## _042110a

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_042110a](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_042110a.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_042110a.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_042110a.pdf.json)

---

### Reform package — scope and priorities
- Comprehensive reform of Fund governance covers: quotas, ministerial engagement and oversight, size and composition of the Executive Board, voting rules, management selection, and staff diversity.
- Most elements will need to be decided as a package because of linkages and trade-offs, although some could be taken up sooner.
- The Board focuses recent deliberations on four areas: quotas, IMFC procedures, selection of Executive Directors, and management selection.

### Quotas — overview, progress, and timeline
- Realigning quota shares is a core element of the reform package.
- Ratification status of 2008 reforms:
  - 70 out of the required 112 members have accepted the proposed amendment.
  - Those 70 members represent 73 percent of the total voting power.
  - 85 percent is required for the amendment to become effective.
- IMFC-targeted shift objective:
  - Achieving a “shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries of at least 5 percent from over-represented to under-represented countries using the current quota formula as the basis to work from” raises multiple issues:
    - Whether the targeted shift should be to dynamic EMDCs, all under-represented countries (including non EMDCs), or EMDCs as a group, and how to define dynamism.
    - The size of the shift (whether 5 percent or more).
    - Whether the formula should be modified or whether ad hoc increases can secure needed realignment.
  - The overall increase in quotas is linked to quota redistribution; a larger increase could provide more room for realignment.
- Progress to date:
  - Board simulations using preliminary data indicate the IMFC-targeted shift could be achieved using the current formula depending on choices among the formulations above.
  - Alternative scenarios of aggregate quota needs have been discussed.
  - Final data for quota calculations will be available soon after the Spring Meetings.
  - Modalities for protecting voting share of the poorest members (e.g., ad hoc increases in quota or a further increase in basic votes) will be part of forthcoming discussions.
- Timeline:
  - Reaching agreement on these issues—especially by the target date of January 2011—requires considerably more work.

### Ministerial engagement and IMFC procedures
- Purpose: Ministerial engagement can enhance strategic direction and oversight of the Fund.
- Converting the IMFC into a decision-making Council did not command a majority; many remain open depending on progress on quotas and other governance areas.
- Options to improve IMFC processes with preliminary broad support for first two items:
  - Agenda-setting:
    - Early and intensified outreach to members by the IMFC chair for inputs in the preparatory phase.
  - Meetings:
    - Greater use of informal restricted sessions could foster interaction, at a possible cost in transparency and broader participation.
  - Inclusive leadership:
    - A troika leadership model could allow greater diversity of views and smooth transitions between chairs; issues of term length and rotation need exploration.
  - Accountability:
    - One option is an explicit mandate for the IMFC to hold the Executive Board accountable for progress toward strategic priorities, requiring appropriate delineation of responsibilities among IMFC, Executive Board, and management.
- Additional points from Attachments:
  - Intensify outreach to IMFC members in preparatory phase to ensure agenda items have clear value added.
  - Many Directors supported or were open to a troika model; term and rotation require further work.
  - Many Directors saw merit in more informal restricted sessions while some cautioned about transparency and participation concerns.
  - Views diverged on strengthening accountability mechanisms; many saw benefit in considering an IMFC mandate to hold the Executive Board accountable, while others saw no shortcomings in existing mechanisms.
  - Overlap of G20 and IMFC membership/issues raises questions of redundancy and coherence; most Directors preferred maintaining the status quo until greater clarity on IMFC reform and G20 focus.

