## ppea2024059

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ppea2024059](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024059.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024059.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024059.pdf.json)

---

### Executive summary — consultation process and participation
- Review supported by consultations with four stakeholder groups: Executive Directors (EDs), country authorities, IMF Mission Chiefs (MCs), and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
- Surveys gathered views about five core pillars of the Transparency Policy (TP): (1) underlying principles; (2) candor and integrity of Fund documents; (3) publication of Board documents and communication of Board decisions; (4) modification rules and handling confidential information; and (5) perceived evenhandedness during implementation.
- Surveys were distributed starting end-June 2023. Response rates:
  - Executive Directors: 24 surveys sent, 21 responses, response rate 88 percent.
  - Country Authorities: 190 surveys sent, 74 responses, response rate 39 percent.
  - Mission Chiefs: 148 surveys sent, 109 responses, response rate 74 percent.
- Date on document: October 1, 2024.

### Stakeholder overall impressions and principles
- Strong support for the principles and objectives underpinning the TP.
- EDs and MCs emphasize greater flexibility in modification rules, with appropriate safeguards.
- Perceived evenhandedness in application has improved since the 2013 review.
- Specific numeric perceptions:
  - 95 percent of EDs believe the principles underpinning the TP continue to be valid and should be preserved.
  - About 56 percent of MCs think the current TP strikes an appropriate balance across principles:
    - MCs working on LICs: 67 percent.
    - MCs working on AEs: 65 percent.
  - 42 percent of EDs do not perceive the policy rules as achieving the right balance across objectives.

### Candor, independence, and protection of confidential information
- Perceptions that the TP adequately protects staff candor and independence:
  - 79 percent of EDs agree TP adequately protects candor and independence of SRs.
  - 99 percent of authorities agree.
  - 80 percent of MCs agree that TP appropriately protects candor and independence of staff analysis.
- Protection against accidental disclosure and planned-policy leaks:
  - 74 percent of EDs believe TP protects against accidental disclosure of confidential information.
  - 71 percent of authorities believe the same.
  - 89 percent of EDs and 89 percent of MCs believe TP protects against release of information on planned policies that could undermine implementation.
- Non-negotiation of Staff Reports:
  - 67 percent of MCs confirm authorities respect the principle of non-negotiation.
    - MCs working on LICs: 74 percent.
    - MCs working on EMs: 66 percent.
    - MCs working on AEs: 55 percent.
    - MCs on program countries: 82 percent.
  - MCs report no pressure to water-down SRs from management (83 percent), EDs offices (83 percent implied), or authorities (74 percent).
  - Constraints to candid SRs cited by MCs: sensitivity of issues covered (48 percent) and need to maintain good relationships with authorities (47 percent).
- ED concerns about modification non-approval and tone:
  - About 56 percent of Directors (mainly in EMs and LICs) think rejection of corrections/deletions and disagreements could lead to loss of candor.
  - 44 percent of Directors consider a “negative” tone of the report a source of tension.
  - 37 percent of Directors indicate non-consent to publication by authorities can put pressure to water down messages in SRs.
- Perceptions by region/role show some variability on safeguards against misinterpretation, premature release, and confidential information.

### Publication timing, communication, and delays
- Timeliness of publication:
  - About 69 percent of EDs and country authorities, and 74 percent of MCs report country documents published within 2 weeks of Board discussions.
  - 12 percent of MCs (supervising mainly EMs and LICs) report SRs published with lags longer than 2 weeks but within 1 month.
- Preference for prompter external communication:
  - Around 88 percent of MCs and 64 percent of country authorities prefer prompter external communications (press release) independently of SR publication.
- Causes of publication delays cited:
  - Discussions over corrections and deletions: cited by 47 percent of EDs and 54 percent of country authorities (mostly in EMs and LICs).
  - Cumbersome internal modification process: cited by 41 percent of some MCs (mostly working on EMs).
  - Obtaining authorities’ explicit publication consent: pointed to by 42 percent of EDs and 38 percent of MCs as time-consuming under the current “voluntary but presumed” publication framework.

### Modification rules: views, experience, and trade-offs
- Views on flexibility:
  - Around 61 percent of country authorities believe current modification rules are sufficiently flexible.
  - EDs favor more flexibility:
    - 90 percent favor more flexibility in rules of corrections.
    - 73 percent favor more flexibility in rules of deletions.
  - Around 86 percent of EDs report having submitted correction and deletion requests in the past few years.
    - Only 32 percent perceived their requests were fully approved.
    - Only 12 percent perceived their requests were mostly approved.
  - 61 percent of MCs disagree with further tightening of modification rules to protect staff independence, perceiving a relatively low approval rate for corrections and deletions.
  - 84 percent of MCs prefer even more flexibility in handling administrative errors.
- Trade-offs and perceptions:
  - Greater flexibility is thought to reduce misinterpretation and increase publication rates but could increase unreasonable requests and weaken the non-negotiation principle (MCs).
  - Surveys indicate:
    - 68 percent of Directors believe the TP allows needed modifications to authorities’ views if erroneously represented in SRs.
    - 66 percent of authorities share that belief.
    - 38 percent of MCs share the same view as authorities and Directors (MCs’ opinions more balanced).
  - About 70 percent of MCs submit all or filter very few authority requests; remaining MCs report filtering out requests assessed to be outside policy purview.

### Evenhandedness in application
- Perceptions improved relative to 2013 but some concerns persist:
  - Only 4 percent of country authorities believe the TP is not applied evenhandedly.
  - 18 percent of MCs believe the TP is not applied evenhandedly.
  - 37 percent of EDs currently think the policy is not evenhandedly applied (compared to 50 percent in the 2013 review).
  - Strongest ED concerns concentrated in EMs and LICs, and regionally in Europe, Middle East, and Africa.
- Perceived drivers of unevenhanded application:
  - Authorities’ attitude seen as main factor by:
    - 74 percent of EDs,
    - 70 percent of MCs,
    - 58 percent of country authorities.
  - Income level of country seen as second most important by:
    - 62 percent of MCs,
    - 67 percent of EDs,
    - 52 percent of country authorities (who emphasize global economic environment more).
  - Geoeconomic fragmentation seen as a threat by:
    - 54 percent of MCs,
    - 61 percent of Directors.

