## pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey.pdf.json)

---

### Stakeholder survey response rates and methodology
- Survey conducted anonymously with the assistance of Ipsos between November 28, 2017 and January 17, 2018 (survey fieldwork also described as November 2017 to January 2018 in parts of the document).
- Total number of responses: 403.
- Total number of participants: 1379.
- Completion rate: 29%.
- External Stakeholders: 109 responses of 687 participants, completion rate 16%.
- Fund Stakeholders: 294 responses of 692 participants, completion rate 42%.
- Area Department Mission Chiefs and Resident Representatives: 75 responses of 243 participants, completion rate 31%.
- CD Departments: 142 responses of 310 participants, completion rate 45%.
- CD Regional Centers (RTACs & RTCs): 62 responses of 115 participants, completion rate 54%.
- Executive Directors: 15 responses of 24 participants, completion rate 63%.
- Respondent groups: CD recipient countries; partner countries that finance IMF CD; civil society organizations (CSOs); IMF staff (CD mission chiefs/providers, country mission chiefs/desks, and resident representatives); and IMF Executive Directors (EDs).
- Annex II breaks out recipient government responses by income level (advanced, emerging market, low income), region (Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Americas), and fragile states.
- Public consultation held from November 2, 2017 through January 17, 2018; online consultation link sent to 1,100 CSOs in English, French, and Arabic; total of six responses received.

### CD origination, clarity, engagement, and integration with surveillance and lending
- Origination of TA:
  - 49 percent of recipient respondents reported the TA they observed was initiated by the recipient governments.
  - 10 percent reported the TA was co-initiated by recipient governments.
  - Fragile state respondents chose “recipient governments” 80 percent of the time; low-income 67 percent; AFR 68 percent.
  - When asked only of respondents who indicated the IMF was the sole originator of the TA (n = 120), top reasons governments accepted IMF-initiated TA were: “The government agreed that the TA was important” and “The TA was required/suggested as part of an IMF program.”
  - 22 percent of recipients indicated the government agreed to accept the TA to maintain good relations with the IMF.
- Clarity of TA objectives and engagement in design:
  - Mixed views on clarity; recipients and partners chose “objectives were very clear” more often than EDs; CSOs most often chose “objectives were somewhat clear.”
  - Among recipients: fragile states indicated objectives were very clear in 70 percent of cases; low-income respondents 83 percent; middle-income respondents 68 percent.
  - Degree of engagement reported as high to moderate overall:
    - Low-income country respondents: 83 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Fragile state respondents: 70 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Middle-income respondents: 62 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Advanced economies (AEs): 20 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - AFR respondents: 84 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - APD and WHD respondents: 50 percent each reported a high level of engagement.
    - EUR respondents: 43 percent reported a high level of engagement.
- Integration with surveillance and lending:
  - Respondents generally agreed IMF CD contributed effectively to the implementation of IMF policy advice; recipient governments, Fund staff, and EDs slightly more positive than other external stakeholders.
  - Some negative responses across all groups indicate scope for improvement.
  - When implemented, TA seen as complementary to surveillance and Use of Fund Resources (UFR); a few interviewees wary of TA embedded in program conditionality deterring requests for TA.

### Adoption, implementation, and reasons for non-implementation of TA recommendations
- Adoption extent:
  - Full implementation of all TA recommendations is rare.
  - Most respondents reported adoption of either a half or three-quarters of priority recommendations.
  - IMF staff reported lower implementation rates than recipient governments.
  - Recipient governments selected “don’t know/not applicable to me” more often than IMF staff.
- Reasons for lack of implementation:
  - Among recipient governments’ top three reasons:
    - Insufficient resources to implement: 66 percent.
    - Insufficient trained staff of implementing institutions: 52 percent.
    - Insufficient high-level support: 38 percent.
  - Staff most frequently selected “insufficient high-level support” as their top choice.
  - Fragile state, low-income, and AFR recipient governments chose “insufficient resources to implement” significantly more frequently than other sub-groups.
- When recommendations were not adopted, suggested IMF actions (selected responses in a small reported subset):
  - “Better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance”: reported at 100 percent in cited rows for that subgroup.
  - “Ensure government buy-in before undertaking TA”: 67 percent in another subgroup listing.
  - “Complement TA with increased training of staff in implementing institution”: 56 percent in a subgroup listing.
  - “Increase follow-up by IMF staff on the TA provided”: 44 percent in a subgroup listing.
  - Note: reporting reflects multiple subgroup tables with differing percentage patterns; dominant explicit response shown is “Better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance” at 100 percent in cited rows.
- Perceived success where TA recommendations were implemented:
  - 92 percent of IMF staff chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree” that implemented TA was successful.
  - 83 percent of recipient country representatives chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree.”
  - 79 percent of partner country representatives chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree.”
  - Only four respondents chose “tend to disagree”; none chose “strongly disagree.”
  - For those who saw implemented TA as unsuccessful (mostly IMF staff), priority remedies included increasing government buy-in and better integrating TA with surveillance priorities (staff ranked “increase government buy-in” first; recipient countries ranked “better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance” first).

### Attributes of advisors, training impact, candidate selection, and delivery
- Advisor attributes:
  - “TA advisors have a great deal of topical expertise” was most frequently ranked first by all respondent groups.
  - “TA advisors understand local conditions” was most frequently ranked second.
- Training effectiveness (IMF external training is effective):
  - Among CD recipients: 39 percent “strongly agree” and 42 percent “tend to agree.”
  - Among IMF staff: 22 percent “strongly agree” and 52 percent “tend to agree.”
  - Advanced economies (AEs): 20 percent “strongly agree” and 40 percent “tend to agree.”
  - EUR countries: 21 percent “strongly agree” and 36 percent “tend to agree.”
- Factors for course success:
  - “The relevance of the topic for the participant’s country” top choice for EDs, recipient countries, and staff.
  - For partner countries, tied top choices were “the relevance of the topic for the participant’s country” and “the number of hands-on workshops.”
  - For courses most familiar to respondents (recipients): Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 — “The relevance of the topic for the participant’s country” 76 percent; Percent Ranking Choice 1st — 44 percent.
- Beneficiaries of face-to-face training:
  - “Those with existing practical backgrounds related to the course material” ranked first for all respondent groups by a wide margin.
  - For recipients: Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 68 percent; Percent Ranking Choice 1st 91 percent.
- Ways to increase training impact (top choices by recipient respondents):
  - Require participants to complete online training as a prerequisite — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 27 percent; Percent Ranking Choice 1st 61 percent.
  - Require participants to follow a clear sequence of courses with increasing difficulty — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 44 percent; Percent Ranking Choice 1st 82 percent.
  - Improved selection of participants — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 18 percent; Percent Ranking Choice 1st 36 percent.
- Delivery preferences and selection:
  - For delivery of TA and training, recipients prioritized participants with practical backgrounds (Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 68 percent; 1st 91 percent) over those at the beginning of their careers (Top 3 8 percent; 1st 47 percent).

