## pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget.pdf.json)

---

### Overview and headline decisions
- FY 19 budget proposal formulated against a strengthening global recovery and broadly balanced near term risks (March 29, 2018).
- Net administrative budget for FY 19 remains unchanged in real terms (flat real budget envelope for the seventh year in a row, excluding the ½ percentage point security related increase in FY 17).
- Proposal reflects reallocations of some 2½ percent of the net budget.
- Carry-forward resources equivalent to 4 percent of the net budget from earlier years remain available; roughly one half ($19 million) has been allocated upfront in the FY 19 budget process.

### Main components and key numeric figures
- Total income (Proposed FY 19): 1,859 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Gross administrative budget (Proposed FY 19): 1,315 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Receipts (Proposed FY 19): (211) (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Net Administrative Budget (Proposed FY 19): 1,104 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Capital Budget (IT and Facilities) (Proposed FY 19): 66 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- FY 19 net administrative budget in constant FY 18 dollars: $1,110 million, representing a flat-real resource envelope, plus an extra $6 million for the Annual Meetings in Indonesia.
- FY 19 gross administrative budget in nominal terms: $1,135 million, reflecting an assumed Global External Deflator (GED) of 2.3 percent.
- Gross administrative budget reflecting receipts: $1,371 million in nominal terms, reflecting $236 million in receipts; most receipts—$196 million—consist of reimbursements for externally-financed capacity development (CD) activities.
- Net additional structural demands: $25 million in constant FY 18 dollars of net additional structural demands, offset by reallocations and savings of the same amount.
- Carry-forward resources from the previous year: $46 million available; of these $31 million are available to fund transitional needs with the remainder for OED and IEO. Of the $31 million, $19 million have been allocated to departments in the FY 19 budget process.
- FY 19 capital budget nominal: $71 million (indicative estimates for outer years).

### Outputs, reallocations, and operational implications
- Impact of savings and demands on overall output structure described as modest.
- Fund-financed structural resources projected to shift slightly from global oversight towards multilateral surveillance as a net result of reallocations from completed to new policy work and reviews, in line with the Board Work Program.
- Fund-financed country work—bilateral surveillance, lending and capacity development—falls somewhat.
- Externally financed capacity development (CD) is expected to grow further; growth in externally financed CD activities is offset fully by increased receipts.
- Support and governance areas continue to experience structural pressures.
- Same level of real resources is assumed over the medium-term; flat real budget stance requires ability to find offsetting savings if upside spending pressures emerge.
- Budget proposal incorporates reallocation efforts within and across departments of close to 2½ percent of total spending; some departments identified reallocations of more than 10 percent.
- About a quarter of the identified savings come from operational efficiencies, modernization and restructuring efforts, or the falling cost of inputs.

### Strategic context, income outlook, and medium-term risks
- Four broad drivers guiding budget size and allocation: Financial sustainability; Institutional priorities; Economic conditions (cyclical, unpredictable “firefighting” activities); Modernization of how the Fund does business.
- Role of annual budget: align resources with evolving institutional priorities and economic conditions; confirm spending trajectory consistent with income projections; preserve buffers and flexibility for unforeseen in-year demands.
- Net operational income projected to remain positive over the medium-term (Figure 1), allowing buildup of precautionary balances under illustrative longer-term assumptions in the context of the New Income Model (NIM).
- Key longer-term assumptions (FY 28 illustrative):
  - lending volume of SDR 20 billion (versus an average stock of SDR 43.4   billion in FY 18);
  - an SDR interest rate of 3 percent, with an unchanged margin of 100 basis points for the rate of charge;
  - 50 basis points excess return over the SDR rate in the Fixed Income Subaccount;
  - a constant USD payout from the Endowment; and
  - no surcharge income.
- Economic conditions: broadly balanced risks in the near-term with manageable impact on Fund’s lending and surveillance; medium-term risks tilted to the downside (potential build-up in financial vulnerabilities, geopolitical tensions, restrictive trade practices).
- Budgetary buffers appear adequate for FY 19, but a large, sustained increase in lending activity would require budget adjustments; lending income would increase with a lag.

### Capital budget and indicative outer-year guidance
- Capital budget envelope for FY 19 broadly unchanged from assumptions in the FY 18–20 Medium-Term Budget; amounts for outer years are indicative.
- FY 19 Capital Budget (IT and Facilities): 66 (millions of U.S. dollars) in current USD.
- IT capital projects and capital spending are presented as part of the capital budget proposal (figures listed in the full paper).
- Financial treatment of FY19 Capital Appropriations total: 79.5 (Millions of U.S. dollars) with When Spent breakdown: 15.7 / 11.2 / 28.5 / 20.5 / 2.0 / 1.7 / 79.5 (periods shown as in source table).
- Building Facilities Projects total: 34.6; Information Technology Projects total: 44.9; Feasibility Studies/In-House Development: 5.3; Hardware - Equipment: 9.6; Software - Upgrades/Purchases: 30.0.

### Modernization, Advisory Group findings, and resource implications
- An Advisory Group (AG) of senior Fund staff constituted by Management in the Fall of 2017 to recommend how the Fund should prepare for the future; AG covered surveillance, outreach, CD, engagement with the Board, use of technology, and support services.
- Three overarching AG goals:
  - continue modernizing operations and work practices through more strategic and targeted approaches;
  - leverage opportunities in a fast-changing world (e.g., digital technologies);
  - modernize back-office functions, applying best practices and free up human resources for higher value-added activities.
- AG’s recommendations broadly endorsed by management; implementation planning under way.
- Some recommendations could result in savings; some could require up-front investments, including additional capital budget, to achieve efficiency gains over the long run.
- Carry forward resources available to meet about $19 million in temporary needs across most output areas.
  - Almost 40 percent of the transitional resources are to ease continued pressures in support departments.
  - Another quarter of transitional funds reflect intensified country work under surveillance and lending, and provide temporary assistance to allow phasing in of structural downsizing in EUR.
  - Some 15 percent of transitional resources support work on the Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), trade, and modernization and transformation efforts.
- Net additional allocations to emerging challenges are around $3–3.5 million (about 1/3 of one percent of the Fund’s net administrative budget); about half of these allocations relate to technological change (mainly Cyber-Risk and FinTech); about half covered by transitional resources.

### Pilot initiatives and estimated steady-state costs (Box 1)
- Pilot initiatives considered for phased extension: fiscal space, gender, inequality, macro-structural.
- Estimated pilot costs modest: around $8 million per year.
- Cumulative explicit budgetary provision through FY 18: 2.4 (Millions of U.S. dollars), of which Transitional 1.0.
- Additional budgetary provision in FY 19: 0.3 (Millions of U.S. dollars).
- External financing used by country teams: around $2 million (mostly on gender and macrostructural).
- Pilot costing by topic (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars):
  - FY17 total: 8.3
  - FY18 total: 8.2
  - Gender: 1.8 / 1.6
  - Inequality: 2.1 / 1.8
  - Fiscal space: 0.9 / 0.9
  - Macro-structural: 3.5 / 3.9
- Estimated steady-state cost to expand coverage: Total 3–4.5 (Millions of FY18 U.S. dollars per year).
  - Gender: 0.3-0.4
  - Inequality: 0.4-0.5
  - Fiscal space: 0.5-0.6
  - Macro-structural: 2-3
- Steady-state annual case assumptions:
  - Gender: 10–15 country cases per year
  - Inequality: 10–15 country cases per year
  - Macro-structural: 60 cases per year
  - Fiscal space: 40–50 cases per year (steady state)