### Open Archives Policy (OAP) assessments
- Stakeholders agree OAP has promoted transparency:
  - 79 percent of EDs agree existing policies governing public access to Fund’s archives have been successful in promoting transparency.
  - 67 percent of country authorities agree the same.
- Views on time rules:
  - Broad agreement on 5-year rule for Executive Board minutes and 20-year rule for other documentary material.
  - Only 28 percent of authorities find the 3-year period for access to Board papers appropriate, unlike EDs (74 percent).
  - 89 percent of EDs believe making documents governed by the 20-year rule accessible is as important as making accessible documents under the 3/5-year rules.
- Impact on candor:
  - 85 percent of responding authorities and 58 percent of EDs believe earlier release of Board papers would not affect candor.
- CSO observations on archives:
  - Majority of CSOs aware of OAP and agree 20-year rule for “other documentary material” is appropriate.
  - Users pointed to long delays to receive requested documents and lack of physical access during the COVID-19 pandemic, hindering research.

### Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) — views and suggestions
- CSO overall assessment:
  - Acknowledge significant progress since 2013 and assess the Fund’s transparency framework compares favorably with other IFIs.
  - Strong agreement that the TP has achieved a good balance between proactive disclosure and protection of confidential information.
- Areas of concern and suggested improvements:
  - Perceived differences in candor of IMF country documents across country groups.
  - Non-publication of some Article IV Staff Reports and long delays may undermine Fund credibility and CSOs’ ability to influence national policies.
  - Request greater focus on cross-country comparative information.
  - Recommend enhancing accessibility to Fund documents, including increased functionality of the archive catalog and website search.
  - Call for more opportunities for public consultation to support national and international policy debates.
  - Suggestions to translate more documents and adopt less technical language for broader citizen engagement.

### Appendix survey highlights (EDs, Authorities, Mission Chiefs)
- Appendix I (EDs): detailed weighted average scores and response-pattern vectors recorded in source (numerous numeric vectors and categorical distributions).
- Appendix II (Country Authorities): detailed response distributions and weighted average scores for questions on publication timing, consent, corrections/deletions, handling confidential information, evenhandedness, and archives (numerous numeric vectors and categorical distributions).
- Appendix III (Mission Chiefs): detailed response distributions and weighted average scores on publication timing, candor, corrections/deletions, pre-screening of requests, and perceived drivers of lags and watering down (numerous numeric vectors and categorical distributions).
- Key point from Appendices: empirical survey data document heterogeneous experiences across income groups (AEs, EMs, LICs), regions, and program vs. surveillance countries, with many precise numeric response patterns preserved in the source dataset.

*Source: 2024 REVIEW OF THE FUND’S TRANSPARENCY POLICY AND OPEN ARCHIEVES POLICY—CONSULTATIONS (IMF staff summary).*

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### INTRODUCTION
- The review of the Transparency Policy (TP) and Open Archives Policy (OAP) was supported by a consultation process with four stakeholder groups: Executive Directors (EDs), country authorities, IMF Mission Chiefs (MCs), and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
- Surveys gathered views about five core pillars of the TP: (1) underlying principles; (2) candor and integrity of Fund documents; (3) publication of Board documents and communication of Board decisions; (4) modification rules and handling confidential information; and (5) perceived evenhandedness during implementation.
- Surveys were distributed starting end-June 2023. Response rates:
  - Executive Directors: 24 surveys sent, 21 responses, response rate 88 percent.
  - Country Authorities: 190 surveys sent, 74 responses, response rate 39 percent.
  - Mission Chiefs: 148 surveys sent, 109 responses, response rate 74 percent.
- Date on document: October 1, 2024.

### VIEWS OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS, AUTHORITIES, AND MISSION CHIEFS
- Overall impression:
  - Stakeholders strongly support the principles and objectives underpinning the TP.
  - Some EDs see room to improve the practical balance across the policy’s objectives, particularly regarding modifications to Board documents.
  - With appropriate safeguards, greater flexibility in modification rules is a prominent concern for EDs and MCs.
  - Perceived evenhandedness in application has improved since the 2013 review.

A. Principles of the Transparency Policy
- 95 percent of EDs believe the principles underpinning the TP continue to be valid and should be preserved to balance timely disclosure and protection of confidential information, while protecting candor and independence of staff analysis.
- About 56 percent of MCs think the current TP strikes an appropriate balance across principles:
  - Strongest support among MCs working on LICs: 67 percent.
  - MCs working on AEs: 65 percent.
- Less than half of EDs (42 percent) do not perceive the policy rules as achieving the right balance across objectives.

B. Candor, Independence, and Confidential Information
- Perceptions that the TP adequately protects staff candor and independence:
  - 79 percent of EDs agree TP adequately protects candor and independence of SRs.
  - 99 percent of authorities agree.
  - 80 percent of MCs agree that TP appropriately protects candor and independence of staff analysis.
- Protection against accidental disclosure and planned-policy leaks:
  - 74 percent of EDs believe TP protects against accidental disclosure of confidential information.
  - 71 percent of authorities believe the same.
  - 89 percent of EDs and 89 percent of MCs believe TP protects against release of information on planned policies that could undermine implementation.
- Non-negotiation of Staff Reports:
  - 67 percent of MCs confirm that authorities respect the principle of non-negotiation.
    - MCs working on LICs: 74 percent.
    - MCs working on EMs: 66 percent.
    - MCs working on AEs: 55 percent.
    - MCs on program countries: 82 percent.
  - MCs report no pressure to water-down SRs from management (83 percent), EDs offices (83 percent implied), or authorities (74 percent).
  - Constraints to candid SRs cited by MCs: sensitivity of issues covered (48 percent) and need to maintain good relationships with authorities (47 percent).
- ED concerns about modification non-approval and tone:
  - About 56 percent of Directors (mainly in EMs and LICs) think rejection of corrections/deletions and disagreements could lead to loss of candor between authorities and staff.
  - 44 percent of Directors consider a “negative” tone of the report a source of tension that could generate less candid discussions.
  - 37 percent of Directors indicate non-consent to publication by authorities can put pressure to water down messages in SRs.
- Protection of confidential information:
  - Large majorities believe current rules provide sufficient protection against adverse market reactions, premature release of planned policies, misinterpretation by the public, and disclosure of confidential information.
  - Some regional variations noted: among MCs lower support in Europe for safeguards against premature release of planned information and in Asia concerning confidential information; among Directors lower support concerning safeguards against misinterpretation in the Middle East, followed by Europe and Asia.
- Political sensitivities:
  - 48 percent of responding authorities believe politically sensitive messages reflected in country documents may have led to less candid SRs or watered-down messages (highest rates in EMs in the Middle East and South America).