### Topical priorities for IMF TA and training and coordination with other providers
- Topical priorities (frequency in top three among recipient country respondents):
  - Fiscal policy: 56 percent selected.
  - Financial sector advice: 55 percent selected.
  - Statistics: 47 percent selected.
  - Monetary and exchange rate policy: 41 percent selected.
  - Structural reforms: 26 percent selected.
  - Inequality: 12 percent selected.
  - Legal: 11 percent selected.
  - Gender: 8 percent selected.
  - Climate change: 5 percent selected.
- First-choice topical selections:
  - Fiscal policy ranked first by EDs, IMF staff, and partner countries.
  - Statistics ranked first by recipient countries, closely followed by fiscal policy.
- Coordination with other CD providers:
  - Views mixed on whether IMF TA is well coordinated with other TA providers.
  - Recipients indicated “strongly agreed” more than staff or partner countries; no EDs chose “strongly agree.”
  - “Tend to agree” was the most popular option for all groups; “tend to disagree” also frequently chosen by staff, EDs, and partners.
  - Among respondents dissatisfied with coordination, perceived reduction in effectiveness:
    - 83 percent of recipients said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced effectiveness of IMF TA.
    - 80 percent of EDs and partner countries said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced effectiveness.
    - 73 percent of IMF staff said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced effectiveness.
    - 20 percent of EDs said lack of coordination reduced effectiveness “a great deal.”
    - 9 percent of IMF staff said lack of coordination reduced effectiveness “a great deal.”
  - Large shares of partner countries and recipients chose “don’t know/not applicable to me.”

### Views from structured interviews with recipient countries and external partners
- Interview sample and scope:
  - Structured interviews conducted during the 2018 Spring Meetings with senior representatives from central banks and ministries of finance of a sample of CD recipient countries and with major external partners.
  - Country sample included 12 low-, middle- and upper-middle income recipients, accounting for about 10 percent of total Fund TA in field delivery measured in full-time equivalents (FTEs).
  - Four external partners interviewed account for half of the Fund’s external funding of CD.
- Key interview findings on alignment, modalities, and quality:
  - Fund CD generally viewed as high technical quality, grounded in worldwide reform experience, and complementary to surveillance and UFR.
  - TA often provided in response to explicit requests and increasingly within multi-year programs of Fund CD support.
  - Most authorities satisfied with timeliness and technical quality; fragile states and less developed countries emphasized need for longer-term, holistic approaches and hands-on implementation support.
  - Some less developed country interviewees expressed concerns about the quality of certain outside experts; most viewed Fund experts favorably in core areas.
  - Training feedback mixed: upper-middle income countries wanted more advanced and specialized courses; low-income countries wanted greater tailoring and peer-learning.
- Preferences for modalities by country group:
  - Upper-middle income countries preferred short, well-prepared missions with high-quality experts and virtual pre-mission work; valued post-mission dialogue.
  - Less developed countries emphasized detailed implementation steps, realistic timetables, assignment of local tasks, and follow-up via LTXs or repeated STX visits.
  - All country representatives emphasized advance preparation, continuity of staff/experts, and comprehensive handovers where continuity is not possible.
- Roles of HQ, RTACs/RTCs:
  - HQ comparative advantages: policy issues, institutional reform design, backstopping LTXs.
  - RTACs comparative advantages: customized, hands-on assistance, repeated resident-expert visits, customized regional training.
  - Importance of high quality and continuity in RTAC staffing; greater use of regional experts recommended.
- Monitoring, evaluation, transparency, and coordination:
  - Most interviewees judged TA useful but noted lack of systematic CD impact evaluation.
  - Limited familiarity with log frame tool under RBM; recommendation that staff more systematically explain RBM and secure authority endorsement of inputs/outputs/milestones/outcomes.
  - External partners called for greater transparency and timeliness:
    - Earlier sharing of mission plans and externally financed expert assignment plans with partners.
    - Substantive de-briefings at activity end.
    - Substantial reduction of the lag (currently over 60 days) in making TA reports available to external partners.
    - Encourage countries to publish TA reports and improve CD cost accounting.
  - Coordination with other providers emphasized, especially in low-capacity and fragile states; resident representatives or dedicated field coordinators could facilitate coordination.

### Conclusions, consensus points, and suggested improvements
- Consensus points from interviews and survey:
  - Fund CD is generally viewed as high technical quality and complementary to surveillance and UFR.
  - Perception that more TA resources should be devoted to helping countries implement recommended reforms; modalities should vary by country capacity (LTXs, repeated STX visits, virtual consultation).
  - Prioritization should give substantial weight to country ownership and consider socio-political and institutional constraints.
  - Fragile states need holistic, longer-term institution- and governance-building support with appropriately skilled experts.
  - Efficiency gains achievable via better advance preparations, clear ToR, continuity or handovers, and greater use of technology in TA and training delivery.
  - Systematic use of the RBM framework and closer authority involvement would strengthen empirical assessment of CD effectiveness.
  - Improved coordination with other providers must respect authorities’ preferences and may require additional resources; RTACs can support regional coordination.
  - Greater transparency of TA activities/outputs and better CD cost accounting would facilitate knowledge sharing and sustain donor support.
- Operational recommendations suggested by respondents and interviewees (as reflected in the survey and interviews):
  - Better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance.
  - Ensure government buy-in before undertaking TA.
  - Complement TA with increased training of staff in implementing institutions.
  - Increase follow-up by IMF staff on TA provided.
  - Require participants to complete online prerequisites and follow sequenced courses to increase training impact.
  - Use virtual pre-mission work to reduce in-field diagnostic time and increase time for detailed discussion and implementation planning.
  - Systematically apply RBM and log frame tools with authority buy-in and periodic progress reviews.
  - Improve transparency and timeliness in sharing TA plans and reports, and reduce report-release lag (noted as currently over 60 days).

