External Evaluation Of Imf Surveillance

The IMF's surveillance over its member'seconomic policies is one of the institution's central activities. In keeping with the increasing transparency of the IMF; the Executive Board askes a group of independent external experts to evaluate IMF surveillance, to assess the effectiveness of such surveillance, and to make recommendations for improvements. The group's report looks at the methods, substance, and impact of surveillance, both on individual countries and on the global economy. This publication also includes the reactions of the Executive Board, management, and the staff to the external evaluation.

Annotation. An external evaluation of IMF surveillance over members' policies. Much of the research centred on the Fund's surveillance over the last decade of a sample of twelve countries: Brazil, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, India, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand and the United States. The key recommendation was that surveillance should focus as much as possible on the core issues of exchange rate policy and directly associated macroeconomic policies, rather than structural issues of a non-financial nature. Doubts were raised as to the Fund's capacity to deal adequately with such issues and there were concerns that this expansion of coverage detracted from the effectiveness of surveillance overall. The international implications of policies should also be given significantly greater attention. Responses to the report by the Managing Director of IMF and by other IMF directors are included.

The IMF's surveillance over its member'seconomic policies is one of the institution's central activities. In keeping with the increasing transparency of the IMF; the Executive Board askes a group of independent external experts to evaluate IMF surveillance, to assess the effectiveness of such surveillance, and to make recommendations for improvements. The group's report looks at the methods, substance, and impact of surveillance, both on individual countries and on the global economy. This publication also includes the reactions of the Executive Board, management, and the staff to the external evaluation.

Over the past six months, a key theme has been ensuring strong follow-up to IEO evaluations, a priority stressed by the recently competed External Evaluation of the IEO. Of particular note, the Managing Director has issued a statement highlighting actions planned to strengthen the IMF’s engagement with fragile states following our recent evaluation, and this statement is being presented to the IMFC for endorsement. In addition, the IEO has completed two updates of past evaluations, advanced work on two ongoing evaluations (on IMF financial surveillance and on IMF advice related to unconventional monetary policies), and is now considering its future work program in light of the External Evaluation.

External Study prepared by Jean Pisani-Ferry, André Sapir, and Guntram B. Wolff: This report provides an independent evaluation of recent IMF surveillance in the euro area (EA). It focuses on the euro area as a whole and on four countries severely hit by the recent economic and financial crisis, namely Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

This report, commissioned by the Executive Board, was prepared by a committee of academic economists. The report assesses the appropriateness of current research activities, the quality and added value of the IMF's economic research and its utility in the IMF among its member countries and within the wider economics community. This publication also includes responses to the report by the IMF's staff, Managing Director, and Executive Board.

We have been asked by the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund to undertake an external review of the activities of its Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). This is the second such evaluation in the IEO’s twelve year history. The first review, led by Karin Lissakers (the “Lissakers Report”), was presented to the Board in 2006. That report considered the extent to which the Office had succeeded during its first five years of operation in fulfilling its mandates and made recommendations to enhance its role within the IMF’s institutional architecture. Our report thus focuses on IEO activities since 2006. As set out in the terms of reference of our Panel (see Appendix I), the central objective of this report is to evaluate how well the IEO has met its institutional mandates. The terms of reference, while not constraining the range of issues we could consider, also asks that we “assess the IEO’s effectiveness along several dimensions, including: (i) the appropriateness of evaluation topics; (ii) the independence of the IEO; (iii) the cost-effectiveness of the IEO and its operations; and (iv) the appropriateness and adequacy of the evaluation process including, but not limited to, how IEO recommendations are endorsed by the Board and implemented.”

The IMF’s surveillance framework encompasses a new focus on multilateral issues, and especially the spillovers from one economy onto others. This third Annual Report of the Independent Evaluation Office describes ongoing and recently completed evaluations and discusses additions to IEO’s work plan. General lessons pertaining to IMF surveillance emerging from recent evaluations are highlighted and discussed, namely the need for better integration of financial and macroeconomic factors as well as bilateral and multilateral policy analysis and policy prescriptions. The findings of an External Evaluation Panel charged with assessing the work of the IEO are also covered.

The IMF’s surveillance framework encompasses a new focus on multilateral issues, and especially the spillovers from one economy onto others. This third Annual Report of the Independent Evaluation Office describes ongoing and recently completed evaluations and discusses additions to IEO’s work plan. General lessons pertaining to IMF surveillance emerging from recent evaluations are highlighted and discussed, namely the need for better integration of financial and macroeconomic factors as well as bilateral and multilateral policy analysis and policy prescriptions. The findings of an External Evaluation Panel charged with assessing the work of the IEO are also covered.

This report seeks to help the IMF enhance its effectiveness by identifying major recurring issues from the IEO’s first 20 evaluations and assessing where they stand. The IMF’s core areas of responsibility are surveillance, lending, and capacity development. The aim of this report is to strengthen the follow-up process by focusing on key issues that recurred in IEO evaluations, rather than on specific recommendations on their implementation. The IEO believes that a framework of reviewing and monitoring recurring issues would be useful in establishing incentives for progress, strengthening the Board’s oversight, and providing learning opportunities for the IMF.