C. Publication Timing and Communication
- Timeliness of publication:
  - About 69 percent of EDs and country authorities, and 74 percent of MCs report that their country documents have been published within 2 weeks of Board discussions.
  - 12 percent of MCs, supervising mainly EMs and LICs, report SRs were published with lags longer than 2 weeks but within 1 month of the Board meeting.
- Preference for prompter external communication:
  - Around 88 percent of MCs and 64 percent of country authorities prefer prompter external communications regarding Board discussions in the form of a press release (PR), independently of SR publication.
- Causes of publication delays:
  - Discussions over corrections and deletions: cited by 47 percent of EDs and 54 percent of country authorities (mostly in EMs and LICs) as significantly delaying publication.
  - Cumbersome internal modification process: cited by 41 percent of some MCs (mostly working on EMs).
  - Obtaining authorities’ explicit publication consent: pointed to by 42 percent of EDs and 38 percent of MCs as time-consuming under the current “voluntary but presumed” publication framework.

D. Modification of Board Documents
- Views on modification rules:
  - Around 61 percent of country authorities believe current modification rules are sufficiently flexible.
  - Large majority of Directors favor more flexibility:
    - 90 percent favor more flexibility in rules of corrections.
    - 73 percent favor more flexibility in rules of deletions.
  - Around 86 percent of EDs report having submitted correction and deletion requests in the past few years.
    - Only 32 percent perceived their requests were fully approved.
    - Only 12 percent perceived their requests were mostly approved.
  - 61 percent of MCs, perceiving a relatively low approval rate for corrections and deletions, disagree with further tightening of modification rules to protect staff independence.
  - 84 percent of MCs prefer even more flexibility in handling administrative errors.

E. Evenhandedness in Application of Modification Rules
- Perceived evenhandedness has somewhat improved since the 2013 review, though some EDs still perceive uneven application across countries and groups.

F. Open Archives Policy
- Stakeholders agree existing policies governing public access to the Fund’s archives have been successful in promoting transparency.
- Stakeholders note earlier access would not affect candor.

### VIEWS OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS (CSOs)
- CSO overall assessment:
  - CSOs acknowledge significant progress toward greater transparency since the 2013 policy review.
  - CSOs conclude the Fund’s transparency framework compares favorably to similar frameworks in other IFIs.
  - Strong agreement that the TP has achieved a good balance between proactive disclosure and protection of countries’ confidential information.
- Areas of concern and suggested improvements:
  - Some CSOs perceive differences in the candor of IMF country documents across groups of countries.
  - Non-publication of some Article IV (AIV) Staff Reports (SRs) and long delays in publication of some country reports may undermine Fund credibility and CSOs’ ability to influence national policies.
  - CSOs request greater focus on cross-country comparative information.
  - CSOs recommend enhancing accessibility to Fund documents, including increased functionality of the archive catalog.
  - CSOs call for more opportunities for public consultation to support national and international policy debates.

*Prepared by Strategy, Policy, and Review Department. Approved by Mark Flanagan (SPR), Gilles Bauche (SEC), Magí Clavé Badia (ITD), Bernhard Steinki (LEG).*

### 13. While greater flexibility in correction rules is thought to reduce the likelihood of

### 13. While greater flexibility in correction rules is thought to reduce the likelihood of 

### Flexibility in correction rules: trade-offs and perceptions
- Greater flexibility in correction rules is thought to reduce the likelihood of information misinterpretation and ensure a higher publication rate, but it would carry cost.
- Both Directors and MCs agree that more flexibility, likely intended as broader scope to make modifications, has some benefits, including facilitating engagement with the authorities.
- The large majority of MCs believe that more flexibility may:
  - increase the number of unreasonable requests for changes, and
  - weaken the non-negotiation principle, resulting in less candid reports.
- These sentiments are not shared by the Directors to the same extent.

### Transparency Policy’s current scope for changes to authorities’ views
- Surveys indicate:
  - 68 percent of Directors believe the Transparency Policy allows needed modifications to authorities’ views if erroneously represented in SRs.
  - 66 percent of authorities share that belief.
  - For surveillance countries the comparable figure is 67 percent.
- MCs’ opinions are more balanced: 38 percent of MCs share the same view as authorities and Directors.
- Subsequent bilateral discussions with EDs indicate some scope for improvement: the current rule does not allow adding new information to authorities’ views, which often constitutes a source of disagreement.

### Modification requests and pre-filtering
- Modification requests include requests from country teams and requests from the authorities; some authority requests may be pre-filtered before submission for assessment.
- Survey results suggest:
  - about 70 percent of the MCs submit all or filter very few of requests from the authorities, while
  - the remaining MCs report filtering out requests assessed to be outside the purview of the policy.

### Evenhandedness in the application of modification rules
- Perceptions of uneven implementation have somewhat abated compared to the 2013 review, although some perceptions persist among EDs.
- Survey responses:
  - Only 4 percent of country authorities believe the TP is not applied evenhandedly.
  - 18 percent of MCs believe the TP is not applied evenhandedly.
  - 37 percent of EDs currently think the policy is not evenhandedly applied (compared to 50 percent in the 2013 review).
- Strongest ED concerns are concentrated in EMs and LICs, and regionally in Europe, Middle East, and Africa.
- Factors affecting evenhanded application (as perceived):
  - Authorities’ attitude is seen as the main factor by:
    - 74 percent of EDs,
    - 70 percent of MCs,
    - 58 percent of country authorities.
  - Income level of the country is seen as second in importance by:
    - 62 percent of MCs,
    - 67 percent of EDs,
    - but only 52 percent of country authorities (who place greater emphasis on the global economic environment).
  - Geoeconomic fragmentation seen as a threat to “evenhandedness” by:
    - 54 percent of MCs,
    - 61 percent of Directors.