*Source: 2018 CD STRATEGY REVIEW—SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS, October 2, 2018.*

### 1. Stakeholder Survey Response Rates _____________________________________________________ 4

### 1. Stakeholder Survey Response Rates

### A. Introduction and Survey Overview
- The survey was completed anonymously with the assistance of a third party (Ipsos) between November 2017 and January 2018.
- There were 403 respondents, resulting in an overall response rate of 29 percent.
- An additional 13 respondents self-identified in a way that could not be mapped into the groups shown in Figure 1 and were thus excluded from the sample.
- Respondent groups: CD recipient countries; partner countries that finance IMF CD; civil society organizations (CSOs); IMF staff (CD mission chiefs/providers, country mission chiefs/desks, and resident representatives); and IMF Executive Directors (EDs).
- Annex II presents detailed results broken out by these five groups, with recipient government responses further disaggregated by income level (advanced, emerging market, low income), region (Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Americas), and fragile states.

### B. CD Integration with Surveillance and Lending
- Respondents generally agreed that IMF CD contributed effectively to the implementation of the IMF’s policy advice.
  - Recipient governments, Fund staff, and EDs were slightly more positive than other external stakeholders.
  - Some negative responses occurred across all groups, indicating scope for improvement.

### C. Drivers of Capacity Development (CD)
- Ownership and willingness to implement:
  - Nearly all respondent groups saw ownership as the most important criterion in the allocation of TA.
  - The government’s willingness to implement was the top priority across all respondent groups except for EDs (which gave the edge to “low income countries”).
  - The government’s willingness to implement was most frequently included in the top three priorities.
- Other priorities by respondent type:
  - Recipient governments and CSOs gave significant weight to addressing urgent needs.
  - Allocating TA to governments with low capacity was most often selected as the second priority by IMF staff and third by recipient governments.
- Notable regional and income-group differences:
  - TA to urgent needs was the top choice of respondents from emerging and low-income economies and tied for first (with willingness to implement) among fragile states.
  - Advanced economy respondents chose willingness to implement as their top choice.
  - Across regions: AFR, APD, and WHD respondents chose TA to urgent needs as first choice; EUR and MCD respondents chose willingness to implement as first choice.

### D. Origination of Technical Assistance (TA)
- Who initiated TA:
  - 49 percent of recipient respondents reported the TA they observed was initiated by the recipient governments.
  - 10 percent reported the TA was co-initiated by recipient governments.
  - The overall share reporting the original idea for the TA came from “recipient governments” or from “multiple parties” (which included recipient governments) was similar across respondent groups.
  - Fragile state respondents chose “recipient governments” 80 percent of the time; low-income 67 percent; AFR 68 percent.
- When the IMF was sole originator of TA:
  - This question was asked only of respondents who indicated the IMF was the sole originator of the TA; the number of respondents for that question was 120.
  - The reasons most often chosen to explain why the government accepted IMF-initiated TA were:
    - “The government agreed that the TA was important.”
    - “The TA was required/suggested as part of an IMF program.”
  - 22 percent of recipients indicated the government agreed to accept the TA to maintain good relations with the IMF.
  - Partner respondents and EDs had particularly small samples for this question (partner n = 2, ED n = 4).

### E. Clarity of TA Objectives and Engagement in Design
- Clarity of objectives:
  - Views were mixed overall on clarity of TA objectives.
  - Recipients and partners chose “objectives were very clear” more often than EDs.
  - CSOs most often chose “objectives were somewhat clear.”
  - Among recipients:
    - Fragile state respondents indicated objectives were very clear in 70 percent of cases.
    - Low-income respondents indicated objectives were very clear in 83 percent of cases.
    - Middle-income respondents indicated objectives were very clear in 68 percent of cases.
  - IMF staff equally chose “objectives were very clear” and “objectives were somewhat clear.”
- Degree of engagement to establish objectives:
  - Respondents generally reported a high to moderate degree of engagement between the recipient government and the IMF to establish TA objectives.
  - Differences across groups and sub-groups:
    - Recipient governments reported a significantly higher level of high engagement than IMF staff, EDs, and partners.
    - Low-income country respondents: 83 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Fragile state respondents: 70 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Middle-income respondents: 62 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - Advanced economies (AEs): 20 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - AFR respondents: 84 percent reported a high level of engagement.
    - APD and WHD respondents: 50 percent each reported a high level of engagement.
    - EUR respondents: 43 percent reported a high level of engagement.

### F. Implementation of TA Recommendations
- Extent of adoption:
  - Full implementation of all TA recommendations is rare.
  - Most respondents reported that either a half or three-quarters of priority recommendations were adopted.
  - IMF staff reported lower implementation rates than recipient governments.
  - Recipient governments chose “don’t know/not applicable to me” more often than IMF staff.
- Reasons for lack of implementation (differences across groups):
  - Staff most frequently selected “insufficient high-level support” as their top choice.
  - Recipient governments and EDs most often cited “insufficient resources to implement.”
  - Among recipient governments’ top three reasons:
    - Insufficient resources to implement: 66 percent.
    - Insufficient trained staff of implementing institutions: 52 percent.
    - Insufficient high-level support: 38 percent.
  - Fragile state, low-income, and AFR recipient governments chose “insufficient resources to implement” significantly more frequently than other sub-groups.
- Overall assessment of implemented TA:
  - When TA was implemented, respondents reported high success in achieving objectives:
    - 92 percent of IMF staff chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree” that implemented TA was successful.
    - 83 percent of recipient country representatives chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree.”
    - 79 percent of partner country representatives chose either “tend to agree” or “strongly agree.”
  - Only four respondents chose “tend to disagree”; none chose “strongly disagree.”
- For the small number who saw implemented TA as unsuccessful (mostly IMF staff):
  - The majority saw the need to increase government buy-in before undertaking the TA.
  - IMF staff ranked “increase government buy-in” first and “better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance” second.
  - Recipient countries ranked “better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance” as their top choice.