### Appendix I — Projected FY 18 Outturn: key highlights
- Offsetting savings and reallocation efforts of $26 million.
- Upfront allocation of carry forward funds of $24 million.
- Structural budget remained flat for the sixth year in a row (excluding a ½ percentage point security related increase in FY 17).
- Budget execution projected at 99 percent.
- Fund-wide average overtime rate stabilized at about 11 percent; median about 7 percent.
- Travel expenses expected to end the year below budget; budget utilization projected at 91 percent. Cost per mile rose from $0.36 in FY 17 to $0.38 in the first nine months of FY 18.
- Buildings and other expenses expected higher than approved budget; Table 3 figures (millions of U.S. dollars):
  - Total buildings and other expenses: FY 17 Budget 205; FY 17 Outturn 218; FY 18 Budget 209; FY 18 Est. Outturn 222.
  - Building occupancy: FY 17 Outturn 61; FY 18 Est. Outturn 63.
  - Information technology: FY 17 Outturn 64; FY 18 Est. Outturn 68.
  - Contractual services: FY 17 Outturn 39; FY 18 Est. Outturn 37.
- Security spending (Millions of FY 18 dollars and percent of administrative budget):
  - Administrative expenses: FY 16 34.1; FY 17 Outturn 35.0; FY 18 Revised Proj. 35.3.
  - Field security: FY 16 10.5; FY 17 Outturn 10.0; FY 18 Revised Proj. 8.7.
  - HQ security: FY 16 14.7; FY 17 Outturn 15.5; FY 18 Revised Proj. 16.3.
  - IT security: FY 16 8.2; FY 17 Outturn 8.9; FY 18 Revised Proj. 9.1.
  - Capital expenses: FY 16 4.5; FY 17 Outturn 12.8; FY 18 Revised Proj. 7.0.
- Capital investments:
  - HQ1 Renewal program estimated spending in FY 18 of $64 million.
  - IT capital projects estimated spending: $35 million.
  - Building facilities spending estimated around $23 million.
  - Capital totals (Millions of U.S. dollars): Total capital Budget 200; FY 17 Outturn 189; FY 18 Budget 211; FY 18 Est. Outturn 204.

### Appendix II — Budget evolution and historical figures
- Since FY 12, Fund has operated under a flat real budget, except for a small ½ percent increase in FY 17.
- In FY 08, IMF embarked on a budget reduction of 13 percent; temporary 5 percent allocation post-crisis; 3 percent structural increase in FY 12.
- Over 100 additional staff positions created from non-personnel savings between FY 12 and FY 16; another 40 positions funded by donors.
- Rise in budgeted FTEs beginning FY 16 mainly reflects Categories of Employment (CoE) reform; end of FY 18 will have created an additional 120 staff positions from CoE.
- FY 18 Administrative Budget (Millions USD):
  - Gross budget: 1,315
  - Receipts: 211
  - Net budget: 1,104
  - Composition: Personnel: 969; Travel: 126; Building and other expenses: 209; Contingencies: 11; OED: 74; IEO: 6; All Others: 1,235.

### Appendix V — Statistical tables: selected figures
- Travel expenditures (Millions of U.S. dollars) by fiscal year (Budget / Outturn):
  - FY 12: 112 / 105
  - FY 13: 125 / 119
  - FY 14: 123 / 117
  - FY 15: 128 / 112
  - FY 16: 130 / 120
  - FY 17: 123 / 115
  - FY 18: 126 / 116 (Est. Outturn)
- Receipts (Millions of U.S. dollars) by fiscal year (Budget / Outturn):
  - FY 12: 138 / 135
  - FY 13: 161 / 154
  - FY 14: 179 / 160
  - FY 15: 197 / 167
  - FY 16: 196 / 176
  - FY 17: 200 / 189
  - FY 18: 211 / 204 (Est. Outturn)
- Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (direct costs, Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars) — selected lines:
  - Total (Estimated Resources / Projected Outturn examples): 1,119 / 1,121
  - Multilateral surveillance (direct): 168 / 173 / 168 / 166 / 167 / 174
  - Bilateral surveillance (direct): 193 / 193 / 199 / 204 / 205 / 212
  - Lending (direct): 129 / 127 / 124 / 112 / 115 / 111
  - Capacity development (direct): 132 / 133 / 136 / 136 / 138 / 138
  - Support and Governance (direct): 360 / 360 / 371 / 378 / 391 / 393

*Source: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FY2019–FY2021 MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET (pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY).*

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### Overview and headline decisions
- FY 19 budget proposal formulated against a strengthening global recovery and broadly balanced near term risks (March 29, 2018).
- Net administrative budget for FY 19 remains unchanged in real terms (flat real budget envelope for the seventh year in a row, excluding the ½ percentage point security related increase in FY 17).
- Proposal reflects reallocations of some 2½ percent of the net budget.
- Carry-forward resources equivalent to 4 percent of the net budget from earlier years remain available; roughly one half ($19 million) has been allocated upfront in the FY 19 budget process.

### Main components and key numeric figures (Table 1 and Main Components summary)
- Total income (Proposed FY 19): 1,859 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Gross administrative budget (Proposed FY 19): 1,315 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Receipts (Proposed FY 19): (211) (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Net Administrative Budget (Proposed FY 19): 1,104 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- Capital Budget (IT and Facilities) (Proposed FY 19): 66 (millions of U.S. dollars).
- FY 19 net administrative budget in constant FY 18 dollars: $1,110 million, representing a flat-real resource envelope, plus an extra $6 million for the Annual Meetings in Indonesia.
- FY 19 gross administrative budget in nominal terms: $1,135 million, reflecting an assumed Global External Deflator (GED) of 2.3 percent.
- Gross administrative budget reflecting receipts: $1,371 million in nominal terms, reflecting $236 million in receipts; most receipts—$196 million—consist of reimbursements for externally-financed capacity development (CD) activities.
- Net additional structural demands: $25 million in constant FY 18 dollars of net additional structural demands, offset by reallocations and savings of the same amount.
- Carry-forward resources from the previous year: $46 million available; of these $31 million are available to fund transitional needs with the remainder for OED and IEO. Of the $31 million, $19 million have been allocated to departments in the FY 19 budget process.
- FY 19 capital budget nominal: $71 million (indicative estimates for outer years).

### Outputs, reallocations, and operational implications
- Impact of savings and demands on overall output structure described as modest.
- Fund-financed structural resources projected to shift slightly from global oversight towards multilateral surveillance as a net result of reallocations from completed to new policy work and reviews, in line with the Board Work Program.
- Fund-financed country work—bilateral surveillance, lending and capacity development—falls somewhat.
- Externally financed capacity development (CD) is expected to grow further; growth in externally financed CD activities is offset fully by increased receipts.
- Support and governance areas continue to experience structural pressures.
- Same level of real resources is assumed over the medium-term; flat real budget stance requires ability to find offsetting savings if upside spending pressures emerge.