### Open Archives Policy (OAP): stakeholder assessments
- Stakeholders assess that the current OAP is promoting transparency.
- Survey responses:
  - 79 percent of EDs agree the existing policies governing public access to Fund’s archives have been successful in promoting transparency since their inception.
  - 67 percent of country authorities agree the same.
- Views on time rules:
  - Both EDs and country authorities broadly agree on the current time rules applied to Executive Board minutes (5-years rule) and documents under the 20-year rule.
  - Only 28 percent of authorities find the 3-year period for access to Board papers as appropriate, unlike EDs (74 percent).
  - 89 percent of EDs believe that making documents governed by the 20-year rule accessible is as important as making accessible documents under the 3/5-year rules.
- Impact on candor:
  - Most responding authorities (85 percent) and EDs (58 percent) believe that an earlier release of Board papers in the archives would not affect candor.

### Box 2 — Evenhandedness: changes in intergroup disparities
- Method: rejection rate for modifications is the ratio of (i) number of requests rejected to (ii) total number of requests submitted, broken down by income groups (AEs, EMs, LICs) and modification types (corrections and deletions).
- Corrections:
  - Both country authorities’ and MCs’ responses show an increase in correction requests compared to the 2013 review—particularly for AEs and EMs.
  - Number of rejected requests has:
    - declined for LICs (MCs survey),
    - declined for EMs (authorities' survey),
    - increased significantly for AEs (both surveys).
  - Implication: lower rejection rate of corrections requests for LICs and EMs than observed in 2013, and higher rejection rate for AEs—supporting a tightening in intergroup rejection gaps.
- Deletions:
  - MCs’ survey suggests rejection rate has increased further for EMs (as submitted deletion requests declined and rejected ones increased) and likely decreased for AEs and LICs.
  - Country authorities’ responses show the rejection rate has likely declined for all income groups since the previous review.
  - Overall implication: mixed results but broadly suggest a tighter perceived intergroup rejection gap for deletions since the 2013 review, indicating a weaker perception of uneven application of the policy regarding deletions, particularly by country authorities.

---

### Views of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) on the Fund’s TP and OAP

A. The Fund’s Transparency Framework
- CSOs acknowledge significant progress since the 2013 TP review toward greater transparency and assess that the Fund’s transparency framework compares favorably to similar frameworks in other IFIs.
- Commendations and observations:
  - Publication of the calendar of Board discussions; more timely publication of AIV SRs; and efforts to inform civil society about engagements between the IMF and member countries.
  - CSOs have seen the Fund becoming more transparent over the past decade (2014-2023) and the IMF’s transparency policy compares favorably with other IFIs (e.g., World Bank (WB), Bank for International Settlements (BIS), regional development banks) on accessibility, frequency, and usefulness of documents on IMF.org.
  - Strong agreement that the TP has achieved the right balance between proactive disclosure and protection of confidential information.
  - Selected CSOs indicated that non-publication of some AIV reports and lack of transparency about the Fund’s Board proceedings undermine the Fund’s credibility and CSOs’ ability to influence national policy.

B. Areas for Improvement
- Candor and perceived differences:
  - Majority agree staff country reports adequately depict authorities’ views, even if they differ from staff advice.
  - Some CSOs still perceive differences in the candor of IMF country documents across groups of countries (by income levels, regions, and by use of Fund resources).
- Timeliness and clarity:
  - Timeliness of publication is adequate, but there is room for improvement to avoid long publication delays and to clarify which documents are not presumed to be published.
  - Some CSOs argue that the regime of “presumed, but voluntary” gives too much leeway to countries to avoid publication.
  - Complaints that reports for some countries are often published with long delays; scope seen for faster publication of SRs and avoiding unnecessary delays caused by long embargoes.

C. Communication beyond the Transparency Policy
- CSOs suggest improved communication to further support policy debates:
  - More cross-country comparative information to identify worst-performing countries, and more information about social spending and social protection would support policy debates.
  - Majority agreed language, content, and openness of IMF documents have improved; suggestions include translating more documents to languages other than English and adopting less technical language to allow greater citizen engagement.
  - Calls to enhance IMF website search functionality and better organize public-domain documents (e.g., compiling all documents pertaining to a specific program on a single page; PRs that relate to specific programs should include links to program documents).

D. Open Archives Policy
- Improved functionality of the OAP would support research on the Fund:
  - Majority of CSOs are aware of the Fund’s OAP and agree the 20-year rule for “other documentary material” is appropriate for transparency purposes.
  - Users pointed to long delays to receive requested documents and lack of access by researchers to Fund records physically at IMF headquarters during the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered academic research.

*Source: 2024 REVIEW OF THE FUND’S TRANSPARENCY POLICY AND OPEN ARCHIEVES POLICY—CONSULTATIONS (IMF staff summary).*

### Appendix I. Results of the Executive Directors

### Appendix I. Results of the Executive Directors

### Principles Underlying the Policy
- Number of responses: 19108114734667118
- Overall agreement on core principles:
  - Agree: 53506300507133505050576438
  - Strongly Agree: 425025100100502967255050293650
  - Weighted Average Score 1/: 4.32 4.50 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.29 4.67 3.75 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.36 4.25
- Selected question-level weighted averages:
  - 2.: 2.95 3.30 2.38 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.43 3.00 3.50 3.00 2.83 3.00 2.91 3.00
  - 3.: 3.68 3.80 3.50 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.14 3.67 3.00 3.83 4.17 3.14 4.00 3.25
  - 4.: 3.79 3.90 3.63 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.57 3.67 4.25 3.67 4.17 3.57 3.73 3.88

### Publication Timing and Communications
- Responses on timeliness and communication:
  - Weighted Average Score (overall): 3.84 3.70 3.88 5.00 5.00 3.25 4.14 3.33 4.00 3.67 3.67 4.14 3.64 4.13
- On whether the Fund generally published reports within two-weeks of the board meeting:
  - In the past five years, published within two-weeks: 5/3/6/0/0/0/2/5/8/6/6/7/1/?
  - (Raw response pattern recorded: Not at all 53605000258667256767296438; Slightly 2120250001433501733142713; To some extent 26202510010075002517057950; To a great extent 00000000000000)
  - Weighted Average Score (lag drivers): 1.74 1.60 1.75 3.00 3.00 2.50 1.14 1.33 2.00 1.50 1.33 2.29 1.45 2.13
- Scope for prompter publication:
  - Country reports: Weighted Average Score 1.79 1.50 2.13 2.00 2.00 2.25 1.29 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.83 2.43 1.18 2.63
  - Policy documents: Weighted Average Score 1.74 1.70 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.57 2.00 2.00 1.17 2.17 1.86 1.45 2.13
  - Prompt communications on Board discussions (e.g., press releases): Weighted Average Score 1.65 1.40 2.17 1.00 1.00 1.75 1.57 2.50 1.33 1.67 1.80 1.50 1.55 1.83