### Executive Board — composition and selection issues
- Role: A strong Executive Board is central to decision-making and bringing members’ voice into operations.
- Two ideas discussed:
  - All-elected Board:
    - Abolish the present dual system of appointed and elected chairs and replace with an all-elected system.
    - Could facilitate quota shifts, accommodate voluntary consolidation of chairs, and create a more level playing field.
    - Practical difference is debatable; would require safeguards to maintain a relatively equitable distribution of voting power.
  - Additional Alternate Executive Director:
    - Allow multi-country constituencies to appoint an additional Alternate Executive Director to facilitate realignment of constituencies, with implications for Board size and budget.
- Related considerations:
  - Board size, composition, appointments versus election of Executive Directors, and voting rules (e.g., reduce special majorities from “7085 percent”?) are linked with these options.
  - Further consideration required on limits on the percentage of votes any one elected Director can cast and related safeguards.
- Views and next steps:
  - A number of Directors remained unconvinced of the benefits of moving to an all-elected Board, viewing discussion as premature.
  - Most Directors stressed that a decision on an all-elected Board cannot be taken in isolation from other governance-related reforms.
  - A brief progress report on governance reforms since the Annual Meetings in Istanbul will be prepared for transmittal to the IMFC ahead of the Spring Meetings.
  - Directors will have further opportunities to discuss all governance agenda issues, including a follow-up on the role of the IMFC to inform broader quota, governance, and mandate reforms.

### Selection of Fund management
- Objective: Adopt “an open, merit-based and transparent process for the selection of IMF management” as requested by the IMFC.
- Existing 2007 Decision elements contributing to the objective include:
  - Detailed qualification criteria.
  - Establishment of a nomination process.
  - Explicit reference that the Executive Board will consider nominated candidates “without geographical preferences”.
- Areas for improvement under discussion:
  - Under the 2007 Decision only Executive Directors are eligible to nominate candidates.
  - Explore opening nominations further, for example by permitting Governors, former Governors, Alternate Governors, and former Executive Directors to participate in nominations.
  - Further work needed on confidentiality and shortlisting.
- Process next steps:
  - The Executive Board intends to finalize a revised decision on the selection process for the Managing Director in the near future.
  - Success of a revised framework in creating an open, merit-based, and transparent process depends on whether the Fund’s membership is willing to take full advantage of it.

### Staff diversity and Diversity Scorecard
- Rationale: Enhancing diversity by nationality, gender, education, and experience brings benefits, subject to Articles’ requirement to secure the highest standards of technical competence.
- Progress:
  - Despite progress over the years, there is a clear sense the pace of efforts needs to be accelerated.
  - A diversity scorecard was recently introduced across all departments for transparent and quarterly reporting of progress in increasing the share of under-represented staff.
  - Attachment 3 provides details on the diversity scorecard.
- Scope and benchmarks:
  - The Diversity Scorecard measures progress towards diversity benchmarks set for 20092014.
  - Regional benchmarks for Africa, East Asia, the Middle East, and Transition Countries have been aggregated to:
    - 36 percent at the A9B5 (economists and other specialists) level.
    - 22 percent at the B1B5 (managerial) level.
  - Women’s economist and specialized career stream (SCS) benchmarks have been aggregated to a 20 percent target.
  - The table tracks three diversity groupings over the 20062009 period.

### Diversity Scorecard — Key performance indicator (KPI) figures tracked
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 25.24%
  - Ending Value: 27.33%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 2.09%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 2.15%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.76
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 13.15%
  - Ending Value: 13.73%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.58%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.77%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.62
- Share of B level women staff
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 16.21%
  - Ending Value: 18.30%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 2.09%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.75%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.92
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 24.13%
  - Ending Value: 25.24%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.11%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.98%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.70
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 12.10%
  - Ending Value: 13.15%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.05%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.65%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.60
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 15.56%
  - Ending Value: 16.21%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.65%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.71%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.82
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 22.88%
  - Ending Value: 24.13%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.25%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.87%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.67
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 12.68%
  - Ending Value: 12.10%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -0.58%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.33%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.55
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 16.34%
  - Ending Value: 15.56%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -0.78%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.52%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.78
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 22.84%
  - Ending Value: 22.88%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.05%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.65%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.64
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 14.39%
  - Ending Value: 12.68%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -1.71%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.95%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.58
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 15.80%
  - Ending Value: 16.34%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.54%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.54%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.81

