The IMF's Response to COVID-19

Last Updated: June 29, 2020

As IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has said, the Fund is working 24/7 to support our member countries—with policy advice, technical assistance and financial resources. In this FAQ you will find the Fund's response to COVID-19 in more detail.

Back to Top

What is the Fund doing to help countries during the coronavirus crisis?

The IMF is responding to the coronavirus crisis with unprecedented speed and magnitude of financial assistance to help countries protect the lives and livelihoods of people, especially the most vulnerable.

In addition to providing policy advice and technical assistance, the Fund’s actions are focused on five tracks:

  1. Emergency financing – The IMF is responding to an unprecedented number of calls for emergency financing – from 102 countries so far. The Fund has doubled the access to its emergency facilities—the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) —allowing it to meet the expected demand of about $100 billion in financing. These facilities allow the Fund to provide emergency assistance without the need to have a full-fledged program in place. Financing has already been approved by the IMF’s Executive Board at record speed for more than 70 countries. In June, the IMF approved the first stand-by-arrangement since the beginning of the pandemic. Please see the IMF’s COVID-19 Financial Assistance and Debt Service Relief tracker for the most recent detailed data.
  2. Grants for debt relief – In April, the IMF Executive Board approved immediate debt service relief to 29 countries under the IMF’s revamped Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) as part of the Fund’s response to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This provides grants to the Fund’s poorest members to cover their IMF debt obligations for an initial phase over the next six months and will help them channel more of their scarce financial resources towards vital emergency medical and other relief efforts. The Fund is currently fundraising with the goal of significantly increasing the CCRT, so that we can extend the duration of grant-based debt relief to our most vulnerable members to up to two years.
  3. Calls for bilateral debt relief – The IMF Managing Director and the President of the World Bank recognized the heavy burden this crisis is having on Low Income Countries and, on March 25, called on bilateral creditors to suspend debt service payments from the poorest countries. The G20 responded to this call on April 15 by agreeing to suspend repayment of official bilateral credit from the poorest countries. This will serve as a powerful, fast-acting initiative that will do much to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of millions of the most vulnerable people. The International Institute for Finance (IIF), too, responded to this call recommending that private-sector creditors grant debt payment forbearance in a similar way and, in May, the IIF released Terms of Reference for private sector participation on a voluntary basis.
  4. Enhancing liquidity – The Fund has also approved the establishment of a Short-term Liquidity Line (SLL) to further strengthen the global financial safety. The facility is a revolving and renewable backstop for member countries with very strong policies and fundamentals in need of short-term moderate balance of payments support.
  5. Adjusting existing lending arrangements – The Fund is also augmenting existing lending programs to accommodate urgent new needs arising from the coronavirus, thereby enabling existing resources to be channeled for the necessary spending on medical supplies and equipment and for containment of the outbreak.
  6. Capacity Development – In response to the pandemic, the IMF is providing real-time policy advice and capacity development support to over 160 countries to address urgent issues such as cash management, financial supervision, cybersecurity and economic governance. In particular, the Fund has been working with tax administrations and budget offices in many countries to help them restore operations and strengthen support to businesses and individuals, without compromising safeguards and accountability. IMF technical experts are also working with countries to revise and update their debt management strategies. The Fund has also made its online courses available to government officials and members of the general public with extended registration and completion timelines. In addition, the IMF has launched its Learning Channel on YouTube, offering short and targeted on-demand microlearning videos.

Back to Top

Why has the IMF not lent more (out of its US$1 trillion lending capacity)? When will the US$1 trillion balance sheet be deployed?

The IMF provides financing to its members from the following sources:

  • General Resources Account (GRA), which consists of the IMF’s quota and borrowed resources and is available to all IMF members, and
  • Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT), which borrows from IMF members and on-lends these borrowed resources to low income countries on concessional terms. The PRGT’s annual lending envelope, which can be supported on a self-sustaining basis, is SDR 1.25 billion and is separate from the accounts of the IMF. To meet the higher demand from low-income countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the IMF is approaching bilateral lenders and donors to augment the PRGT’s resources.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the IMF has lent to more than 70 countries, drawing on the GRA and PRGT (for the most recent detailed data, please see the IMF’s COVID-19 Financial Assistance and Debt Service Relief Tracker. Much of this was provided under emergency financing instruments designed to help countries with urgent balance of payments needs.