### Candor and Publication Consent
- Overall stance on candor and consent:
  - Agree: 74806310010010071337550671006488
  - Strongly Agree: 211038000146725333302713
  - Neither agree nor disagree: 51000001400170090
  - Weighted Average Score: 4.16 4.00 4.38 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.67 4.25 4.17 4.33 4.00 4.18 4.13
- Other question-level weighted averages:
  - 3.95 4.00 3.88 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.83
  - 3.74 3.60 3.88 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.86 4.00 3.25 3.50

- On whether authorities' consent concerns hinder publication:
  - Examples of response distributions:
    - Not at all: 53703800257167506710006438
    - Slightly: 16102500251433033014270
    - To some extent: 2620380050140500071950
    - To a great extent: 50010010000000014013
  - Weighted Average Score (sample): 2.88 2.54 3.04 5.04 5.04 3.29 2.47 2.37 3.04 2.37

### Key Content Reflected in Country Documents
- On whether each element is appropriately reflected:
  - Important economic information, Identified Policy Issues, Authorities' views — overall scores vary; sample aggregated Weighted Average Score patterns recorded in the file (multiple numeric vectors across income/region groups).
- On external pressures watering down reports (e.g., authorities, others):
  - Weighted Average Score example: 2.95 2.90 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.29 3.00 3.50 3.00 2.67 3.14 2.73 3.25

### Corrections and Deletions to Documents
- Frequency of correction requests from authorities:
  - Never: 110250001433001714913
  - Occasionally (less than half): 2120131001002529001717292713
  - Frequently: 688063007557671008367576475
- Approval of correction requests:
  - Yes, all the requests were approved: 00000000000000
  - Most approved: 325001001005014050500432738
  - Only a few approved: 26105000252967006714950
  - Some approved: 42405000255733505033436413
  - None approved: 00000000000000
- Frequency of deletion requests:
  - Never: 1620130002902517029270
  - Occasionally: 63507510010050431007533100574588
  - Frequently: 21301300502900500142713
- Approval of deletions (sample responses):
  - Yes, all approved: 601300003300170013
  - Most approved: 60010010000000014013
  - Only a few approved: 3333380075293304033293038
  - Some approved: 506738002557331006033576038
  - None approved: 601300014000170100
- Perceptions on rules flexibility (corrections/deletions):
  - On more flexibility in rules on corrections: Weighted Average Score examples: 3.42 3.80 2.88 4.00 4.00 3.25 3.57 3.33 3.25 3.83 3.67 2.86 3.64 3.13
  - On more flexibility in deletions: Weighted Average Score examples: 4.16 3.90 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.14 4.33 4.25 4.00 4.33 4.14 4.09 4.25

### Handling Confidential Information
- Extent to which current rules help preserve candor:
  - Responses indicate strong tilt to "To some extent" and "To a great extent" across groups.
  - Weighted Average Score examples: 4.00 4.10 3.88 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.86 4.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
- Assessment of confidentiality agreements:
  - Weighted Average Score examples: 3.99 4.04 3.91 4.04 4.04 3.54 3.90 4.04 4.55 3.87 4.04 4.04 3.95 4.04
- Evenhandedness and neutrality of treatment:
  - Distribution of views includes Tight 17038000176700600929; Moderately tight 1733000033025172014270; Neutral 5656501001001003333508320575557; Moderately loose 111113000170250029914
  - Evenhandedness Weighted Average Score: 3.05 3.30 2.88 2.00 2.00 3.50 2.86 2.67 3.50 3.17 3.32 2.71 3.27 2.75

### Archives Policy
- Views on public access to the Fund’s archives:
  - "Existing policies on public access to the Fund’s archives have promoted more transparency.": 798075010010071677510050867388
  - "The three-year period for access to Board papers is appropriate.": 7490500100751000756767868263
  - "Earlier release of Board papers into the Archive would affect candor (current rule is three years).": 42306300504333505033434538
  - "The five-year period for access to Executive Board minutes is too long. Earlier release of Board minutes would affect the can": 1110130025140017014180
  - Other archival views recorded: assorted distributions and weighted average patterns across income and region groupings (see dataset for full numeric vectors).

- Risks considered in deletion adequacy (abstracting from leaks):
  - Adverse market reactions; release of information on planned policies that could undermine authorities' ability to implement policies; possible misinterpretation by the general public — response distributions and weighted average scores recorded by income level and region.

*Appendix I. Results of the Executive Directors — survey response data and weighted average scores as presented in the source PDF.*

### Appendix II. Results of the Country Authorities’ Survey

### Appendix II. Results of the Country Authorities’ Survey

### Overall
- Number of responses
  - 742736117142711151262126247189
- Response distribution (selected items as presented)
  - Strongly Disagree: 5150000150006066011
  - Disagree: 1542218029493317152513151711
  - Neither agree nor disagree: 11411272974277171017109220
  - Agree: 34154445434319454017374232402222
  - Strongly Agree: 3563229292159182050321739303956
- Weighted Average Score (first block): 3.784.073.673.454.003.574.043.733.474.003.743.503.843.723.834.00

### Publication Timing and Communications
- Question framing and response blocks (selected entries as presented)
  - 3. Would you prefer prompter external communications regarding Board discussions on your country (e.g., press releases) independent of the publication of the report itself?
  - 1. In the past five years, staff reports on your country have been published within two-weeks of the board meeting.
  - The need for internal discussions and coordination among our authorities
  - Discussions on corrections/deletion requests
- Example response categories and weighted scores (as presented)
  - Not at all / Slightly / To some extent / To a great extent — Weighted Average Score: 2.832.183.073.312.613.622.172.943.253.142.772.942.802.992.482.54
  - Not at all / Slightly / To some extent / To a great extent — Weighted Average Score: 3.032.073.473.532.693.452.243.833.533.033.033.302.973.122.693.19
  - Not at all / Slightly / To some extent / To a great extent — Weighted Average Score: 2.572.352.632.922.432.762.332.243.042.412.602.402.622.602.532.53
  - Not at all / Slightly / To some extent / To a great extent — Weighted Average Score: 3.212.843.283.943.743.242.953.203.432.273.403.773.113.323.033.03