### G. Attributes of TA Advisors
- Most important advisor attributes:
  - “TA advisors have a great deal of topical expertise” was most frequently ranked first by all respondent groups.
  - “TA advisors understand local conditions” was most frequently ranked second.

### H. Impact of Training
- Satisfaction with IMF external training:
  - Among CD recipients:
    - 39 percent indicated they “strongly agree” that IMF external training was effective.
    - 42 percent indicated they “tend to agree.”
  - Among IMF staff:
    - 22 percent indicated they “strongly agree.”
    - 52 percent indicated they “tend to agree.”
  - Within sub-groups:
    - Advanced economies (AEs): 20 percent “strongly agree” and 40 percent “tend to agree.”
    - EUR countries: 21 percent “strongly agree” and 36 percent “tend to agree.”
- Factors for the success of a course:
  - Respondents ranked “the relevance of the topic for the participant’s country” as the most important factor for course success (top choice for EDs, recipient countries, and staff).
  - For partner countries, this choice was tied with “the number of hands-on workshops” as the top choice.
- Beneficiaries of face-to-face training:
  - Respondents agreed that “those with existing practical backgrounds related to the course material” would benefit most from IMF face-to-face training; this option ranked first for all respondent groups by a wide margin.
- Ways to increase training impact (top choices):
  - Requiring participants to complete online training as a prerequisite for attendance at face-to-face courses was the top-selected option by:
    - EDs: 58 percent.
    - Partner countries: 50 percent.
    - IMF staff: 40 percent.
  - The top choice for recipient countries (44 percent) was “requiring participants to follow a clear sequence of courses with increasing level of difficulty.”

*Source: 2018 CD STRATEGY REVIEW—SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS, October 2, 2018.*

### 21.      When asked to select which topical areas should be the focus of IMF TA and training,

### 21. When asked to select which topical areas should be the focus of IMF TA and training

### Topical priorities for IMF TA and training
- Fiscal policy was the top choice overall; recipient governments showed a preference for statistics.
- Fiscal policy was ranked first by EDs, IMF staff, and partner countries.
- Statistics was ranked first by recipient countries, closely followed by fiscal policy.
- Frequency of selection in the top three:
  - 56 percent of recipient country respondents selected fiscal policy
  - 55 percent selected financial sector advice
  - 47 percent selected statistics
  - 41 percent selected monetary and exchange rate policy
  - 26 percent selected structural reforms
  - 12 percent selected inequality
  - 11 percent selected legal
  - 8 percent selected gender
  - 5 percent selected climate change

### Coordination with other capacity development (CD) providers
- Views were mixed on whether Fund TA is well coordinated with other TA providers.
- Recipient countries indicated they “strongly agreed” more than staff or partner countries; no EDs chose “strongly agree.”
- The most popular option for all respondent groups, especially recipients and EDs, was “tend to agree.” “Tend to disagree” was also frequently chosen by staff, EDs, and partners.
- A large share of partner countries and recipients chose “don’t know/not applicable to me.”
- Among respondents who were dissatisfied with coordination, reported impacts on effectiveness:
  - 83 percent of recipients said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced the effectiveness of IMF TA
  - 80 percent of EDs and partner countries said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced effectiveness
  - 73 percent of IMF staff said lack of coordination had “somewhat” reduced effectiveness
  - 20 percent of EDs said lack of coordination reduced effectiveness “a great deal”
  - 9 percent of IMF staff said lack of coordination reduced effectiveness “a great deal”

### Communication and knowledge sharing
- The vast majority of respondents indicated a preference to receive information on IMF CD through their normal work responsibilities.
  - This was the top choice for EDs, IMF staff, and recipient countries (tied with “through personal experience with TA”).
  - Partners chose “through the IMF’s website on Capacity Development” as their top choice.
  - “Through personal experience with TA” was the top choice of CSOs.
- Relatively few respondents ranked news reports or social media as their first preference.
- When considering top three rankings, receiving information through the IMF’s website on CD became a more popular choice for all respondent groups; CSOs also preferred news reports on the IMF.
- Terminology used to define the IMF’s CD work:
  - “Technical Assistance” was the top selected response:
    - chosen by 63 percent of IMF staff and CSOs
    - chosen by 59 percent of recipient countries
    - chosen by 47 percent of EDs and partner countries
  - Other popular top choices were “Training” and “Knowledge Sharing.”

### Public consultation and outreach
- Public consultation:
  - Held from November 2, 2017 through January 17, 2018 to solicit comments on the concept note for the CD strategy review.
  - A link to the online consultation was sent to 1,100 CSOs in English, French, and Arabic.
  - A total of six responses were received from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and members of the public.
- Outreach:
  - ICD, in collaboration with the Communications Department, held an event on October 12, 2017 in the context of the Civil Society Policy Forum at the 2017 IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings.
- Themes from consultation and outreach comments:
  - Integrate emerging issues (inequality, gender, climate change, and corruption) into the CD strategy.
  - Focus on outcomes rather than outputs, and make information about outcomes available.
  - Enhance dissemination of information about IMF CD, particularly training.
  - Support integration of CD and surveillance, TA and training, and involvement of area departments in CD prioritization.
  - Provide Fund CD, particularly training, to stakeholders beyond government officials (e.g., leaders of business and labor associations, NGOs/CSOs, and the scientific community), including in‑country face-to-face and customized training, workshops, seminars, and expanded MOOCs.
  - Improve quality of TA delivery through collaboration with regional and local organizations.
  - Strengthen training effectiveness through appropriate use of online courses to supplement face-to-face learning and greater participation by high-level officials.
  - Develop methods to help strengthen CD ownership to ensure CD is demand driven.
  - Increase involvement of nongovernmental actors (such as CSOs) in Fund CD prioritization, design, delivery, and governance (e.g., governance of trust funds and RTACs).

