Download Free External Evaluation Of The Independent Evaluation Office Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online External Evaluation Of The Independent Evaluation Office and write the review.

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 IEO of the IMF was created in 2000 to enhance the learning culture of the IMF, to build the IMF’s external credibility by undertaking objective evaluations in a transparent manner, to provide independent feedback to the Executive Board in its governance and oversight responsibilities, and to promote greater understanding of the work of the IMF among its members and the broader public. In the period October 2005-February 2006, the Evaluation Panel assessed how well the IEO meets these objectives, asking at the outset whether the IMF needs an IEO and whether the existing office is adequately independent. The Panel concludes that the IEO has served the IMF well but identifies certain weaknesses and makes recommendations to the IEO and the IMF to address them.
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.
This first Annual Report describes the activities of the IEO through the first full year of operation. The report provides a summary of the main findings and recommendations of the first three evaluation projects on the prolonged use of IMF resources, the role of the IMF in recent capital account crises, and the role of fiscal adjustment in IMF-supported programs. It also indicates the status of ongoing evaluation projects, and discusses several common themes emerging from the IEO’s evaluations.
This volume examines how independent evaluation contributes to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the IMF. It describes the evolution and impact of the Independent Evaluation Office ten years after its creation as well as the challenges it has faced. It also incorporates feedback from a wide range of internal and external actors and offers useful insights for international organizations, academics, and other global stakeholders.
This paper examines the performance of emerging market economies (EMs) during the recent global crisis and draws policy conclusions. It considers how EMs were affected by the initial impact of the crisis, examines the extent to which they were able to undertake countercyclical policies to moderate the impact, and highlights factors that have influenced the pace and timing of their recovery. Finally, it considers policy challenges facing EMs as the crisis subsides. This paper sheds light on the role of reserves in crises, and provides contextual background for work on the future financing role of the IMF.
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.
The report and its recommendations should also be careful to not impinge upon areas that are still unfolding, such as the RST, crisis response, and CD provision, to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensure that a coherent and evenhanded framework is in place. I offer qualified and/or partial support to the recommendations, as discussed below, to serve better our SDS members.
IEO evaluations are an integral part of the Fund’s learning culture, helping the Fund absorb lessons that improve its work. In addition, the objectivity of IEO evaluations has bolstered the Fund’s credibility. In discussing the report of the External Evaluation of the IEO (the “Lissakers report”), Executive Directors welcomed the suggestions to strengthen follow-up to the IEO recommendations?including more Board involvement—and supported a more systematic approach for following up and monitoring the implementation of IEO recommendations approved by the Board. This periodic monitoring report (PMR) is the first such effort under the new procedures approved by the Executive Board in January 2007. In particular, it responds to the instruction that “Management shall present to the Board a periodic monitoring report on the state of implementation of actions contained in the forward-looking implementation plans already in force and not deemed completed on the occasion of a prior periodic monitoring report. These reports shall indicate difficulties in implementing the original plan and propose remedial or substitute actions whenever appropriate. The first periodic monitoring report shall be prepared following the delivery of the 2007 IEO Annual Report. As the IEO Annual Reports cover the status of all past IEO recommendations, it is expected that the first periodic monitoring report produced by Management would also review the implementation of recommendations made to date.”