### Candor and Publication Consent
- Familiarity and consent items (selected entries)
  - 7. Was consent for publication of Board documents for your country not provided in …  (response pattern): Yes61745645295767825383565861605678
  - 8. Did any of the following factors constrain you in consenting to the publication of a staff report? (factors listed in source: Concerns on possibility/continuation of an IMF arrangement; Concerns about specific parts of the report being leaked; Political sensitivities; Other Factors; Important economic information; Identified policy Issues; Policy discussion; Risks to the outlook; The increased focus on risks (including the adverse scenario analysis); External assessments (including exchange rate assessments); Debt sustainability analysis; Fiscal space assessment; Third-party indicators)
- Extent to which factors constrained consent (selected summary metrics)
  - Somewhat / No / Not at all — entries: Somewhat30223627293630183317322531362211; No94827437401301117842211; Not at all10301400000202060
  - Extent categories — Weighted Average Score: 3.213.523.092.822.713.213.523.102.933.253.203.083.233.282.943.33
- Frequency of watering down of reports (as presented)
  - Never1419627337220701625112100
  - Occasionally (less than half of country reports)42196045674326644733443344474122
  - Frequently4463342705052364767394244325978

### Corrections and Deletions to Documents
- Requests and approvals (selected items)
  - 11. In the past few years, how often have you requested any corrections on the reports on your country?
    - Yes, all the requests were approved1113120508997171011111660
    - Most of the requests were approved38354225253841452942372240422444
    - Some requests were approved3848275003845274333383338324744
    - Only a few of the requests were approved14418252515518218153311112411
    - None of the requests were approved0000000000000000
  - 13. In the past few years, how often have you requested deletions on the reports on your country?
    - Yes, all the requests were approved61340250130007071000
    - Most of the requests were approved221928135002538171324252233014
    - Some requests were approved3744323805638254250342539373343
    - Only a few of the requests were approved27192838254413253338245022174243
    - None of the requests were approved8681300131380100103250
- Familiarity and views on rules (selected metrics)
  - 9. Are you familiar with the IMF's rules on corrections and deletions to Board documents? — Yes61785345505781642967603666705333; No39224755504319367133406434304767
  - 10. Would you agree that the IMF's rules on corrections and deletions allow for the preparation of and help preserve, candid staff reports for your country? — Weighted Average Score3.784.083.533.913.864.233.853.643.334.363.683.503.843.893.763.22
  - 14. Were the requests for deletions approved? — response pattern includes Never39483627573652272033403340433922; Occasionally51415855434341647342535850475078; Frequently91161802179725681011110

### Handling Confidential Information
- Perceptions of protection and flexibility (selected items)
  - 15. The IMF's rules on corrections and deletions are sufficiently flexible. — Weighted Average Score3.753.923.673.643.143.923.964.183.203.733.763.503.803.893.713.11
  - 16. The TP allows for appropriate changes when authorities' views within staff reports are erroneously reported. — Weighted Average Score3.253.503.172.903.143.313.483.302.793.183.273.273.253.223.293.33
  - 17. The framework for treating confidential information and deletions allowed under the TP provide sufficient protection against accidental disclosure of confidential information — Selected Weighted Average Score: 1.911.651.912.602.141.751.701.702.541.551.982.001.901.911.941.89

### Evenhandedness
- Perceptions and drivers (selected items)
  - 18. In your view to what extent is the IMF's Transparency Policy applied evenhandedly across countries? — Response summary entries as presented in the source.
  - 19. Do the following factors affect evenhanded application of transparency policy? (factors listed in source: Income level of the country; Geographic location/department of the country; Attitude of the authorities; External factors/global economic environment) — Response blocks and weighted scores presented in source.

### Archives Policy
- Use and assessments of the Fund's archives (selected items)
  - 20. Have you ever used the Fund's archive? — Yes14023180210362181581517110; No861007782100791006479928592858389100
  - 21. The Fund has been successful in facilitating public access to its Archives. — Existing policies on public access to the Fund’s archives have promoted more transpare67697145436967906091627366657167
  - Statements about timing and access (selected items and response fragments as presented)
    - The three-year period for access to Board papers is appropriate.2842201814837303345251830204144
    - Earlier release of Board papers into the Archive would affect candor (current rule is thre15122090231110271815916131822
    - The five-year period for access to Executive Board minutes is too long. Earlier release of 11121190151120701391113022
    - The release of Board minutes is as important as the release of staff reports.28193136433819402027284525351222
    - It is important for transparency that documents under any time rule, including 20 years 2227172703122202718232721202433
    - Making documents under the 20-year rule accessible under the Archive is less importan  841401484207010989611

*Appendix II. Results of the Country Authorities’ Survey (source content provided)*