### Methodology and survey sample
- The 2018 CD Strategy Review survey:
  - Conducted online by Ipsos between November 28, 2017 and January 17, 2018, using a common set of questions.
  - The survey was anonymous; participants could self-identify into categories including IMF TA Mission Chief, IMF Training Mission Chief, IMF Country Mission Chief, IMF Resident Representative, representative of partner/donor institution, representative of government agency that received IMF CD, IMF Executive Board member, Civil Society Organization (CSO), or Other.
- Sample size and response rates (Table A1.1 highlights):
  - Total number of responses: 403
  - Total number of participants: 1379
  - Completion rate: 29%
  - External Stakeholders: 109 responses of 687 participants, completion rate 16%
  - Fund Stakeholders: 294 responses of 692 participants, completion rate 42%
  - Area Department Mission Chiefs and Resident Representatives: 75 responses of 243 participants, completion rate 31%
  - CD Departments: 142 responses of 310 participants, completion rate 45%
  - CD Regional Centers (RTACs & RTCs): 62 responses of 115 participants, completion rate 54%
  - Executive Directors: 15 responses of 24 participants, completion rate 63%
- Notes on respondent classification and special circumstances:
  - Some respondents self-identified in multiple categories; results for staff are presented as a whole.
  - Country authorities that identified as both donors and recipients were categorized as recipients.
  - Of respondents who selected “Other,” 40 of 53 matched one of the main options; 13 remaining “other” respondents were excluded.
  - Annex II breaks out results for representatives of government agencies by income group and region, using World Economic Outlook categories.

*Sources: Ipsos and Fund staff calculations.*

### 8. When IMF TA recommendations were not adopted/implemented, what

### pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey - 8. When IMF TA recommendations were not adopted/implemented, what

### Adoption of IMF TA priority recommendations (survey coverage)
- Number of respondents who answered the question (recipients): 71
- Number of respondents who answered the question (partners): 19
- Number of respondents who answered the question (staff): 279
- Number of respondents who answered the question (Executive Director): 15
- By country grouping: Advanced 10, Emerging 34, Low-income 18, Fragile State 10
- By region: Africa 19, Asia Pacific 10, Europe 14, Middle East 13, Americas 6

### Reasons for non-adoption / non-implementation (ranking and follow-up suggestions)
- For question on what IMF should do when recommendations were not adopted, respondents (subset answering = 1 in table context) indicated:
  - "Better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance": 100 percent (where reported)
  - "Ensure government buy-in before undertaking TA": 0 percent (in one listing) and 67 percent (in another listing for a different subgroup)
  - "Complement TA with increased training of staff in implementing institution": 0 percent (in one listing) and 56 percent (in another listing)
  - "Increase follow-up by IMF staff on the TA provided": 0 percent (in one listing) and 44 percent (in another listing)
  - "Other: please specify ________": 0 percent (in one listing) and 100 percent (in another listing)
- Note: The table reports multiple subgroupings with identical response categories but different percentage patterns; the dominant explicit response shown is "Better integrate TA with priorities identified in IMF surveillance" at 100 percent in the cited rows.

### Perceived success where TA recommendations were implemented
- Question: “For the projects in which the TA recommendations were implemented, the TA was successful.” (Respondents who answered = 70 recipients, 16 partners, 19 CSO, 272 staff, 15 Executive Director)
  - a) TA advisors have a great degree of topical expertise — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: Recipients 56, Partners 50, CSO 26, Staff 61, Executive Director 53; By country grouping (Percent Ranking Choice 1st): Advanced 86, Emerging 75, Low-income 63, Fragile State 85
  - b) TA advisors understand local conditions — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: Recipients 31, Partners 31, CSO 53, Staff 26, Executive Director 40; By country grouping (Percent Ranking Choice 1st): Advanced 80, Emerging 88, Low-income 95, Fragile State 86
  - c) TA advisors can respond quickly and follow-up — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: Recipients 7, Partners 0, CSO 11, Staff 5, Executive Director 0; By country grouping (Percent Ranking Choice 1st): Advanced 59, Emerging 69, Low-income 79, Fragile State 68
  - d) TA advisors are familiar with opportunities to complement TA with training — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: Recipients 4, Partners 0, CSO 11, Staff 6, Executive Director 0; By country grouping (Percent Ranking Choice 1st): Advanced 33, Emerging 25, Low-income 47, Fragile State 35

### Delivery of TA — what matters for delivery (importance rankings)
- Question 10: Which, if any, of the following do you think is important for the delivery of TA?
  - Number of respondents who answered: Recipients 66, Partners 17, CSO 19, Staff 253, Executive Director 13
  - Top items (Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 / Percent Ranking Choice 1st where provided):
    - "Those with existing practical backgrounds related to the course material": Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 — recipients 68; Percent Ranking Choice 1st — recipients 91
    - "Those with high educational backgrounds and innate economic intuition": Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 — recipients 15; Percent Ranking Choice 1st — recipients 50
    - "Those at the beginning of their careers": Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3 — recipients 8; Percent Ranking Choice 1st — recipients 47

### Impact of training — effectiveness and key factors
- Question 11: "IMF external training is effective." (Number of respondents who answered overall table block = 7119192791510341810191014136 in raw table header)
  - Response patterns (aggregate rows shown):
    - a) Strongly agree — 39 (recipients in one block)
    - b) Tend to agree — 42
    - c) Tend to disagree — 4–5 reported in blocks
    - e) Don't know/not applicable to me — 13 reported in one block
  - For courses most familiar, most important factors (Number of respondents who answered = 63 recipients, 15 partners, NA CSO, 245 staff, 13 Executive Director):
    - a) The number of hands-on workshops — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 57; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 22
    - b) The degree to which it teaches principles and theoretical background — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 41; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 16
    - c) The relevance of the topic for the participant’s country — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 76; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 44
    - e) The degree of course customization to specific country cases — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 51; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 11

