Chapter 3: Evaluation Framework

Ruben Lamdany
Published Date:
April 2013
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

10. This evaluation considers the period from 2005 to the present, with an emphasis on the period since the onset of the global crisis in 2007–08. This period allows an examination of whether the IMF’s provision of crisis-related financing and the many new initiatives may have changed country authorities’ perceptions of the Fund.

11. The evaluation focuses on the following questions:

  • In the view of country authorities, what does it mean for the Fund to be a trusted advisor?
  • Do the Fund’s formal vehicles (surveillance, UFR, technical assistance, etc.) provide an environment conducive to the trusted advisor role? Do country authorities initiate requests for economic policy advice, and if so, in which policy areas?
  • Has the Fund been effective as a trusted advisor? Have authorities’ perceptions of the Fund as a trusted advisor changed since the onset of the global crisis?

12. The main evidence for the evaluation comes from interviews and surveys:

  • Semi-structured interviews of current and former country authorities—almost 400 interviews from more than 50 countries representative of the Fund membership (as detailed in Annex 2).
  • Semi-structured interviews of selected mission chiefs, resident representatives, senior staff, Management, and members of the Executive Board.
  • A survey of country authorities, covering the entire Fund membership.6 Responses were received from 137 countries (72 percent of the membership).7
  • Surveys of IMF mission chiefs (including for surveillance, UFR, technical assistance, and Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) missions) and resident representatives during the period of study.

13. The evaluation also uses documentary evidence from supporting background studies and draws on the relevant findings of previous IEO evaluations (see Reichmann, 2012a), reviews by IMF staff—including recent Triennial Surveillance Reviews (TSRs) and Transparency Policy Reviews—and some opinion surveys by the External Relations Department, as detailed in Annex 1.

    Other Resources Citing This Publication