### Appendix III. Results of the Mission Chiefs

### Appendix III. Results of the Mission Chiefs

### Publication and Timing
- Number of response109205039282325151711983871
- 1. Was your Article IV staff report published?
  - Yes, the report was published within 2-weeks of the Board discussion.74957267756188677673747673
  - Yes, the report was published within one month of the Board discussion, but with a lag longer than two-weeks.12014151117020189121610
  - Yes, the report was published, but with a lag longer than one-month.60887947618557
  - No, the report was not published.65484138000637
  - As far as I know, this country rarely or never publishes its staff reports.2023400700203
- 2. There is a scope for prompter publication of staff reports than currently observed.
  - Strongly disagree62043048131218538
  - Disagree1451221183047018131613
  - Neither agree nor disagree44355238503052533536453946
  - Agree2425242321302813249262623
  - Strongly agree12158151148132918111610
  - Weighted Average Score3.213.103.203.283.253.003.243.073.592.913.243.373.13
- 3. It is important to issue press releases as soon as possible after Board meetings.
  - Strongly disagree0000000000000
  - Disagree41023408709353
  - Neither agree nor disagree810123017160698311
  - Agree37303641324832403536372444
  - Strongly agree51505054643544535945526842
  - Weighted Average Score4.364.204.344.464.574.174.124.404.534.184.384.554.25
- 4. To what extent were lags in the publication of your staff report the result of the following?
  - The need to maintain relationships with the authorities
    - Not at all68855674824884536555697663
    - Slightly1510201072212131818141117
    - To some extent751234942060887
    - To a great extent100121372201312278513
    - Weighted Average Score1.601.201.801.541.362.041.201.931.652.001.551.421.69
  - Concerns on possibility/continuation of an IMF arrangement
    - Not at all59754469685768405345606158
    - Slightly13522511138132427111313
    - To some extent16520157221227120171615
    - To a great extent1315141014912201227111114
    - Weighted Average Score1.831.602.041.671.681.831.682.271.822.091.801.761.86
  - Concerns about risk of leaks
    - Not at all62805267793576605355637158
    - Slightly101016374161312910811
    - To some extent151016151143413027131315
    - To a great extent130161541741335913815
    - Weighted Average Score1.781.301.961.791.392.431.361.802.181.911.771.581.89
  - The expectation of publication of the staff report
    - Not at all88909085897888939482898789
    - Slightly4045444060453
    - To some extent2023404000231
    - To a great extent6104841747018557
    - Weighted Average Score1.271.301.201.331.211.571.241.201.061.551.231.261.27
  - The sensitivity of issues covered given the vulnerability of the economy
    - Not at all0000000000000 (table shows minimal affirmative counts)
    - Weighted Average Score1.061.051.081.031.041.041.081.001.121.091.051.031.07
- 5. The transparency policy appropriately balances the principles of timely disclosure of documents and information with the need to protect confidential information shared by member countries while also protecting the candor and independence of staff analysis.
  - Strongly disagree1500040000101
  - Disagree1310223717120291812517
  - Neither agree nor disagree30203431253036204127312434
  - Agree40503641434336532445404239
  - Strongly agree161582625416276916298
  - Weighted Average Score3.573.603.303.903.863.263.564.073.063.453.583.953.37
- 6. The TP provides sufficient protection against the negotiation of staff report and press releases—protecting the candor and independence of staff analysis.
  - Strongly disagree0000000000000
  - Disagree41520448000434
  - Neither agree nor disagree175221511261213241816821
  - Agree54555651574856475964535852
  - Strongly agree26252033292224401818273223
  - Weighted Average Score4.023.903.944.184.113.873.964.273.944.004.024.183.93
- 7. Do authorities respect the principle of non-negotiation of staff reports?
  - Strongly disagree2023040700203
  - Disagree122012872216761811317
  - Neither agree nor disagree1925201518222871827181621
  - Agree45354649434328675955445341
  - Strongly agree222020263292813180242918
  - Weighted Average Score3.733.553.703.874.003.303.683.733.883.363.784.083.55

### Candor
- 8. To what extent did pressures from the following parties cause the message of your staff report to be “watered down”?
  - Authorities/Executive Directors
    - Not at all74657282797464877155778270
    - Slightly16201613149287189161317
    - To some extent10151257178712367513
    - To a great extent0000000000000
    - Weighted Average Score1.361.501.401.231.291.431.441.201.411.821.311.241.42
  - Staff (e.g., front office reviewers) or management
    - Not at all83708292898764938873858980
    - Slightly1125887432061810514
    - To some extent4560444069334
    - To a great extent2040040700231
    - Weighted Average Score1.241.351.321.081.141.261.401.201.181.361.221.181.27
  - Others
    - Not at all959594979696921009491969794
    - Slightly4543448009334
    - To some extent1020000060101
    - To a great extent0000000000000
    - Weighted Average Score1.061.051.081.031.041.041.081.001.121.091.051.031.07

### Corrections and Deletions of Staff Reports
- 10. Did the authorities request any corrections to your last report?
  - Yes6410076313270847371100605072
  - No360246968301627290405028
- 10.1. Were the requests for corrections approved?
  - Yes, all the requests were approved (either directly or after consulting with SPR)9082533650898166
  - Yes, most of the requests were approved234018811253392545192622
  - Yes, some of the requests were approved40354533225033454245393243
  - Only a few of the requests were approved2125163322132927170251125
  - None of the requests were approved70130116018808164
- 11. Did the authorities request any deletions to your report?
  - Yes2230241572228332436201824
  - No78707685937872677664808276
- 11.1. Were the requests for deletions approved?
  - Yes, all the requests were approved (either directly or after consulting with SPR)4001750000005140
  - Most of the requests were approved2933331750043205075204324
  - Yes, some of the requests were approved0000000000000
  - Only a few of the requests were approved25171750080020250301429
  - None of the requests were approved4250501702057602525452947
- 12. Do you make any pre-screening to corrections and deletions requested by the authorities i.e., deciding on which requests to enter into the TP Portal?
  - Not at all9610092100100100100100751009510094
  - Slightly40800000250506
  - To some extent0000000000000
  - To a great extent0000000000000
  - Weighted Average Score1.041.00 1.081.001.001.001.001.001.251.001.051.001.06
- 12.1. Please provide an estimate of the share of corrections and deletions requests received from the authorities that were screened out and were NOT entered by your team into the TP Portal.
  - Yes53805241365272535382504756
  - No47204859644828474718505344
  - Less than 10%21191925302511133344162220
  - Between 10% and 25%2138121930252813022201723
  - Between 25% and 50%33254225201744502222352238
  - Between 50% and 75%19131925202511133311202815
  - Higher than 75%7686086131108115
- 13. Important economic information was omitted from the published staff report as a result of modifications before publication.
  - Not at all951009297939610010094100959596
  - Slightly3060440000333
  - To some extent1003400000130
  - To a great extent1020000060101
  - Weighted Average Score1.071.00 1.121.051.111.041.001.001.181.001.081.081.07
- 14. Would you agree that the rules on corrections allow for the preparation of a candid staff report?
  - Not at all658344071818456
  - Slightly1051013111740180111110
  - To some extent42354246545232333545425038
  - To a great extent42554038322664602936433446
  - Weighted Average Score3.213.403.143.213.143.003.603.472.763.003.233.133.25
- 15. Would you agree that the rules on deletions allow for the preparation of a candid staff report?
  - Not at all11151281417071818101310
  - Slightly1101413713413240121310
  - To some extent44354449574348273545445041
  - To a great extent34503031212648532436342439
  - Weighted Average Score3.013.202.923.032.862.783.443.272.653.003.012.843.10
- 16. To what degree have concerns on the following topics complicated efforts to prepare reports that can be published without significant corrections and/or deletions.
  - Depiction of Authorities’ View
    - Not at all52554264683044734755525849
    - Slightly222026182126327180242123
    - To some extent20252413113524131845171821
    - To a great extent60850907180637
    - Weighted Average Score1.791.70 1.981.591.432.221.801.532.061.911.781.661.86
  - Focus on risks (including External sector assessment, Debt sustainability analysis, Fiscal space assessment, Third-party indicators)
    - Not at all69806469715768876582676869
    - Slightly20024262526207180222120
    - To some extent72063413120618658
    - To a great extent40630407120453
    - Weighted Average Score1.461.401.541.381.321.651.441.271.651.361.471.45

