The Seventh PMR includes: (i) a discussion of progress made over the last year on the actions corresponding to four Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) that were classified as still “in progress” in the previous PMR; and (ii) an assessment of the progress made in achieving the high-level objectives in three areas directly related to those MIPs. In addition, an update on substantive issues related to five older MIPs agreed since 2007 is provided at the end of the report. Three new evaluations have been completed by the IEO since March 2014. In July and August 2015, Management issued the MIPs in response to these evaluations. Given that only a short time has passed since their completion, progress in addressing the actions contemplated in those MIPs will be discussed in the next PMR.

"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 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 IMF carries out its mandate to foster macroeconomic stability and thereby facilitate prosperity by promoting the adoption of sound policies and international cooperation. Ultimately, the means to achieve these goals is to have Fund policy advice translated into concrete action. Key to achieving such traction is the relationship between Fund staff and member country authorities, together with the quality of the advice and members’ confidence in it. That is, the Fund needs to be seen as a trusted advisor. This evaluation examines in what circumstances the Fund is viewed as a trusted advisor to its member countries. It uses evidence gathered since 2005, but emphasizes the period since the onset of the global crisis in 2007–08. Because the concept of trusted advisor is “in the eyes of the beholder,” the evaluation derives the main attributes from country authorities themselves.

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.

The Tenth 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 10 MIPs with open management actions.

The Eleventh Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in Response to Board-Endorsed Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) Recommendations assessed the progress made over the past 18 months on 72 actions contained in 10 MIPs. Significant progress has been made with the implementation of management actions, despite challenges that have arisen from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 29 of the 72 actions for which implementation progress is assessed in the Eleventh PMR were deemed to have been satisfactorily implemented, while 35 remain open, and eight actions are being reformulated in line with the Board-approved triage framework for long-standing open actions. Despite the effect of reprioritization to make space for the urgent needs of the membership resulting from the pandemic, the pace of implementation observed in the Eleventh PMR, with the 29 actions closed, significantly exceeds the previous trend of about 15 implemented actions per year. Of the 35 open actions, 16 are more than one year past their implementation due dates. The reprioritization of activities owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and resource constraints on account of several years of flat budgets led to delays in the implementation of several actions, partly because of the postponement of important reviews.