### Summary findings and risks from the Scorecard
- Overall representation has grown for each diversity group, in particular in the past two years.
- In 11 out of 12 instances tracked, representation growth has been less than the expected percentage change required to reach the 2014 benchmarks; the sole exception was the increase of B-level (managerial) women in 2009.
- The share of B-level staff from underrepresented regions is of particular concern, having registered a decline for two out of the last four years.
  - At just over 60 percent of the 22 percent benchmark for 2014, this group is the furthest away from its goal.
- The expected percentage change for each group will get bigger, given the finite timeline to reach the benchmarks and the current trend of below expected growth.
  - Unless the pace of change picks up, these benchmarks could become very difficult to meet as we get closer to 2014.

### Next steps and timelines
- The Executive Board will continue deliberations on all issues on the quota and governance reform agenda.
- The aim is to decide on a comprehensive reform package by January 2011.
- Staff will finalize the 2008 data set and issue a paper with updated quota calculations soon after the Spring Meetings.

*International Monetary Fund — Executive Board Progress Report to the IMFC: The Reform of Fund Governance, April 21, 2010.*

### Section 1

### _042110a - Section 1

### Reform package
- Comprehensive reform of Fund governance covers: quotas, ministerial engagement and oversight, size and composition of the Executive Board, voting rules, management selection, and staff diversity.
- Most elements will need to be decided as a package because of linkages and trade-offs, although some could be taken up sooner.
- The Board focuses recent deliberations on four areas: quotas, IMFC procedures, selection of Executive Directors, and management selection.

### Quotas — overview and progress
- Realigning quota shares is a core element of the reform package.
- Ratification status of 2008 reforms:
  - 70 out of the required 112 members have accepted the proposed amendment.
  - Those 70 members represent 73 percent of the total voting power.
  - 85 percent is required for the amendment to become effective.
- IMFC-targeted shift objective:
  - Achieving a “shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries of at least 5 percent from over-represented to under-represented countries using the current quota formula as the basis to work from” raises multiple issues:
    - Whether the targeted shift should be to dynamic EMDCs, all under-represented countries (including non EMDCs), or EMDCs as a group, and how to define dynamism.
    - The size of the shift (whether 5 percent or more).
    - Whether the formula should be modified or whether ad hoc increases can secure needed realignment.
  - The overall increase in quotas is linked to quota redistribution; a larger increase could provide more room for realignment.
- Progress to date:
  - Board simulations using preliminary data indicate the IMFC-targeted shift could be achieved using the current formula depending on choices among the formulations above.
  - Alternative scenarios of aggregate quota needs have been discussed.
  - Final data for quota calculations will be available soon after the Spring Meetings.
  - Modalities for protecting voting share of the poorest members (e.g., ad hoc increases in quota or a further increase in basic votes) will be part of forthcoming discussions.
- Timeline:
  - Reaching agreement on these issues—especially by the target date of January 2011—requires considerably more work.

### Ministerial engagement and IMFC procedures
- Purpose: Ministerial engagement can enhance strategic direction and oversight of the Fund.
- Converting the IMFC into a decision-making Council did not command a majority; many remain open depending on progress on quotas and other governance areas.
- Options to improve IMFC processes with preliminary broad support for first two items:
  - Agenda-setting:
    - Early and intensified outreach to members by the IMFC chair for inputs in the preparatory phase.
  - Meetings:
    - Greater use of informal restricted sessions could foster interaction, at a possible cost in transparency and broader participation.
  - Inclusive leadership:
    - A troika leadership model could allow greater diversity of views and smooth transitions between chairs; issues of term length and rotation need exploration.
  - Accountability:
    - One option is an explicit mandate for the IMFC to hold the Executive Board accountable for progress toward strategic priorities, requiring appropriate delineation of responsibilities among IMFC, Executive Board, and management.
- Additional points from Attachments:
  - Intensify outreach to IMFC members in preparatory phase to ensure agenda items have clear value added.
  - Many Directors supported or were open to a troika model; term and rotation require further work.
  - Many Directors saw merit in more informal restricted sessions while some cautioned about transparency and participation concerns.
  - Views diverged on strengthening accountability mechanisms; many saw benefit in considering an IMFC mandate to hold the Executive Board accountable, while others saw no shortcomings in existing mechanisms.
  - Overlap of G20 and IMFC membership/issues raises questions of redundancy and coherence; most Directors preferred maintaining the status quo until greater clarity on IMFC reform and G20 focus.