### Training candidate selection and delivery improvements
- Which candidates benefit most from face-to-face training (Number of respondents who answered = 66 recipients, 17 partners, 19 CSO, 250 staff, 12 Executive Director):
  - a) Those with existing practical backgrounds related to the course material — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 68; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 91
  - b) Those with high educational backgrounds and innate economic intuition — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 15; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 50
- Effective measures to increase impact of IMF training (Number of respondents who answered = 66 recipients, 16 partners, NA CSO, 250 staff):
  - a) Require participants to complete online training as a prerequisite — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 27; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 61
  - b) Require participants to follow a clear sequence of courses — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 44; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 82
  - e) Improved selection of participants — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 18; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 36

### Topical focus and future priorities for capacity development
- In which areas should IMF focus (Number of respondents who answered = 66 recipients, 16 partners, 19 CSO, 261 staff, 15 Executive Director):
  - a) Fiscal Policy — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 26; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 56
  - c) Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 12; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 41
  - e) Financial Sector — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 9; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 55
  - f) Statistics — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 30; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 47
  - i) Structural Reforms — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 15; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 26

### Coordination with other TA providers
- Question 16: "IMF TA is well coordinated with other TA providers." (Number of respondents who answered = 71 recipients, 19 partners, NA for CSO, 279 staff, 15 Executive Director)
  - a) Strongly agree — recipients 23, partners 11, staff 6
  - b) Tend to agree — recipients 46, partners 37, staff 44
  - c) Tend to disagree — recipients 7, partners 21, staff 33
  - e) Don't know/not applicable — recipients 23, partners 26, staff 9
- For those who disagree on coordination, extent that lack of coordination reduced effectiveness (Number of respondents who answered small subgroup = 6 recipients, 5 partners, NA CSO, 113 staff):
  - b) Somewhat — recipients 83, partners 80, staff 73
  - a) A great deal — staff 9 (in the reported subgroup)

### Communication and knowledge sharing — channels and preferences
- How respondents learned about IMF CD (Number of respondents who answered = 67 recipients, 18 partners, 18 CSO, 235 staff):
  - a) Through personal experience with technical assistance or by taking a course — Percent of respondents: recipients 34, partners 17, CSO 28, staff 20
  - b) Through my normal work responsibilities — recipients 34, partners 28, CSO 6, staff 50
  - d) Through the IMF’s website on Capacity Development — recipients 27, partners 44, CSO 22, staff 20
- How respondents would like to receive information on IMF capacity development (Number of respondents who answered = 71 recipients, 17 partners, 19 CSO, 270 staff):
  - a) Technical assistance — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 59; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 75
  - b) Training — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 23; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 70
  - c) Knowledge sharing — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 13; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 59
  - d) Peer learning — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 3; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 17
  - e) Technical knowhow — Percent Ranking Choice in Top 3: recipients 3; Percent Ranking Choice 1st: recipients 25

*Source: Ipsos — Table A2.1. 2018 CD Strategy Review Survey Results (continued).*

### 18. What term would you use to define the IMF’s

### 18. What term would you use to define the IMF’s capacity development work with your government?

### Summary
- 1. Structured interviews were conducted during the 2018 Spring Meetings with senior representatives from central banks and ministries of finance of a sample of CD recipient countries, and with major external partners, to ascertain views on issues to be analyzed in the review.
- 2. The country sample included 12 low-, middle- and upper-middle income recipients, drawn from different regions and accounting for about 10 percent of the total Fund TA in terms of field delivery (as measured in full-time equivalents (FTEs)). The four external partners interviewed account for half of the Fund’s external funding of CD.
- 3. Interviews were conducted with an understanding of no attribution of the responses provided; this report provides a summary of those responses.
- 4. Fund CD is generally viewed as of high technical quality and grounded in worldwide experience with economic reforms key to sustainable economic growth; it is seen as a very useful support to reform-minded policy makers and complementary to surveillance and Use of Fund Resources (UFR).
- 5. Widespread perception that certain countries could benefit from more TA resources devoted to help countries implement recommended reforms; appropriate modalities (resident long-term experts (LTX), repeated visits by short-term experts (STX) or staff, and virtual consultation) should vary according to country circumstances and level of existing capacity.
- 6. When reminded that IMF resources for CD are expected to remain broadly constant, several interviewees argued significant room to fund greater use of relatively expensive follow-up assistance could be obtained through greater prioritization and efficiency gains.
- 7. Prioritization should place substantial weight on degree of country ownership; Fund staff should consider socio-political and institutional context and the scope for mobilizing support for implementation. In fragile states, CD should focus on holistic institution and governance building with a longer time frame and more resources for on-the-ground training and support; select staff with appropriate skills; be parsimonious in new areas outside core expertise and leverage other institutions’ expertise.
- 8. Possible efficiency gains include better advance preparations of missions and expert assignments, clear agreement on terms of reference (ToR), more continuity in staff and expert assignments or better transfer of knowledge when continuity cannot be assured, and increased use of technology in TA and training delivery.
- 9. External partners welcomed developments in CD governance and processes: greater integration with surveillance and Fund-supported programs; medium-term orientation; greater involvement of management and the Executive Board; increased focus on results and transparency. Planned systematic use of results-based management (RBM) framework would provide empirical evidence to assess and improve CD effectiveness.
- 10. External partners argued for further increases in transparency of TA activities and outputs to facilitate knowledge sharing, sustain donor support, and improve coordination with other CD providers; made specific suggestions outlined in the full report.

*Source: 2018 CD STRATEGY REVIEW—SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS (excerpt)*

### A. Introduction
- 11. Structured interviews conducted during the 2018 Spring Meetings with senior representatives from central banks and ministries of finance of a sample of CD recipient countries, and with major external partners; staff will carefully consider interview points in framing CD review recommendations.
- 12. Country sample: 12 low-, middle- and upper-middle income recipients, accounting for about 10 percent of total Fund TA in FTEs; some countries among largest recent TA recipients; some intensive users of training or hosts of Regional Training Centers (RTCs) partnering with Institute for Capacity Development (ICD). Four external partners interviewed account for half of Fund’s external CD funding.
- 13. Interviews conducted with no-attribution understanding; report distinguishes recipients’ views (Section B) and external partners’ views (Section C).