### Strategic context, income outlook, and medium-term risks
- Four broad drivers guiding budget size and allocation: Financial sustainability; Institutional priorities; Economic conditions (cyclical, unpredictable “firefighting” activities); Modernization of how the Fund does business.
- Role of annual budget: align resources with evolving institutional priorities and economic conditions; confirm spending trajectory consistent with income projections; preserve buffers and flexibility for unforeseen in-year demands.
- Net operational income projected to remain positive over the medium-term (Figure 1), allowing buildup of precautionary balances under illustrative longer-term assumptions in the context of the New Income Model (NIM).
- Key longer-term assumptions (FY 28 illustrative): lending volume of SDR 20 billion (versus an average stock of SDR 43.4   billion in FY 18); an SDR interest rate of 3 percent, with an unchanged margin of 100 basis points for the rate of charge; 50 basis points excess return over the SDR rate in the Fixed Income Subaccount; a constant USD payout from the Endowment; and no surcharge income.
- Multi-year agenda refined in-year via the Managing Director’s GPA and the Executive Board Work Program; existing budget currently deemed sufficient to deliver medium-term institutional priorities provided new needs can be met through reprioritization and savings.
- Economic conditions: broadly balanced risks in the near-term with manageable impact on Fund’s lending and surveillance; number of countries with Fund-supported programs below long-term average, but vulnerabilities persist; medium-term risks tilted to the downside (potential build-up in financial vulnerabilities, geopolitical tensions, restrictive trade practices).
- Budgetary buffers appear adequate for FY 19, but a large, sustained increase in lending activity would require budget adjustments; lending income would increase with a lag.

### Capital budget and indicative outer-year guidance
- Capital budget envelope for FY 19 broadly unchanged from assumptions in the FY 18–20 Medium-Term Budget; amounts for outer years are indicative.
- FY 19 Capital Budget (IT and Facilities): 66 (millions of U.S. dollars) in current USD (Table 1).
- IT capital projects and capital spending are presented as part of the capital budget proposal (figures listed in the full paper).

### Medium-term assumptions and deflators (as presented)
- Global external deflator (change): 2.9 ... 2.3 2.3 2.2 (as shown in Table 1).
- Personnel component (70 percent) deflator assumptions: 3.0 ... 2.2 2.2 2.2.
- Non-personnel (30 percent) deflator assumptions: 2.6 ... 2.6 2.4 2.1.

### Structure of the remainder of the paper
- Section II: The strategic context for the medium-term budget.
- Section III: The medium-term budget proposal—use of resources across five main direct outputs (Multilateral Surveillance, Oversight of Global Systems, Bilateral Surveillance, Lending and CD) and Support and Governance activities; implications for departments.
- Section IV and V: Budget proposal from an input perspective, budget risks, and capital budget.
- Section VI: Summary proposal for FY 19.
- Appendices: Projected FY 18 Outturn; Budget Concepts and Methodology; Capital: Financial Treatment and Long-term Planning; Statistical Tables.

*Source: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FY2019–FY2021 MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET (pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY).*

### 7.      In a time of rapid technological and financial innovation, the Fund needs to modernize

### 7.      In a time of rapid technological and financial innovation, the Fund needs to modernize

### Advisory Group (AG) findings and objectives
- An Advisory Group (AG) of senior Fund staff was constituted by Management in the Fall of 2017 to recommend how the Fund should best prepare for the future.
- The AG’s work covered surveillance, outreach, CD, engagement with the Board, use of technology, and support services.
- Three overarching goals guided the AG:
  - continue modernizing our operations and work practices through more strategic and targeted approaches, to make room for newer activities;
  - leverage opportunities in a fast-changing world (e.g., digital technologies), to make the Fund’s work more impactful and meaningful for our members and the broader public; and
  - modernize back-office functions, applying best practices from our peers and other organizations, and free up human resources for higher value-added activities.
- The AG’s recommendations have been broadly endorsed by management, and implementation planning is under way.
- Some recommendations could result in savings; some could require up-front investments, including additional capital budget, to achieve efficiency gains over the long run.

### Budgetary and resource implications
- Carry forward resources are available to meet about $19 million in temporary needs across most output areas.
- Almost 40 percent of the transitional resources are to ease continued pressures in support departments.
- Another quarter of transitional funds reflect intensified country work under surveillance and lending, and provide temporary assistance to allow a phasing in of the ongoing structural downsizing in EUR.
- Some 15 percent of the transitional resources support the work on the Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), trade, and modernization and transformation efforts, mainly under multilateral surveillance and global oversight.
- Net additional allocations to emerging challenges are around $3–3.5 million.
- The $3–3.5 million equals about 1/3 of one percent of the Fund’s net administrative budget.
- About half of the additional allocations to emerging challenges is for work related to technological change, mainly Cyber-Risk and FinTech.
- About half of the work on emerging challenges is covered by transitional resources.

### Outputs and shifts in spending
- Longer-term trends since FY 12:
  - Fund-financed spending has shifted from lending and multilateral surveillance towards bilateral surveillance.
  - Capacity development’s share has grown strongly mainly due to a substantial increase in externally financed activity.
  - The share of spending on support and governance has grown reflecting corporate modernization efforts and pressures on physical and IT security.
  - Resources dedicated to global oversight remained broadly stable.
- In the FY 19 budget proposal:
  - Fund-financed structural resources dedicated to multilateral surveillance and global oversight remain broadly constant, with a slight shift from the latter (-$2½ million) to the former (+$2½ million).
  - Fund-financed country work—bilateral surveillance, lending and CD—falls slightly.
  - Spending on bilateral surveillance falls as travel and work pressures abate in EUR and field presence is adjusted in WHD and AFR.
  - Lending activity in AFR is projected to increase, somewhat offset by program work winding down in EUR.
  - Externally financed CD is expected to grow further from the projected FY 18 outturn before leveling off over FY 19–21.
  - Support and governance areas continue to experience structural pressures in areas such as security, risk management, and facilities maintenance.

### Specific budget table highlights (from Table 2)
- Gross Expenditures: 1,143 24 1,167 1,132 22.8 23.4 1,148 18.9 1,167
- Multilateral Surveillance: 167 3.2 170 174 3.5 0.9 169 1.1 170
- Oversight of Global Systems: 88 0.4 89 90 8.0 10.4 86 2.2 88
- Bilateral Surveillance: 205 5.5 211 212 1.0 3.7 203 3.6 206
- Lending: 115 2.5 117 112 1.8 2.5 115 2.9 118
- Capacity Development: 138 1.8 140 138 1.3 0.8 139 1.1 140
- Support and Governance: 391 10.9 402 393 6.4 5.0 392 8.1 400
- Miscellaneous: 28 ... 28 153 4 ... 34
- Contingency: 11 ... 11 ... 11 ... 11
- Receipts: (39) ... (39) (37) 1.9 1.4 (39) ... (39)
- Net Expenditures: 1,104 1,128 1,095 24.8 24.8 1,110 1,128
- Carry forward: 44 46
- Allocated up-front in budget process: 3/24 19
- Held at center: 20 27
- Total Resources: 4/1,148 1,155
- Note: The table footnote states "Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding."

### Emerging issues, pilots, and evolving baseline work
- Former pilots often become part of baseline work.
- In FY 18 just over $8 million was spent on specific pilots on gender, inequality, fiscal space, and macro-structural.
- Climate change and energy work was estimated in FY 17 at $2½ million annually.
- Existing resources dedicated to anti-corruption and governance are about $1 million.
- Spending on migration issues was estimated at $1.7 million in FY 17.
- The resource-use pattern for emerging issues is often hump-shaped: start-up investments covered by transitional resources taper off as expertise is accumulated and shared.

### Savings, reallocations, and efficiency gains
- The budget proposal incorporates reallocation efforts within and across departments of close to 2½ percent of total spending.
- Some departments identified reallocations of more than 10 percent.
- About a quarter of the identified savings come from operational efficiencies, modernization and restructuring efforts, or the falling cost of inputs (e.g., not adjusting the travel budget by the non-personnel deflator).
- These efficiency gains help reduce gross spending and offset the loss of receipts from the HQ2 lease to the World Bank.

