This is a high-level report on progress in addressing recurring issues identified by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). The Board endorsed the proposal in the Chairman’s Summing Up for the Independent Evaluation Office Report on Recurring Issues from a Decade of Evaluation – Lessons for the IMF (BUFF/14/58, 6/11/14) that staff prepare a separate high-level report on the status of initiatives that address the recurring issues identified by the IEO, noting that the first staff report could be prepared within two years, followed by similar reports every five years thereafter. The September 2015 Management Implementation Plan set out the actions management would take to follow-up on the Board-endorsed recommendation. The IEO’s 2014 evaluation of Recurring Issues from a Decade of Evaluation: Lessons for the IMF identified five recurring issues: a) Executive Board guidance and oversight; b) Organizational silos; c) Attention to risks and uncertainty; d) Country and institutional context; and e) Evenhandedness. This high-level report provides a broad account of actions taken to address these recurring issues since the publication of the 2014 IEO report; it is not intended as an exhaustive account of initiatives undertaken. Takeaways. The report concludes that the Fund has made progress in addressing the recurring issues identified by the IEO, and acknowledges the need for taking actions on an ongoing basis to achieve the related objectives. The discussion of the Management Implementation Plan (MIP) left open the question of whether subsequent reports should be prepared, perhaps every five years. The Evaluation Committee concluded that the forthcoming external evaluation of the IEO could look at the monitoring mechanisms more holistically, to provide further input into considering whether or not to continue the preparation every five years of this high-level report.

This paper analyzes that the IMF has moved beyond its traditional fiscal-centric approach to recognize that social protection can also be macro-critical for broader reasons including social and political stability concerns. Evaluating the IMF’s involvement in social protection is complicated by the fact that there is no standard definition of social protection or of broader/overlapping terms such as social spending and social safeguards in (or outside) the IMF. In this evaluation, social protection is understood to include policies that provide benefits to vulnerable individuals or households. This evaluation found widespread IMF involvement in social protection across countries although the extent of engagement varied. In some cases, engagement was relatively deep, spanning different activities (bilateral surveillance, technical assistance, and/or programs) and involving detailed analysis of distributional impacts, discussion of policy options, active advocacy of social protection, and integration of social protection measures in program design and/or conditionality. This cross-country variation to some degree reflected an appropriate response to country-specific factors, in particular an assessment of whether social protection policy was macrocritical, and the availability of expertise from development partners or in the country itself.

"The Ninth Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in Response to Board-Endorsed Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) Recommendations assesses the progress made over the last year on actions contained in two “new” MIPs arising from recent IEO evaluations, and another seven for which individual management actions were classified as “open” in the Eighth PMR. Overall, 42 of the 96 actions included in the Ninth PMR remain open, representing roughly the same proportion as the previous PMR. A 25 percent net increase in open management actions over the past year is accounted for by 24 new actions from two MIPs, and 16 actions that have been implemented over the period. There is positive traction on the last four MIPs, but older actions appear challenging to implement. Better progress has been made with the implementation of the actions contained in recent MIPs. Fourteen of the actions implemented since the Eighth PMR relate to MIPs approved after October 2015, while only two actions (out of 24) from earlier MIPs were implemented. Improvements in the follow-up process approved by the Board in October 2015 have contributed to speedier implementation of recent actions, but some challenges remain. There are lingering challenges with defining measures of success for numerous actions, but accountabilities are now clearer and many actions are at advanced stages at the time of the Board’s discussion of the MIPs. This PMR introduces indicators to support the process for resolving challenges with long-standing actions. Despite the slower progress with the older actions, significant advances have been made over the past year in several key areas. These include: protocols for engaging the IEO; risk management and analysis; the mainstreaming of macrofinancial surveillance; an overarching strategy on data and statistics; guidance on cooperation with other organizations, including Regional Financing Arrangements (RFAs); improvements in External Stability Assessments; and ongoing analytical work on surveillance and program, including macrostructural issues, emerging topics, and debt sustainability analysis. On the other hand, progress has been slower on macro forecasting, outward spillovers, and cross-country knowledge sharing."

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.

This paper sets out Management’s response to the Independent Evaluation Office’s (IEO) evaluation of Recurring Issues from a Decade of Evaluation: Lessons for the IMF.

Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in Response to Board-Endorsed IEO Recommendations assesses the progress made over the last year on actions contained in the four MIPs arising from recent IEO evaluations, and another four for which individual management actions were classified as still “in progress” in the Seventh PMR. Overall, 34 of the 77 actions included in the eight MIPs covered in this PMR remain open. Progress on the actions envisaged in the management implementation plans has been somewhat uneven, with more progress being made on the most recent MIPs. Of the 19 actions that have been implemented over the past year, only three relate to the older management actions. Many of the older actions are more broadly worded, and in many instances have no clear timetable. The actions that are progressing more slowly also tend to involve fundamental changes to institutional culture and practices, and therefore require a continuous, long-term effort. In spite of the slower progress on the older actions, significant advances have been made in several key areas. These include: Fund-wide risk analysis and management; the mainstreaming of macro financial surveillance; training on financial sector topics and macro forecasting; acknowledgement, discussion, and dissemination of information on IMF forecasts; the shift towards increasing reliance on quota resources, relative to borrowing; and the approval of the new Statement of Principles and Best Practices in Self-Evaluation. In addition, the 2015 Staff Survey showed significant improvements in several indicators related to the Fund’s internal culture and institutional values. Overall, management and staff appear committed to ensuring that open actions remain on track. Progress on all open actions will be assessed in future PMRs.

This paper discusses that the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) has also launched three new evaluations—which will analyze the IMF’s role on fragile states, its financial surveillance activities, and its advice on unconventional monetary policies—and two evaluation updates—which will look into the IMF’s exchange rate policy advice and structural conditionality. The evaluation found that, for the most part, the IMF’s euro area surveillance identified the right issues during the pre-crisis period but did not foresee the magnitude of the risks that would later become paramount. The IMF’s surveillance of the financial regulatory architecture was generally of high quality, but staff, along with most other experts, missed the buildup of banking system risks in some countries. The report found several issues with the way decision making was managed by the IMF. In May 2010, the IMF Executive Board approved a decision to provide exceptional access financing to Greece without seeking preemptive debt restructuring, even though its sovereign debt was not deemed sustainable with a high probability.