### B. Views of Capacity Development Recipients — Alignment of the Fund’s CD with Country Needs
- 14. Countries were asked whether TA was initiated by their institutions; whether it reflected priority needs for knowledge transfer in design and/or implementation of reforms; and whether Fund response was timely and appropriate in content and quality.
- 15. Interviewees confirmed TA was provided in response to explicit requests, increasingly within multi-year programs of Fund CD support; no complaints about supply-driven TA. TA seen as important for transfer of technical knowledge needed to implement “owned” policies. Clarity on specific needs and effective communication to Fund staff essential, including agreement on detailed ToR for missions and expert assignments.
- 16. Most satisfied with timeliness of Fund responses; a few felt internal TA prioritization processes impart too much rigidity, reducing scope to respond nimbly to emerging needs. One representative argued fragile states were receiving a disproportionate share of Fund TA, to detriment of other developing countries.
- 17. Most authorities highly satisfied with technical quality of TA and breadth of staff knowledge of best practices worldwide. Staff ability to tailor recommendations and design second-best solutions was noted. Fragile states emphasized TA should be framed within a holistic, medium- to longer-term context with appropriate sequencing considering capacity limitations; strengthening governance of institutions (ministry of finance, central bank) was essential.
- 18. A few representatives from less developed countries were less satisfied with quality of outside experts used by the Fund, viewing them as not always up to par in global reach and hands-on experience; however most viewed Fund experts in core areas favorably compared with other TA providers.
- 19. Training feedback mixed: upper-middle income countries wanted more advanced policy-oriented courses and specialized training, with workshops including experts from advanced countries; some found specialized topic courses, such as on subsidies, most useful.
- 20. Low-income country representatives generally satisfied with basic training but desired greater tailoring to specific circumstances (e.g., using their data or regionally relevant data), and more peer-learning opportunities. For fragile states, suggestions included customized training based on careful skill-need assessments, follow-up on absorption by officials, closer integration of TA and training, and more hands-on training.

### Alignment of CD with Surveillance and Fund-Supported Programs
- 21. Most interviewees expressed that Fund CD activities are well aligned in scope and content with Fund advice in surveillance and with UFR programs, where relevant; TA helps define reform design and implement reforms. A few were wary of TA recommendations embedded in program conditionality, which could deter seeking Fund TA despite its perceived superiority in macroeconomic areas.
- 22. Authorities regard both CD and area departments as appropriate interlocutors with different roles: area department mission chiefs advise on need for policy or institutional reforms to meet macroeconomic objectives and suggest seeking Fund technical expertise; CD-providing departments identify specific scope and content and ensure appropriate use of internal and external skills for knowledge transfer. No indications of perceived conflicts between area and TA providing departments.
- 23. Training viewed as helpful in building capacity key for macroeconomic stability and development, complementing surveillance, UFR, and TA. Some authorities suggested workshops or short online courses aimed at familiarizing policy makers, including legislators, with macroeconomic policy tools to facilitate political consensus building.

### Modalities of CD Delivery and Knowledge Sharing
- 24. Country representatives’ views were sought on effectiveness of delivery modalities (missions, STX, LTX), and roles of headquarters (HQ), Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs), and Regional Training Centers (RTCs). Perceptions regarding desirable mix of TA inputs varied across interviewees reflecting different levels of institutional capacity.

*Source: 2018 CD STRATEGY REVIEW—SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS (excerpt)*

### 25.      Authorities from upper-middle income countries generally preferred short missions,

### 25.      Authorities from upper-middle income countries generally preferred short missions,

### Preferences by country groups
- Upper-middle income countries:
  - Preferred short missions, well prepared in advance through virtual communications (e-mails, telephone, or video conferences), and short, focused reports.
  - Valued presence in the team of high-quality experts, both from staff and outside, familiar with best practices and capable of assessing applicability to the individual country’s context.
  - Regarded continued post-mission dialogue as very important through various modalities (e.g., virtual communications and, if needed, through short visits by staff or experts well familiar with the previous TA’s recommendations).
  - Recognized informal channels for follow-up but saw merit in formal mechanisms for as-needed consultations after TA ends. (para. 25)

- Less developed countries:
  - Emphasized need for TA missions to explain detailed implementation steps, outline a realistic timetable, and allocate tasks for local staff, taking into account local capacity constraints.
  - Stressed close involvement of authorities in developing the timetable.
  - Requested follow-up assistance through placement of LTXs with hands-on experience of successful reforms in similar countries, under HQ or RTAC oversight.
  - Considered repeated visits by STXs a second-best substitute for LTXs if continuity of experts can be ensured. (para. 26)

- All country representatives:
  - Emphasized advance preparation of missions and expert assignments to limit time on in-field diagnostics and preserve adequate time for discussing recommendations with authorities and stakeholders.
  - Stressed importance of continuity of staff and experts or, when continuity is not possible, comprehensive handovers to avoid wasting national officials’ time bringing inadequately briefed experts up to speed. (paras. 27–28)

### Training modalities and synergies with TA
- Increasing use of online training welcomed for expanding reach; face-to-face training still needed for informal networking and peer-to-peer learning benefits.
- Peer-to-peer learning (regional or topic-focused workshops) particularly useful for learning from officials in countries with similar reform experiences.
- Potential synergies between TA and training could be better exploited via:
  - Customized workshops in conjunction with TA missions or expert visits from HQ or RTACs.
  - Offering relevant online training to officials expected to act as counterparts to upcoming TA missions or expert assignments. (paras. 29–30)

### Role and staffing of RTACs/RTCs and HQ
- Views varied, but most saw TA and training by HQ and centers as highly complementary.
- HQ comparative advantages:
  - Providing TA on policy issues, design of institutional reform strategies, and backstopping LTXs delivering follow-up TA.
- RTACs comparative advantages:
  - Providing customized, hands-on assistance in implementation through repeated visits by resident experts or STXs.
  - Delivering customized and regional training complementary to HQ’s more generalized training.
- Importance of high quality and continuity in RTAC staffing emphasized; greater use of regional experts could enhance effectiveness. (paras. 31–33)