*FY2019–FY2021 MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND*

### Box 1. Pilot Initiatives and Expanding Coverage

### Box 1. Pilot Initiatives and Expanding Coverage

### Overview of pilot initiatives
- Four pilot initiatives are being considered for selective, cost-effective, and phased extension across the membership, pending the stocktaking in the Interim Surveillance Review (ISR) and information on costing; fiscal space, gender, inequality, and macro-structural.
- The macrofinancial pilot was mainstreamed as of March 2017. The pilot on climate and energy will be concluded with traditional work on energy prices and subsidies continuing across the membership, and policy and analytical work continuing as part of multilateral surveillance. These pilots were excluded from the costing exercise.
- Pilot cases completed before FY 17 (mainly gender and inequality pilots initiated in 2015) are not included in the figures.

### Costs and resourcing of pilots (findings)
- The estimated cost of the pilot initiatives in these four areas has been modest (around $8 million per year).
- Cumulative explicit budgetary provision through FY 18: $2.4 million, of which $1 million in transitional resources.
- Additional budgetary provision in FY 19: $0.3 million.
- External financing used by country teams: around $2 million (mostly on gender and macrostructural).
- Country teams coped with additional work by:
  - Prioritizing topics,
  - Drawing on external financing (~$2 million),
  - Cooperating with experts from other institutions (mostly on inequality).
- Most pilot work has been done within existing departmental resources; additional resources provided to area and functional departments and the new macro-structural reforms unit in RES.

### Pilot costing by topic (FY17 and FY18 outturns)
- FY17 total: 8.3 (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars)
- FY18 total: 8.2 (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars)
- FY17 / FY18 by topic (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars):
  - Gender: 1.8 / 1.6
  - Inequality: 2.1 / 1.8
  - Fiscal space: 0.9 / 0.9
  - Macro-structural: 3.5 / 3.9

### Budgetary resources provided for pilot-related topics (cumulative)
- Cumulative through FY 18: Total 2.4 (Millions of U.S. dollars), of which Transitional 1.0
- Cumulative through FY 19: Total 2.7 (Millions of U.S. dollars), of which Transitional 0.7
- Breakdown in the cumulative tables (Millions of U.S. dollars) — selected line items:
  - Gender: FY 18 cumulative 0.2; FY 19 cumulative 0.3
  - Inequality/Inclusion: FY 18 cumulative 0.3; FY 19 cumulative 0.7
  - Fiscal space: FY 18 cumulative 0.2; FY 19 cumulative 0.2
  - Macro-structural: FY 18 cumulative 1.7 (of which Transitional 1.0); FY 19 cumulative 1.6 (of which Transitional 0.7)

### Estimated costs to expand coverage (steady-state assumptions and estimates)
- Estimated steady-state cost to expand coverage: Total 3–4.5 (Millions of FY18 U.S. dollars per year).
- Steady-state breakdown (Millions of FY18 U.S. dollars per year):
  - Gender: 0.3-0.4
  - Inequality: 0.4-0.5
  - Fiscal space: 0.5-0.6
  - Macro-structural: 2-3
- Key assumptions behind the steady-state estimates:
  - Learning effects reduce costs relative to pilot phase (initial showcasing costs not repeated).
  - Selectivity guided by macroeconomic criticality.
  - Annual case assumptions in steady state:
    - Gender: 10–15 country cases per year
    - Inequality: 10–15 country cases per year
    - Macro-structural: 60 cases per year
    - Fiscal space: 40–50 cases per year (steady state), with some initial transition costs during rollout
  - Ongoing, scaled-down analytical work and costs for maintaining databases and knowledge sharing websites are included.
- The lower steady-state estimate relative to pilot cost reflects built knowledge and capacity developed during pilots; estimates do not include costs of work on these topics outside of the pilot cases.

### Implementation notes
- Macro-structural issues are already covered in a large majority of staff reports per the ISR; pilot costing does not capture all macro-structural work outside pilot cases.
- Most pilot-related activities have been supported within existing departmental resources, with targeted additional resources for tool development, cross-country analysis, and the macro-structural reforms unit in RES.
- Cost survey indicates country teams used external financing and inter-institutional cooperation to manage burdens.

*Source: Box 1. Pilot Initiatives and Expanding Coverage (pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget).*

### Appendix I. Projected FY 18 Outturn

### Appendix I. Projected FY 18 Outturn

### A. Spending by Outputs
- FY 18 budget provisions and reallocation:
  - Offsetting savings and reallocation efforts of $26 million.
  - Upfront allocation of carry forward funds of $24 million.
  - Structural budget remained flat for the sixth year in a row (excluding a ½ percentage point security related increase in FY 17).
- Expected output-level spending deviations:
  - Spending broadly in line with plans except:
    - Higher spending on multilateral and bilateral surveillance.
    - Lower-than-anticipated spending on lending activities.
  - Support and governance spending slightly higher than anticipated due to pressures on corporate support services, including language services and information technology.
- Drivers of output shifts:
  - Multilateral surveillance increase: EBA/ESR, capital flows, trade, flagship publications (GFSR, Fiscal Monitor), and outreach (Voyage to Indonesia).
  - Lending reduction partially offset by an increase in bilateral surveillance; substitution most prominent in Europe and Western Hemisphere. Africa saw increases in both program and bilateral surveillance work.
  - Asia and Pacific: bilateral surveillance fell; resources shifted to lending, capacity development, regional work, and outreach.

### B. Spending by Inputs
- Budget utilization and workload:
  - Budget execution projected at 99 percent.
  - Fund-wide average overtime rate stabilized at about 11 percent; median about 7 percent.
  - Carry forward funds provided flexibility while keeping the budget flat.
- Net/category-level pressures:
  - Contingency reserve and carry forward from previous year expected to be preserved on an aggregate basis.
  - Higher spending pressures on building and other expense categories offset by savings in personnel and travel.
- Table highlights (aggregate context from text and tables):
  - Total gross expenditures and net expenditures presented in Table 2 (figures in source tables reproduced verbatim in the PDF).

### C. Personnel
- Utilization and vacancies:
  - Fund-financed personnel budget projected to be almost fully utilized.
  - Staff average vacancy rate projected to end the year just below 1 percent (annual average rate was 1.1 percent in FY 17).
  - Vacancy rates vary by department: Area and Functional Non-TA departments projected to slightly exceed approved FTEs (within dollar allocations); Functional TA and support departments projected to end the year with room to hire.
- Average salary dynamics:
  - Actual average salary for staff on board at year-end expected to be lower than budgeted average salary due to turnover and grade-structure effects.
  - Merit pay is capped at 1.9 percent of salaries; salary erosion provides room for this merit pay.

### D. Travel
- Aggregate and unit-cost trends:
  - Travel expenses expected to end the year below budget; budget utilization projected at 91 percent.
  - Volume of travel roughly constant; cost per mile rose from $0.36 in FY 17 to $0.38 in the first nine months of FY 18.
  - Cost-per-mile increase largely due to a higher proportion of trips to Africa.
- Shifts in travel purpose:
  - Shift away from FSAP travel (cyclical high in FY 17) toward travel for Article IV consultations and other bilateral surveillance.
- Travel category figures (Fund-financed, millions of U.S. dollars):
  - Total travel: FY 17 outturn and FY 18 budget/est. outturn shown in Table (source text).