### Policy Clarity and Flexibility
- 17. More flexibility in the rules on corrections (as opposed to the current rule limiting corrections to factual errors, typographical errors, mischaracterizations of the authorities’ views, and evident ambiguity) would:
  - Make your job more difficult by increasing the number of requests for changes, absorbing more staff time
    - Not at all62706062616160676564626859
    - Slightly2520282329263227636231828
    - To some extent9106131148024010137
    - To a great extent4063090760406
    - Weighted Average Score1.541.401.581.561.501.611.481.471.711.361.561.451.59
  - Result in less candid reports
    - Not at all78806890897460878264808475
    - Slightly16526871728131218151317
    - To some extent610634980618437
    - To a great extent1500004000101
    - Weighted Average Score1.291.401.381.131.141.351.561.131.241.551.271.181.35
  - Result in negotiating some parts of staff reports and undermine staff independence
    - Not at all72807267647868807182705879
    - Slightly15516181817813180162111
    - To some extent1010101014020012189138
    - To a great extent4525444700481
    - Weighted Average Score1.461.40 1.421.541.571.301.601.331.411.361.471.711.32
  - Result in more staff reports being published on the external website
    - Not at all64656267714860806555655868
    - Slightly1915202118222020189202615
    - To some extent1115128713200122791111
    - To a great extent65654170069556
    - Weighted Average Score1.581.601.621.511.432.001.601.201.591.911.541.631.55
  - Reduce the possibility of misinterpretation of information
    - Not at all920684138024188014
    - Slightly165241018134202918152610
    - To some extent50304469576540474127535349
    - To a great extent254526132194833636232127
    - Weighted Average Score2.913.002.902.872.962.703.283.132.292.822.922.952.89
- 18. There is a need to tighten rules for corrections and/or deletions to better protect staff independence.
  - Not at all1115101042247241810514
  - Slightly172014212117820240192613
  - To some extent51355062615244534764505052
  - To a great extent20302681494420618201821
  - Weighted Average Score2.812.802.922.672.862.483.282.872.352.822.812.822.80
- 19. The TP provides appropriate flexibility for changes to authorities’ views when they are erroneously reported in staff reports.
  - Not at all182518157261213411818525
  - Slightly24202228292620271827233418
  - To some extent44404249504348403545444544
  - To a great extent1415188144202069141613
  - Weighted Average Score2.532.452.602.492.712.262.762.672.062.452.542.712.44
- 20. Modifications to authorities’ views should be subject to the same rules as modifications of other parts of staff reports (e.g., staff’s views).
  - Strongly disagree2005700000250
  - Disagree1120125442013189111310
  - Neither agree nor disagree55704856544864674191515356
  - Agree261032262943167290292427
  - Strongly agree608874013120757
  - Weighted Average Score3.242.903.363.263.253.482.963.203.352.913.283.113.31
- 21. More flexibility in handling administrative errors is required under the TP.
  - Strongly disagree41040448000453
  - Disagree1420141011132401818131314
  - Neither agree nor disagree49404656574332536545495048
  - Agree29253426183932471836292432
  - Strongly agree55281104000583
  - Weighted Average Score3.172.953.163.313.213.173.003.473.003.183.173.163.18
- 17 (continued). Make your job more difficult by making it more difficult to resist unreasonable requests
  - Strongly disagree2005700000250
  - Disagree6154509127696010
  - Neither agree nor disagree38353641393528404764353241
  - Agree36304033364336273518384531
  - Strongly agree1820201518132427129191818
  - Weighted Average Score3.623.553.763.493.573.613.723.733.533.273.663.713.58

### Views on Handling Confidential Information and Evenhandedness
- 22. Abstracting from the risk of leaks, do you think that the Fund’s transparency rules provide adequate safeguards against the following?
  - Adverse market reactions
    - Not at all38552841323540334745372942
    - Slightly195222332171213180212914
    - To some extent30203628253528472445293230
    - To a great extent13201481113207129131114
    - Weighted Average Score2.182.052.362.032.142.262.282.272.002.182.182.242.15
  - Release of information on planned policies that could undermine the authorities’ ability to implement these policies
    - Not at all50654056464856336564493758
    - Slightly2015241832171620129212418
    - To some extent19102418181716272418192914
    - To a great extent1010128417122009101110
    - Weighted Average Score1.891.652.081.771.792.041.842.331.591.731.912.131.76
  - Possible misinterpretation of messages and/or information by the general public
    - Not at all30402631292624472927312632
    - Slightly2720243332302033189293224
    - To some extent2315242629173272418232920
    - To a great extent20252610112624132945171324
    - Weighted Average Score2.332.252.502.152.212.432.561.872.532.822.282.292.35
- 23. There is a need to strengthen the handling of confidential information to better protect certain types of data.
  - Not at all50704054544360335355503459
  - Slightly27203618292624332427273423
  - To some extent17018261817827249182613
  - To a great extent610630138709556
  - Weighted Average Score1.781.501.901.771.642.001.642.071.711.731.792.031.65
- 24. The transparency policy is applied evenhandedly across countries.
  - Not at all920684138024188014
  - Slightly165241018134202918152610
  - To some extent50304469576540474127535349
  - To a great extent254526132194833636232127
  - Weighted Average Score2.913.002.902.872.962.703.283.132.292.822.922.952.89
- 25. Geoeconomic fragmentation could be a threat to the evenhandedness of staff reports.
  - Not at all1115101042247241810514
  - Slightly172014212117820240192613
  - To some extent51355062615244534764505052
  - To a great extent20302681494420618201821
  - Weighted Average Score2.812.802.922.672.862.483.282.872.352.822.812.822.80
- 26. Do the following factors affect evenhanded application of transparency policy?
  - Income level of the country; Geographic location/department of the country; Attitude of the authorities; External factors/global economic environment
    - Responses are reported across categories in the survey tables above with weighted average scores and distribution of responses by Not at all / Slightly / To some extent / To a great extent.

*Appendix III. Results of the Mission Chiefs*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024059.pdf_