### Evaluating the effectiveness of CD
- Most interviewees judged TA to be very useful in designing and implementing reforms, communicated assessments to CD department management and mission chiefs, but noted lack of systematic processes to evaluate CD impact. (para. 34)
- Limited familiarity among interviewees with the log frame tool under the RBM framework, suggesting staff should more systematically explain RBM, secure authority endorsement of inputs/outputs/milestones/outcomes, review progress periodically, and propose corrections for slippages. (para. 35)
- Satisfaction with training effectiveness, especially customized training; however, countries generally do not use formal mechanisms beyond back-to-office reports to assess retention and usefulness of training. (para. 36)

### Coordination with other CD providers
- Ensuring coordination of Fund TA with other providers is a significant challenge.
  - Some middle-income countries expect authorities to choose preferred providers and facilitate information exchange; several have CD coordination units in ministries/central banks. (para. 37)
  - Authorities welcome greater cooperation and information exchange among providers to reduce duplication and conflicting advice. (para. 38)
  - Low-income countries with staffing constraints expect CD providers to coordinate among themselves; resident representatives could play a useful role but may need augmented resources. (para. 39)
  - Heavy users of Fund CD would welcome Fund appointment of dedicated CD coordinators in the field; RTACs could play a more active role in regional coordination. (para. 40)

### External partners’ views: reasons for support and suggestions for improvement
- Reasons partners support Fund CD:
  - Importance for sustainable development of sound policies and institutions in macroeconomic areas covered by Fund CD.
  - High technical quality and strong reputation of Fund TA.
  - Fund staff’s access to key policymakers and effective policy dialogue.
  - Usefulness of Fund training for capacity building in macroeconomic management. (para. 41)
- Suggestions for improvement:
  - Place greater weight on country ownership in selecting priorities and content of CD; better assess authorities’ commitment and socio-political implementation obstacles to avoid ineffective TA. (paras. 44–45)
  - Better align Fund recommendations with national reform agendas and donors’ priorities (e.g., PFM). (para. 45)
  - Improve alignment and timing of CD activities with area departments’ priorities; provide more detailed TA substance in annexes to Article IV reports and UFR program documents. (para. 46)
  - Tailor CD better to country circumstances, giving more weight to institutional and capacity constraints; for fragile states, focus on building basic institutions and local capacities (e.g., statistics). (para. 47)

- Modalities and resources:
  - CD often focuses on diagnosis and general reform strategy with limited implementation detail, sequencing, timetable, and follow-up support; increase resources for placement of LTXs with practical experience while guarding against substituting local staff. Ensure clear ToR, HQ backstopping, and readiness to suspend unproductive assignments. (paras. 48–49)
  - Support for greater continuity in staff and expert assignments; missions should reduce in-field diagnostic time by using virtual pre-mission work and devote more time to detailed discussion with authorities and co-financing partners. (para. 50)
  - In fragile states, assign culturally sensitive staff with appropriate skills to help rebuild capacity and listen to authorities. (para. 51)
  - Need for greater clarity and consistency on division of responsibilities between HQ and RTACs/RTCs; improve coordination and synergies between TA and training. (para. 52)

### Reporting, transparency, monitoring, and evaluation
- Strong call from external partners for greater transparency and timeliness:
  - Earlier sharing of plans for missions and externally financed expert assignments with partners and substantive de-briefings at activity end.
  - Earlier involvement of external partners in preparatory agendas and steering-group information exchange.
  - Substantial reduction of the lag (currently over 60 days) with which TA reports are made available to external partners; seek ex-ante consent from authorities to release reports when externally financed (deleting sensitive information if needed). (para. 53)
  - Encourage countries to publish TA reports to promote knowledge sharing and acknowledge external partners’ contributions.
  - More detailed accounting and reporting of CD costs to assess value-for-money. (para. 53)
- Strengthen monitoring and evaluation:
  - Systematic use of the RBM framework for TA projects with close involvement of country authorities in design and monitoring to promote realism and ownership of milestones/targets.
  - Systematic use of RBM would gather empirical evidence on CD effectiveness; endorsement of Common Evaluation Framework (2016) and encouragement for systematic publication of evaluation reports. (paras. 54–55)

### Coordination with other CD providers — external partners’ emphasis
- External partners echoed country representatives on the need for improved coordination, especially in low-capacity contexts and fragile states where authorities cannot ensure coordination themselves. (paras. 56–58)
- Providers should set up mechanisms for systematic exchange of information to minimize duplication; Fund should not assume leadership without authorities’ explicit concurrence. Resident representatives or dedicated coordinators in the field could facilitate coordination. (paras. 58–59)
- Fund staff should consider comparative advantages of other institutions (e.g., World Bank, regional MDBs) when addressing newer areas (climate change, gender, technology, managerial issues) and partner where appropriate. Examples of useful partnerships cited, such as Monetary and Capital Markets Department collaborations with the Bank for International Settlements and national central banks. (paras. 59–60)

### Conclusions and consensus points
- Fund CD is generally viewed as high technical quality and grounded in worldwide reform experience; seen as useful and complementary to surveillance and UFR. (para. 63 bullets)
- Perception that more TA resources should be devoted to helping countries implement recommended reforms; modalities should vary by country capacity (LTXs, repeated STX visits, virtual consultation).
- Prioritization should give greater weight to country ownership and consider socio-political and institutional constraints; be parsimonious in new areas outside core expertise and leverage other institutions’ expertise.
- Fragile states need holistic, longer-term institution-building support with appropriately skilled experts.
- Efficiency gains achievable via better advance preparations, continuity or knowledge handovers, and greater use of technology.
- Systematic use of RBM and closer authority involvement would strengthen empirical assessment of CD effectiveness.
- Improved coordination with other providers must respect authorities’ preferences and may require additional resources; RTACs can support coordination in their regions.
- Greater transparency of TA activities/outputs and better CD cost accounting would facilitate knowledge sharing and support from external partners. (paras. 62–63 and concluding bullets)

*2018 CD STRATEGY REVIEW—SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2018/pp1002182018reviewfunds-cdstrategysurvey.pdf_