### E. Buildings and Other Expenses
- Overall projection:
  - Spending on buildings and other expenses expected to be higher than the approved budget.
- Major contributors to higher spending:
  - Building occupancy: additional security costs for HQ guard services, Annual and Spring Meetings, protective services at headquarters and in the field, utilities, and lease arrangements.
  - Information technology: one-off additional costs as infrastructure support transitions to a managed services model (resulting in annual savings beginning with FY 19).
  - Contractual services: demand for corporate services (audio visual, language services) and specialized consultancy (audits) increased expenditures.
- Table 3 highlights (millions of U.S. dollars):
  - Total buildings and other expenses: FY 17 Budget 205; FY 17 Outturn 218; FY 18 Budget 209; FY 18 Est. Outturn 222.
  - Fund-financed: FY 17 Budget 193; FY 17 Outturn 205; FY 18 Budget 199; FY 18 Est. Outturn 210.
  - Building occupancy: FY 17 Budget 56; FY 17 Outturn 61; FY 18 Budget 60; FY 18 Est. Outturn 63.
  - Information technology: FY 17 Budget 61; FY 17 Outturn 64; FY 18 Budget 65; FY 18 Est. Outturn 68.
  - Contractual services: FY 17 Budget 38; FY 17 Outturn 39; FY 18 Budget 35; FY 18 Est. Outturn 37.
- Security (Box 1) summary:
  - Executive Board approved a budget increase of $6 million in FY 17 to address rising physical and IT security costs (expressed in FY 16 dollars).
  - Security spending exceeded budget in FY 17 and expected to be slightly over budget in FY 18.
  - Field security costs projected below budget (fewer armored vehicle purchases, evacuations, and country assessments).
  - HQ security costs projected above budget due to guard contract increases, overtime for executive protection, and increased security for Annual and Spring Meetings.
  - IT security spending projected slightly below budget in FY 18 due to TransformIT-related initiatives, expected to increase in FY 19.
  - Capital expenditures aim at improving security posture and physical protection.
- Security spending table (FY 16–18, Millions of FY 18 dollars and percent of administrative budget):
  - Administrative expenses: FY 16 34.1; FY 17 Outturn 35.0; FY 18 Revised Proj. 35.3.
  - Field security: FY 16 10.5; FY 17 Outturn 10.0; FY 18 Revised Proj. 8.7.
  - HQ security: FY 16 14.7; FY 17 Outturn 15.5; FY 18 Revised Proj. 16.3.
  - Business continuity: FY 16 0.7; FY 17 Outturn 0.6; FY 18 Revised Proj. 1.1.
  - IT security: FY 16 8.2; FY 17 Outturn 8.9; FY 18 Revised Proj. 9.1.
  - In percent of administrative budget: FY 16 2.6; FY 17 Outturn 2.7; FY 18 Revised Proj. 2.7.
  - Capital expenses: FY 16 4.5; FY 17 Outturn 12.8; FY 18 Revised Proj. 7.0.
  - Information technology capital: FY 16 4.4; FY 17 Outturn 3.5; FY 18 Revised Proj. 6.1.
  - Facilities capital: FY 16 0.0; FY 17 Outturn 9.3; FY 18 Revised Proj. 0.9.

### F. Receipts
- Expected receipts performance:
  - Receipts from externally-financed capacity development activities and Fund-financed operations expected to end the year slightly below budget.
  - Externally funded receipts projected to increase by about 8 percent relative to FY 17, though still below FY 18 planned levels.
- Contributing factors:
  - Improved execution driven by increased delivery through Trust Funds and use of additional long-term experts in the field.
  - Small shortfall in general receipts due to lower reimbursements from sharing agreements with the World Bank and lower-than-planned income from the Concordia.
- Table 4 highlights (Millions of U.S. dollars):
  - Total capital and receipts context shown in Table 4 (figures reproduced verbatim in the source).

### G. Capital Investments
- Aggregate and program-level spending:
  - Overall capital spending expected similar to last year but significantly larger for IT and Facilities projects.
  - HQ1 Renewal program estimated spending in FY 18 of $64 million.
  - IT capital projects estimated spending: $35 million.
  - Building facilities spending estimated around $23 million.
- HQ1 Renewal status and impacts:
  - Progress: all public spaces open; office space through the 8th floor delivered and reoccupied; construction underway on ninth through tenth floors.
  - Updates provided quarterly to the Executive Board; an informal briefing held in January (as per source text).
- Capital table (Table 5, Millions of U.S. dollars):
  - HQ1 Renewal:
    - FY 18 Budget Appropriations: 31 35 66 - 66 (as presented in source table).
    - + Unspent FY 16 and FY 17 Funding: 39 15 53 183 236.
    - = Total funds available in FY 18 1/: 70 50 120 183 303.
    - Expenditures FY 18 (Est.): 23 35 58 64 121.
    - Expenditures FY 17: 18 28 46 76 122.
  - Note: Approved capital funding available for three consecutive years, except HQ1 Renewal available until April 2025.
- Capital expenditure totals (Millions of U.S. dollars):
  - Total capital Budget 200; FY 17 Outturn 189; FY 18 Budget 211; FY 18 Est. Outturn 204.
  - Facilities and IT breakdown shown in Table 5.

*Source: Appendix I. Projected FY 18 Outturn, FY2019–FY2021 Medium-Term Budget (Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES)).*

### Appendix II. Budget Evolution

### Appendix II. Budget Evolution

### Overall budget trend
- In FY 08, the IMF embarked on a budget reduction of 13 percent following a period of low lending and income.
- A temporary budget allocation of 5 percent was made to meet crisis needs immediately after the onset of the global financial crisis.
- A 3 percent structural increase occurred in FY 12 in recognition of the Fund’s enhanced role.
- The temporary allocation was made permanent to meet evolving priorities and new demands as activities shifted from crisis resolution to strengthened bilateral and multilateral surveillance.
- Since FY 12, the Fund has operated under a flat real budget, except for a small ½ percent increase in FY 17 to accommodate increased security costs.
- In real terms, close to 45 percent of the downsizing savings have been preserved, and the Fund’s budget envelope remains significantly below its pre-crisis level.

### Reallocation and staffing
- Over 100 additional staff positions were created from non-personnel savings between FY 12 and FY 16 through measures including adjustments in benefits, not applying a deflator to travel budgets, the release of central margins, and efficiencies in departments.
- Another 40 positions were funded by donors during this period.
- The rise in budgeted FTE positions beginning with FY 16 mainly reflects the implementation of the Categories of Employment (CoE) reform, which at the end of FY 18 will have created an additional 120 staff positions for work that was previously done by contractual employees.
- In FY 16, the budget included a package of cross-cutting streamlining measures of about $20 million to fund new demands.
- In FY 17 the Board approved a small budget increase of $6 million to accommodate rising security costs both at headquarters and in the field.
- Figure elements (labels preserved as in source): Net Budget Envelope and Personnel, FY08-18 (millions of FY18 U.S. dollars and FTEs) with axes showing FTEs and $M, and legend entries: Fund-financed ($), Externally-financed ($), Fund-financed staff positions (FTE), Fund- and externally-financed staff positions (FTE), Fund-financed staff excl. CoE (FTEs), Fund- and externally-financed staff excl. CoE (FTEs).