### Executive Board — composition and selection issues
- Role: A strong Executive Board is central to decision-making and bringing members’ voice into operations.
- Two ideas discussed:
  - All-elected Board:
    - Abolish the present dual system of appointed and elected chairs and replace with an all-elected system.
    - Could facilitate quota shifts, accommodate voluntary consolidation of chairs, and create a more level playing field.
    - Practical difference is debatable; would require safeguards to maintain a relatively equitable distribution of voting power.
  - Additional Alternate Executive Director:
    - Allow multi-country constituencies to appoint an additional Alternate Executive Director to facilitate realignment of constituencies, with implications for Board size and budget.
- Related considerations:
  - Board size, composition, appointments versus election of Executive Directors, and voting rules (e.g., reduce special majorities from “7085 percent”?) are linked with these options.
  - Further consideration required on limits on the percentage of votes any one elected Director can cast and related safeguards.

### Selection of Fund management
- Objective: Adopt “an open, merit-based and transparent process for the selection of IMF management” as requested by the IMFC.
- Existing 2007 Decision elements contributing to the objective include:
  - Detailed qualification criteria.
  - Establishment of a nomination process.
  - Explicit reference that the Executive Board will consider nominated candidates “without geographical preferences”.
- Areas for improvement under discussion:
  - Under the 2007 Decision only Executive Directors are eligible to nominate candidates.
  - Explore opening nominations further, for example by permitting Governors, former Governors, Alternate Governors, and former Executive Directors to participate in nominations.
  - Further work needed on confidentiality and shortlisting.
- Process next steps:
  - The Executive Board intends to finalize a revised decision on the selection process for the Managing Director in the near future.
  - Success of a revised framework in creating an open, merit-based, and transparent process depends on whether the Fund’s membership is willing to take full advantage of it.

### Staff diversity
- Rationale: Enhancing diversity by nationality, gender, education, and experience brings benefits, subject to Articles’ requirement to secure the highest standards of technical competence.
- Progress:
  - Despite progress over the years, there is a clear sense the pace of efforts needs to be accelerated.
  - A diversity scorecard was recently introduced across all departments for transparent and quarterly reporting of progress in increasing the share of under-represented staff.
  - Attachment 3 provides details on the diversity scorecard.

### Next steps and timelines
- The Executive Board will continue deliberations on all issues on the quota and governance reform agenda.
- The aim is to decide on a comprehensive reform package by January 2011.
- Staff will finalize the 2008 data set and issue a paper with updated quota calculations soon after the Spring Meetings.

### Key elements summarized from Table 1
- Quota and Voice:
  - Size of the quota shift: whether 5 percent or more
  - Re-allocation of shares:
    - Group: dynamic EMDCs/all under-represented/EMDCs as a group
    - Definition of dynamism
    - Allocation mechanism: ad hoc or to all on the basis of calculated shares (selective)
  - Formula:
    - Use current formula for now and re-visit the formula in due course
    - Work on improving formula now
  - Size of overall quota increase
  - Protecting the voting power of LICs—modalities (e.g., ad hoc increase, basic votes)
- Ministerial Engagement and Oversight:
  - IMFC reforms:
    - Agenda-setting process
    - Inclusive leadership model
    - Meetings: more informal, conducive to interaction and dialogue
  - Decision-making body: activate Council?
  - Accountability mandate
- Executive Board: Composition, Size, Role and Decision Making:
  - Composition
  - Size
  - Appointments versus election of Executive Directors
  - Second Alternate Executive Director for multi-country constituencies
  - Roles: clear delineation of responsibilities
  - Voting rules: reduce special majorities (7085 percent)?
- Management and Staff:
  - Management selection process
  - Staff diversity

