Frequently Asked Questions on Governance Diagnostic
Source details
- Canonical URL
- Frequently Asked Questions on Governance Diagnostic
Other formats
Purpose and scope of a Governance Diagnostic (GD)
- Governance Diagnostics (GD) analyze and recommend actions for addressing corruption vulnerabilities and strengthening integrity & governance in IMF member countries.
- A GD analyzes and recommends actions for addressing systemic corruption vulnerabilities and strengthening integrity & governance in IMF member countries.
- GDs examine the severity of corruption vulnerabilities across the six core state functions:
- fiscal governance
- central bank governance and operations
- financial sector oversight
- rule of law
- market regulation
- AML-CFT
- GDs also assess the effectiveness of anti-corruption legal and institutional frameworks.
- Following analysis, GDs propose prioritized and sequenced advice on systematically addressing the vulnerabilities.
- Note: In some cases, referred to as Governance Diagnostic Assessment or Governance and Corruption Diagnostic.
Process, timing, and voluntary nature
- A GD is voluntary for both a member country and the IMF, and is an IMF capacity development activity.
- Initiation:
- Initiated on request from authorities and subject to resource availability.
- IMF staff discuss the scope and timing of delivering a GD up front with the authorities.
- A call for a GD may arise during IMF lending and surveillance activities; it remains a voluntary exercise in such cases.
- GDs are conducted through a series of stages:
- scoping mission — frames the remit of the main mission and reaches agreement with authorities on focus areas;
- main mission — centers on assessing substantive governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities within core state functions;
- desk work — leads to production of a comprehensive report outlining findings and recommendations.
- Genuine cooperation between IMF staff and authorities is essential, requiring authorities’ commitment to constructively organize missions and provide timely access to all necessary information.
- GDs are guided by the IMF’s 2018 Framework on Enhanced Engagement on Governance.
Ownership, publication, and stakeholder engagement
- A member country is expected to fully own the reform program and address governance and corruption vulnerabilities identified in a Diagnostic.
- Authorities are expected during production to provide access to all necessary legal and administrative documents and facilitate the GD mission team’s contacts with:
- civil society organizations
- the private sector
- think tanks
- academia
- GDs are expected to be published to encourage transparency and facilitate extensive support from all key stakeholders on governance reforms, although publication is at the prerogative of country authorities.
- Practices observed:
- Several authorities have also published GDs on their own web sites.
- Some GD reports have been published as the authorities’ own report, prepared in collaboration with the IMF.
- Prior to undertaking a Diagnostic, authorities often commit to publishing the GD report and/or the reform plan derived from the Diagnostic.
- GD reports draw heavily on local knowledge and expertise and engage a variety of stakeholders and development partners to inform findings and recommendations.
- In some countries, civil society organizations remain actively involved in monitoring implementation of GD recommendations and assessing the impact of reform.
Findings, outputs, and current status
- Since 2018, twenty-one GD Reports have been finalized.
- Recent Diagnostics include Haiti, Sri-Lanka, Mauritania, Cameroon, Zambia, and Benin.
- Ten Diagnostics are currently ongoing, and others are under consideration.
- Findings of the Diagnostic inform:
- authorities’ governance and anti-corruption reforms
- IMF-supported programs
- surveillance in the context of Article IV missions
- capacity development work
- Some Diagnostic recommendations become conditionality in subsequent IMF-supported programs.
References