### Key budget concepts and deflator methodology (Appendix III)
- Financial year (t): May 1(t-1) to April 30(t). Example: FY 18 = May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018.
- Administrative budget:
  - Gross (total spending envelope)
  - - (minus) Receipts (donor funding + revenue)
  - = Net (spending that needs funding)
- Total Available Resources = Net + Carry Forward
- Carry forward:
  - The right to spend budget allocations beyond the period for which budgetary authority is normally granted (12 months).
  - The amount that can be carried forward (CF) in any given financial year is capped at 3 percent of the net administrative budget for staff, 5 percent for IEO, and 20 percent for OED.
  - CF is the minimum of the underspend in the current year or the specified ratio of the current year’s approved net administrative budget.
  - Formula preserved exactly: CF_t = min (U_t, x B_t)
    - Where:
      - U_t = underspend in current FY (B_t + CF_{t-1} – E_t)
      - B_t = net administrative budget in current FY
      - CF_{t-1} = carry forward from previous FY
      - E_t = net expenditures in current FY
      - x = ratio limit of CF
- Global external deflator:
  - Price index applied to administrative budget (formulated in real terms) to obtain nominal budget.
  - Calculated based on two components:
    - Personnel component (70 percent)—Board approved structure adjustment for Fund salaries; determined exogenously as the outcome of the Fund’s rules-based compensation system endorsed by the Board.
    - Non-personnel component (30 percent)—based on an index reflecting the Fund’s non-staff related costs (travel, facilities, and IT); measured by the projected U.S. CPI in the most recently published World Economic Outlook (WEO).
- Capital budget:
  - Used to finance one-off investments in information technology and building improvements and repairs.
  - Capital budgets are available for a period of three years, after which unspent appropriations lapse.
  - A project is included in the capital budget if it is for:
    - the acquisition of building or IT equipment;
    - construction, major renovation, or repairs;
    - major IT software development or infrastructure projects.

### FY 18 Administrative Budget (Millions USD) — gross/net composition and components
- Gross budget: 1,315
- Receipts: 211
- Net budget: 1,104
- Composition of gross spending (labels and amounts preserved as in source):
  - All Others: 1,235
  - OED: 74
  - IEO: 6
  - Personnel: 969
  - Travel: 126
  - Building and other expenses: 209
  - Contingencies: 11

### Financial treatment of capital spending and long-term capital investment planning (Appendix IV)
- Capital expenditures impact net income differently depending on nature of investment: some are expensed when cost is incurred; others are capitalized and depreciated over specified useful life.
- Building facilities expenditures are spread over longer periods; IT expenditures tend to have much shorter useful lives.
- Table 1 (Financial Treatment of Capital Projects with FY19 Funding) shows FY19 Capital Appropriations total: 79.5 (Millions of U.S. dollars) with period-over-which-expenses-are-recognized breakdown preserved as in source:
  - Asset Category / When Spent / 3 years / 5 years / 7 years / 17 years / 20 years / Total
  - FY19 Capital Appropriations: 15.7 / 11.2 / 28.5 / 20.5 / 2.0 / 1.7 / 79.5
  - Building Facilities Projects 2/: 10.5 / 20.5 / 2.0 / 1.7 / 34.6
  - Information Technology Projects: 5.3 / 11.2 / 28.5 / -- / -- / 44.9 3/
  - Feasibility Studies/In-House Development: 5.3 / -- / -- / -- / -- / 5.3
  - Hardware - Equipment: -- / 9.6 / -- / -- / -- / 9.6
  - Software - Upgrades/Purchases: -- / 1.5 / 28.5 / -- / -- / 30.0
- Notes preserved exactly:
  - Sources: Finance Department and Office of Budget and Planning.
  - Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
  - 1/ The financial treatment of the proposed FY 19 budget envelope and when its impact on net income will be reflected is determined by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Projects are either expensed in the year of funds outlay or are capitalized over a period based on the type of project. Buildings are depreciated over the remaining useful life: 26 years for HQ1 (extended due to HQ1 Renewal), 24 years for Concordia; and 17 years for HQ2. Mechanical equipment is depreciated over 20 years, food equipment is depreciated over 15 years, Furniture and Audio Visual systems are depreciated over 7 years, equipment over 3 years, and software upgrades over 3 years. Software purchases or new software developments are depreciated over 5 years. Unallocated funds are assumed to be expensed.
  - 3/ Total cost of IT projects approved is higher than the FY 19 budget being submitted because of unallocated capital pools that carried over from FY 18. These unallocated pools would have been recognized "When Spent" in previous versions of this table.
  - 2/ Building Facilities projects include the Audio Visual 5 Year Capital Investment Program which began in FY 14.

- Long-term capital investment planning:
  - Budgeting for facilities capital investments is guided by a long-term plan for replacement of equipment and critical building systems and major renovations; informed by periodic, third party Facilities Condition Assessments.
  - A conditions assessment for HQ1, HQ2 and Concordia is currently underway and was not finished in time to inform or update the long-term plan for this paper.
  - Previous assessments: HQ1 in 2008; HQ2 and Concordia in 2014.
  - There is an indication that significant HQ1 systems not in scope of the HQ1 Renewal project, nor included in previous Facilities long-term plans, will be needed over the FY 21–26 period. An updated Facilities long-term plan will be provided once the conditions assessment has been completed.
  - IT infrastructure long-term planning is changing: end-of-life replacement assumptions for personal computers and laptops reflected cyclical patterns tied to operating system upgrades; transition to Office 365 eliminates that dependency and allows rolling replacements smoothing investments rather than spikes every 3–4 years.
  - The long-term plan still assumes on-premise infrastructure at this stage, though this is likely to change as systems shift from on-premise to cloud environments.

### Administrative Budget, FY 12–18 (Millions of U.S. dollars) — table figures preserved
- Personnel (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 820 / 799
  - FY 13: 835 / 802
  - FY 14: 861 / 829
  - FY 15: 896 / 862
  - FY 16: 907 / 896
  - FY 17: 934 / 922
  - FY 18: 969 / 961 (Est. Outturn 961)
- Travel (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 112 / 105
  - FY 13: 125 / 119
  - FY 14: 123 / 117
  - FY 15: 128 / 112
  - FY 16: 130 / 120
  - FY 17: 123 / 115
  - FY 18: 126 / 116
- Buildings and other expenses (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 181 / 178
  - FY 13: 181 / 180
  - FY 14: 190 / 203
  - FY 15: 193 / 204
  - FY 16: 200 / 199
  - FY 17: 205 / 218
  - FY 18: 209 / 222
- Contingency 1/ (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 11 / 0
  - FY 13: 18 / 0
  - FY 14: 12 / 0
  - FY 15: 70 / 100
  - FY 16: 110 / 110
  - (Label: Represents the contingencies for staff, OED and IEO.)
- Total Gross Expenditures (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 1,123 / 1,082
  - FY 13: 1,159 / 1,102
  - FY 14: 1,186 / 1,149
  - FY 15: 1,224 / 1,177
  - FY 16: 1,247 / 1,215
  - FY 17: 1,273 / 1,255
  - FY 18: 1,315 / 1,299
- Less: Receipts (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 138 / 135
  - FY 13: 161 / 154
  - FY 14: 179 / 160
  - FY 15: 197 / 167
  - FY 16: 196 / 176
  - FY 17: 200 / 189
  - FY 18: 211 / 204
- Total Net Expenditures (Budget / Outturn by FY):
  - FY 12: 985 / 947
  - FY 13: 997 / 948
  - FY 14: 1,007 / 988
  - FY 15: 1,027 / 1,010
  - FY 16: 1,052 / 1,038
  - FY 17: 1,072 / 1,066
  - FY 18: 1,104 / 1,095
- Memorandum item: Carry Forward
  - FY 12: 34 / 1
  - FY 13: 42 / 4
  - FY 14: 42 / 4
  - FY 15: 43 / 4
  - (Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.)

