclude that IMF-supported programs have generally been successful in stabilizing the economy.

Over the last two decades a number of cross-country empirical studies have been undertaken to assess whether IMF-supported adjustment programs have led to an improved balance of payments and current account balance, lower inflation, and higher growth. These studies use a variety of methodologies and cover different country samples and time periods. This paper critically surveys the evidence yielded by the cross-country studies, paying special attention to the pros and cons of the respective empirical methodologies employed. These studies, particularly the more recent ones, conclude that IMF-supported programs have generally been successful in stabilizing the economy.

Continuing the empirical debate on the effects of IMF-supported programs on participating countries’ macroeconomic performance, we focus on the issue of whether these programs accelerate conditional ß-convergence among low-income countries (LICs). We use an unbalanced panel dataset for 85 LICs over the period 1986-2015 and employ two different econometric methods to address the selection bias problem. Our empirical results suggest that the rate of conditional income per capita convergence is faster among LICs with extended IMF support than that in countries without support or with intermittent support.

Summarizes the for ward-looking analytical work program on macroeconomic issues related to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach. The program is evolving through a process that began with a technical workshop; participants from low-income countries, donors, academia, and civil society drafted guidance on selected issues and identified priority research topics. Partners, policymakers, and economic scholars are encouraged to share their perspectives and findings through respective team leaders, whose e-mail addresses are provided. The publication also summarizes IMF analytical work, and contains a bibliography of nearly 1,000 papers.

Research work by the IMF’s staff on the effectiveness of the country programs the organization supports, which has long been carried out, has intensified in recent years. IMF analysts have sought to “open up the black box” by more closely examining program design and implementation, as well as how these influence programs’ effectiveness. Their efforts have also focused on identifying the lending, signaling, and monitoring features of the IMF that may affect member countries’ economic performance. This book reports on a large portion of both the new and the continuing research. It concludes that IMF programs work best where domestic politics and institutions permit the timely implementation of the necessary measures and when a country is vulnerable to, but not yet in, a crisis. It points to the need for a wider recognition of the substantial diversity among IMF member countries and for programs to be tailored accordingly while broadly maintaining the IMF’s general principle of uniformity of treatment.

I analyze empirically whether program size (the size of financial assistance) and policy adjustment matter for the success of IMF-supported programs. I define a program as successful if the initial program projections for net private capital flows are met or exceeded. I find that success is negatively associated with the size of financial assistance, especially in countries with market access, and that projection biases binding constraints on the amount of IMF lending may account for this association. Moreover, policy adjustment seems to have a causal positive effect on the likelihood of program success.

Using a cross-country sample of 169 IMF-supported programs and detailed studies of 15 programs, this evaluation report examines various aspects of fiscal adjustment in IMF-supported programs. It presents evidence that does not support some critics’ view that IMF-supported programs typically adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to fiscal adjustment, nor the perception that programs always involve austerity by targeting reductions in public spending. The report also proposes a number of recommendations for IMF surveillance and program design in the future.

This paper studies the short and longer-term impact of IMF engagement in Low-Income Countries (LICs) over nearly three decades. In contrast to earlier studies, we focus on a sample composed exclusively of LICs and disentangle the different effects of IMF longer-term engagement and short-term financing using a propensity score matching approach to control for selection bias. Our results indicate that longer-term IMF support (at least five years of program engagement per decade) helped LICs sustain economic growth and boost resilience by building fiscal buffers. Interestingly, the size of IMF financing has no significant impact on economic growth, possibly pointing to the prominent role of IMF policy advice and institutional capacity building in the context of longer-term engagement. We also present evidence that the short-term IMF engagement through augmentations of existing programs or short-term and emergency facilities is positively associated with a wide range of macroeconomic outcomes. Notably, the IMF financial support has the greatest impact on short-term growth when LICs are faced with substantial macroeconomic imbalances or exogenous shocks.