*International Monetary Fund — Executive Board Progress Report to the IMFC: The Reform of Fund Governance, April 21, 2010.*

### Section 2

### _042110a - Section 2

### Governance discussions and Board composition
- A number of Directors remained unconvinced of the benefits of moving to an all-elected Board, and they viewed this discussion as premature.
- Most Directors stressed that a decision on an all-elected Board cannot be taken in isolation from other governance-related reforms.
- Additional Alternate Executive Director for multi-country constituencies:
  - Noting that allowing a larger number of multi-country chairs to appoint a second Alternate Executive Director could further facilitate a realignment of constituencies, a number of Directors supported further consideration of this proposal.
  - A few Directors noted implications for Board size and the budget.
- Next steps:
  - A brief progress report on governance reforms since the Annual Meetings in Istanbul will be prepared for transmittal to the IMFC ahead of the Spring Meetings.
  - Directors will have further opportunities to discuss all the issues on the governance agenda, including a follow-up on the role of the IMFC, so that these might inform the broader debate on quota, governance, and mandate reforms.

### Diversity Scorecard: scope and benchmarks
- The Diversity Scorecard measures progress towards diversity benchmarks set for 20092014.
- Regional benchmarks for Africa, East Asia, the Middle East, and Transition Countries have been aggregated to:
  - 36 percent at the A9B5 (economists and other specialists) level.
  - 22 percent at the B1B5 (managerial) level.
- Women’s economist and specialized career stream (SCS) benchmarks have been aggregated to a 20 percent target.
- The table tracks three diversity groupings over the 20062009 period.

### Key performance indicator (KPI) figures tracked in the Scorecard
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 25.24%
  - Ending Value: 27.33%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 2.09%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 2.15%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.76
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 13.15%
  - Ending Value: 13.73%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.58%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.77%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.62
- Share of B level women staff
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 16.21%
  - Ending Value: 18.30%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 2.09%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.75%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.92
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 24.13%
  - Ending Value: 25.24%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.11%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.98%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.70
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 12.10%
  - Ending Value: 13.15%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.05%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.65%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.60
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 15.56%
  - Ending Value: 16.21%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.65%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.71%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.82
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 22.88%
  - Ending Value: 24.13%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 1.25%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.87%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.67
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 12.68%
  - Ending Value: 12.10%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -0.58%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.33%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.55
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 16.34%
  - Ending Value: 15.56%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -0.78%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.52%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.78
- Share of A9-B5 level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 36.00%
  - Starting Value: 22.84%
  - Ending Value: 22.88%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.05%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 1.65%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.64
- Share of B level staff from underrepresented regions (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 22.00%
  - Starting Value: 14.39%
  - Ending Value: 12.68%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: -1.71%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.95%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.58
- Share of B level women staff (alternate observation)
  - 2014 Target Percentage Value: 20.00%
  - Starting Value: 15.80%
  - Ending Value: 16.34%
  - Trending Actual Percent Change: 0.54%
  - Minimum Expected Average Percent Change: 0.54%
  - Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Score: 0.81

### Summary findings from the Scorecard narrative
- Overall representation has grown for each diversity group, in particular in the past two years.
- In 11 out of 12 instances tracked, representation growth has been less than the expected percentage change required to reach the 2014 benchmarks; the sole exception was the increase of B-level (managerial) women in 2009.
- The share of B-level staff from underrepresented regions is of particular concern, having registered a decline for two out of the last four years.
  - At just over 60 percent of the 22 percent benchmark for 2014, this group is the furthest away from its goal.
- The expected percentage change for each group will get bigger, given the finite timeline to reach the benchmarks and the current trend of below expected growth.
  - Unless the pace of change picks up, these benchmarks could become very difficult to meet as we get closer to 2014.

*Source: _042110a - Section 2*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_042110a.pdf_