*Appendix II. Budget Evolution — FY2019–FY2021 Medium-Term Budget (excerpts) — International Monetary Fund*

### Appendix V. Statistical Tables

### Appendix V. Statistical Tables

### Gross Administrative Expenditures: Travel (Table 2)
- Expenditures (Millions of U.S. dollars) by fiscal year (Budget / Outturn / Est. Outturn where shown):
  - FY 12: Budget 112, Outturn 105
  - FY 13: Budget 125, Outturn 119
  - FY 14: Budget 123, Outturn 117
  - FY 15: Budget 128, Outturn 112
  - FY 16: Budget 130, Outturn 120
  - FY 17: Budget 123, Outturn 115
  - FY 18: Budget 126, Est. Outturn 116
- Business travel (Millions of U.S. dollars):
  - FY 12–FY 18 rows show values including: 878, 298, 95, 95, 100, 87, 104, 92, 98, 88, 99, 99, 1/ (note: table contains fragmented entries)
  - Note: 1/ Includes travel to the Annual Meetings in Tokyo ($6 million in FY 13) and Lima ($5 million in FY 16).
- Transportation and per diem entries presented in table (fragmented): Transportation values include sequences such as 874, 898, 549, 452, 100, 48, 104, 50, 98, 49, 99, 50; Per diem entries include 34, 41, 39, 39, 42, 39, 41.
- Seminars & other: entries include 141, 116, 131, 81, 41, 71, 51, 51, 71, 41, 51, 51.
- Other travel: entries include repeated small values (e.g., 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 11, 10, 12, 11, 12, 11, 12, 10).
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

### Gross Administrative Expenditures: Buildings and Other Expenditure (Table 3)
- Buildings and other expenses (Millions of U.S. dollars) by fiscal year (Budget / Outturn):
  - FY 12: Budget 181, Outturn 178
  - FY 13: Budget 181, Outturn 180
  - FY 14: Budget 190, Outturn 203
  - FY 15: Budget 193, Outturn 204
  - FY 16: Budget 200, Outturn 199
  - FY 17: Budget 199, Outturn 205
  - FY 18: Budget 218, Outturn 209, 222 (fragmented)
- Building occupancy: entries include 575, 658, 575, 862, 60, 61, 59, 60, 59, 65, 63, 67 (fragmented across years).
- Information technology: entries include 43, 46, 47, 47, 45, 45, 57, 60, 60, 59, 61, 65, 68 (fragmented).
- Subscriptions and printing: entries include 17, 17, 19, 18, 20, 19, 20, 20, 20, 19, 21, 21.
- Communications: entries include 109, 109, 89, 79, 7, 8, 7, 88, 8 (fragmented).
- Supplies and equipment: entries include 89, 78, 98, 67, 8, 6, 6, 66, 47 (fragmented).
- Miscellaneous 1/: entries include 46, 41, 41, 41, 42, 46, 42, 47, 46, 46, 52, 53, 50, 51.
- FY 16 note: 1/ Mainly for contractual services, for example, translation and interpretation services, external audit, as well as other consulting services on business practices and processes.
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

### Gross Administrative Expenditures: Receipts (Table 4)
- Receipts (Millions of U.S. dollars) by fiscal year (Budget / Outturn):
  - FY 12: Budget 138, Outturn 135
  - FY 13: Budget 161, Outturn 154
  - FY 14: Budget 179, Outturn 160
  - FY 15: Budget 197, Outturn 167
  - FY 16: Budget 196, Outturn 176
  - FY 17: Budget 200, Outturn 189
  - FY 18: Budget 211, Est. Outturn 204
- Externally-financed receipts:
  - FY 12: 107, FY 13: 100, FY 14: 127, FY 15: 118, FY 16: 138, FY 17: 124, FY 18: 154, Outturns shown include 131, 157, 142, 160, 153, 172, 167 (fragmented).
- General receipts 1/ (Includes Trust Fund Management Fees):
  - FY 12–FY 18 entries include: 32, 36, 34, 36, 41, 36, 43, 37, 39, 34, 40, 35, 39, 37 (fragmented).
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning.
- 1/ Includes Trust Fund Management Fees.

### Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated) — Table 5a (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars; Percent of total)
- Total: Estimated Resources 1,119; Projected Outturn 1,121; other year entries include 1,127, 1,137, 1,143, 1,132; Percent of total 100.0 across years.
- Multilateral surveillance: 254, 260, 252, 249, 259, 266 — Percent of total entries include 22.7, 23.2, 22.4, 21.9, 22.7, 23.5.
- Global economic analysis: 127, 127, 124, 123, 125, 128 — Percent entries include 11.3, 11.4, 11.0, 10.8, 10.9, 11.3.
  - WEO: entries include 17, 18, 18, 17, 16, 16 — percent ~1.5 to 1.4.
  - GFSR: entries include 15, 16, 15, 15, 16, 17 — percent ~1.3 to 1.5.
- General research: entries include 38, 40, 41, 37, 39, 40 — percent ~3.4 to 3.5.
- General outreach: entries include 57, 53, 50, 54, 54, 56 — percent ~5.1 to 4.9.
- Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations: entries include 23, 23, 23, 22, 21, 22 — percent ~2.1 to 1.9.
- Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises: entries include 60, 63, 61, 65, 72, 75 — percent entries 5.3, 5.6, 5.4, 5.7, 6.3, 6.6.
- Other cross cutting analysis: entries include 38, 42, 40, 43, 48, 49 — percent 3.4 to 4.3.
- Bilateral surveillance: entries include 295, 293, 304, 317, 319, 326 — percent entries 26.4, 26.2, 27.0, 27.9, 27.9, 28.8.
  - Assessment of economic policies and risks: 260, 261, 268, 270, 279, 285 — percent 23.2 to 25.2.
  - Article IV consultations: 198, 191, 199, 200, 210, 215 — percent 17.7 to 19.0.
- Lending (incl. non-financial instruments): 189, 186, 185, 171, 172, 168 — percent 16.9 to 14.9.
  - Arrangements supported by Fund resources: 149, 142, 141, 139, 150, 147 — percent 13.3 to 12.9.
  - Programs supported by PRGT resources: 66, 63, 61, 66, 76, 75 — percent 5.9 to 6.6.
  - Non-financial instruments and debt relief 2/: 40, 44, 44, 31, 22, 22 — percent 3.6 to 1.9.
- Capacity development: 202, 202, 212, 213, 218, 219 — percent 18.0 to 19.3.
  - Technical assistance: 156, 158, 165, 167, 174, 174 — percent 13.9 to 15.4.
  - Training: 46, 44, 47, 46, 44, 44 — percent 4.1 to 3.9.
- Miscellaneous 3/: entries include 36, 36, 29, 27, 28, 15 — percent 3.2 to 1.3.
- Contingency: appears as a separate small entry (11) in one year; reconciliation item 4/ shows entries 16, 13, 17, 27, . . . (fragmented).
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).
- 1/ Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.
- 2/ Includes Post Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative-I (MDRI-I), MDRI-II, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN), Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT), and trade integration mechanisms.
- 3/ The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.
- 4/ Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

### Total Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (indirect costs allocated) — Table 5b (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars; Percent of total)
- Total: Estimated Resources 1,252; Projected Outturn 1,258; other year entries include 1,274, 1,291, 1,315, 1,299; Percent of total 100.0 across years.
- Multilateral surveillance: 254, 260, 252, 249, 259, 266 — percent 20.3 to 20.5.
- Global economic analysis: 127, 127, 124, 123, 125, 128 — percent 10.1 to 9.9.
- Oversight of global systems: 128, 131, 127, 132, 136, 138 — percent 10.2 to 10.6.
- Bilateral surveillance: 295, 293, 304, 317, 319, 326 — percent 23.6 to 25.1.
- Lending (incl. non-financial instruments): 189, 186, 185, 171, 172, 168 — percent 15.1 to 13.0.
- Capacity development (total): 329, 332, 348, 355, 390, 385 — percent 26.3 to 29.7.
  - Technical assistance: 271, 277, 291, 296, 318, 315 — percent 21.7 to 24.2.
  - Training: 57, 55, 57, 58, 72, 71 — percent 4.6 to 5.5.
- Miscellaneous 3/: 45, 47, 43, 47, 28, 15 — percent 3.6 to 1.2.
- Contingency shows a single-year entry 11 and percent 0.8 where indicated.
- Reconciliation item 4/ entries include 139, 142, 0 (fragmented) and percent figures 1.0, 0.7, 1.1, 1.5 in various years.
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).
- 1/ Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.
- 2/ Includes Post Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative-I (MDRI-I), MDRI-II, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN), Post Catastrophe Debt Relief (PCDR), Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT), and trade integration mechanisms.
- 3/ The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.
- 4/ Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

### Fund-financed Gross Administrative Spending Estimates by Output (direct costs) — Table 5c (Millions of FY 18 U.S. dollars; Percent of total)
- Total: Estimated Resources 1,119; Projected Outturn 1,121; other year entries include 1,127, 1,137, 1,143, 1,132; Percent of total 100.0 across years.
- Multilateral surveillance (direct costs): 168, 173, 168, 166, 167, 174 — percent 15.0 to 15.3.
- Global economic analysis (direct costs): 86, 87, 85, 85, 80, 84 — percent 7.7 to 7.4.
  - WEO: 10, 11, 11, 11, 10, 11 — percent ~0.9 to 1.0.
  - GFSR: 9, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9 — percent ~0.8 to 1.0.
- General research (direct): 24, 25, 25, 23, 25, 26 — percent 2.1 to 2.3.
- General outreach (direct): 43, 42, 39, 42, 35, 36 — percent 3.9 to 3.2.
- Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises (direct): 37, 40, 38, 41, 47, 49 — percent 3.3 to 4.3.
- Oversight of global systems (direct): 84, 86, 84, 86, 88, 90 — percent 7.5 to 7.9.
- Bilateral surveillance (direct): 193, 193, 199, 204, 205, 212 — percent 17.3 to 18.7.
  - Assessment of economic policies and risks: 171, 172, 176, 175, 180, 186 — percent 15.3 to 16.4.
  - Article IV consultations: 131, 126, 131, 128, 135, 140 — percent 11.7 to 12.3.
- Lending (direct): 129, 127, 124, 112, 115, 111 — percent 11.6 to 9.8.
  - Arrangements supported by Fund resources: 102, 98, 94, 92, 100, 96 — percent 9.1 to 8.5.
  - Programs supported by PRGT resources: 45, 43, 41, 43, 51, 49 — percent 4.0 to 4.3.
  - Non-financial instruments and debt relief 2/: 27, 29, 29, 21, 15, 14 — percent 2.4 to 1.3.
- Capacity development (direct): 132, 133, 136, 136, 138, 138 — percent 11.8 to 12.2.
  - Technical assistance: 97, 99, 100, 102, 110, 108 — percent 8.7 to 9.8.
  - Training: 35, 34, 36, 34, 28, 28 — percent 3.1 to 2.5.
- Support and Governance (direct): 360, 360, 371, 378, 391, 393 — percent 32.2 to 34.7.
- Miscellaneous 3/: 36, 36, 29, 27, 28, 15 — percent 3.2 to 1.3.
- Contingency and Reconciliation item entries appear as occasional small entries (e.g., contingency single-year 11; reconciliation item 16, 13, 17, 27).
- Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).
- 1/ Support and governance costs are shown as a separate item.
- 3/ The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated to specific outputs within the ACES model.
- 4/ Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund's financial system.

### Capital Expenditures, FY13–18 (Table 6) (Millions of U.S. dollars)
- Project categories shown: Information Technology, HQ1 Renewal, Concordia Renovation, HQ1 Capital, Total.
- FY 13:
  - New appropriations (6): (6) = (noted as negative entry) (6) (fragmented) entries include (6) (7.4), 34.3, 0.0, 347.0, 0.0, 388.7 (fragmented).
  - Total funds available (7) = (5)+(6): 21.1, 63.2, 0.14, 27.3, 31.6, 543.3 (fragmented).
  - Expenditures (8): 7.4, 37.1, 0.0, 22.0, 22.3, 88.8 (fragmented).
  - Lapsed funds 1/(9): 1.4, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8.
  - Remaining funds 2/ (10) = (7)-(8)-(9): 12.4, 25.6, 0.04, 5.3, 9.3, 452.6 (fragmented).
- FY 14:
  - New appropriations (11): 17.4, 23.8, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 41.2.
  - Total funds available (12) = (10)+(11): 29.8, 49.4, 0.04, 5.3, 9.3, 493.8.
  - Expenditures (13): 10.1, 36.6, 0.0, 92.2, 4.8, 143.8.
  - Lapsed funds 1/(14): 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 3.9, 4.4.
  - Remaining funds 2/ (15) = (12)-(13)-(14): 19.2, 12.8, 0.03, 13.1, 0.6, 345.7.
- FY 15:
  - New appropriations (16): 22.0, 29.8, 0.0, 0.6/3, 52.4 (fragmented).
  - Total funds available (17) = (15)+(16): 41.2, 42.6, 31.3, 10.6, 397.4 (fragmented).
  - Expenditures (18): 10.5, 29.3, 95.7, 0.3, 135.8.
  - Lapsed funds 1/(19): 0.6, 0.3, 0.0, 0.3, 1.2.
  - Remaining funds 2/ (20) = (17)-(18)-(19): 30.1, 12.9, 217.4, 0.0, 260.4 (fragmented).
- FY 16:
  - New appropriations (21): 14.4, 27.7, 132.0, 4/17, 74.1 (fragmented).
  - Total funds available (22) = (20)+(21): 44.5, 40.6, 349.4, 434.5 (fragmented).
  - Expenditures (23): 14.6, 25.8, 90.1, 130.5.
  - Lapsed funds 1/(24): 0.4, 0.1, 0.0, 0.6.
  - Remaining funds 2/ (25) = (22)-(23)-(24): 29.4, 14.7, 259.2, 303.4 (fragmented).
- FY 17:
  - New appropriations (26): 32.5, 28.0, 0.0, 60.5.
  - Total funds available (27) = (25)+(26): 62.0, 42.7, 259.2, 363.9.
  - Expenditures (28): 17.9, 27.9, 76.3, 122.1.
  - Lapsed funds 1/(29): 5.4, 0.2, 0.0, 5.6.
  - Remaining funds 2/ (30) = (27)-(28)-(29): 38.7, 14.6, 182.9, 236.2.
- FY 18:
  - New appropriations (31): 31.4, 35.0, 0.0, 66.4.
  - Total funds available (32) = (30)+(31): 70.1, 49.6, 182.9, 302.6.
  - Expenditures (Est.) (33): 22.5, 35.0, 63.9, 121.4.
  - Remaining funds (Est.) 2/ (34) = (32)-(33): 47.6, 14.6, 119.0, 181.2.
- Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.
- Formula Key and notes:
  - 1/ Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 15 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 17.
  - 2/ Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.
  - 3/ Unspent Concordia funds appropriated in FY 12 expired at the end of FY 14 with the exception of $0.6 million that was specifically reappropriated for FY 15 to complete the remaining work under the project.
  - 4/ Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

*Source: pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget - Appendix V. Statistical Tables (Office of Budget and Planning; Corporate Services and Facilities Department; Information Technology Department).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp032918fy2019-2021-midterm-budget.pdf_