This emergency financing is disbursed very quickly and without conditionality after program approval, up to 100 percent of the country’s quota in the IMF. During the current crisis, the IMF was therefore able to speedily approve emergency finance to a large number of countries.

Some countries, however, may need more help, especially as the economic impact of the pandemic persists. For such needs, the IMF stands ready with its other lending instruments, which have a longer duration and can provide larger total amounts. In June 2020, the IMF approved the first stand-by-arrangement since the beginning of the pandemic.

Countries with no current balance of payments need, but a potential future one, could also turn to the IMF’s precautionary financing and credit lines. One such facility is the Flexible Credit Line (FCL). This line is available to countries with very strong policy frameworks and track records.  The FCL has made available about US$45 billion to three countries since the beginning of this crisis.

The IMF has also lent about US$3 billion through the Precautionary and Liquidity Line, which provides financing for the balance of payment needs of countries with sound policies and moderate vulnerabilities.

Total lending commitments under the IMF’s GRA lending are around US$245 billion as of mid-June 2020, of which outstanding credit accounts for US$112 billion and undisbursed commitments US$134 billion. Total lending commitments under the PRGT, which provides concessional lending to low-income countries, are about US$7 billion as of mid-June 2020.

For financing through various IMF arrangements, including precautionary lines, the IMF stands ready to fully deploy its US$1 trillion lending capacity to help member countries weather the crisis. The amounts of IMF financing are based on the size of the (actual or potential) balance of payments need, strength of the economic program (for instruments that support member programs), record of use of IMF resources in the past, repayment capacity, and other available financing sources.

Back to Top

Will US$1 trillion be enough to meet the unprecedented demands on the IMF’s resources? What if it’s not enough? What measures will the IMF take to increase its resources?

The IMF is adequately resourced with an overall lending capacity of about US$1 trillion, ensuring its ability to respond to its members’ needs. Significant progress has been made in implementing a package on IMF resources and governance reform that would maintain the IMF’s current size through 2023, including a doubling of the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), and a new round of Bilateral Borrowing Agreements (BBAs).

The IMF membership remains committed to revisiting the adequacy of quotas and continuing the process of governance reform in the context of the 16th General Review of Quotas to be completed by December 2023.

The demand on IMF resources remains under review to ensure that the IMF can lend its full support to its members in managing the economic and social fallout of the COVID-19. If, at some point, the membership decides that more resources are needed, this can be done in various ways. For example, in response to the Global Financial Crisis, the membership agreed to increase the IMF’s resources by increasing both IMF quotas and borrowing.

Back to Top

Where can countries get help if financing provided by the IMF isn’t enough?

In most IMF-supported programs, the IMF is not the only source of financing. IMF financing catalyzes external financing from the private and official sectors (that is, the presence of an IMF-supported program reassures other creditors and encourages them to continue to lend). This, together with policy adjustment, enables the member country’s economy to return to medium-term external viability.

Back to Top

What economic policy actions have countries already taken to address this crisis?

The IMF welcomes the decisive actions countries have already taken to address this health crisis and to cushion its impact on the economy. On fiscal policy, announced fiscal measures are now estimated at near $11 trillion globally, up from $8 trillion estimated in the April 2020 Fiscal Monitor. One-half of these measures ($5.4 trillion) are additional spending and forgone revenue, directly affecting government budgets. The remaining half ($5.4 trillion) is liquidity support, such as loans, equity injections, and guarantees, including through state-owned banks and enterprises, which help maintain cashflows and limit bankruptcies, but could add to government debt and deficits down the road if these public interventions incur losses.

Fiscal support is also provided by automatic stabilizers—features of the tax and benefit system that stabilize incomes and consumption, such as progressive taxation and unemployment benefits.

At the same time, to preserve the stability of the global financial system and support the global economy, central banks across the globe have also taken significant actions. As noted in the Fund’s latest Global Financial Stability Report, these measures include the following. First, they have significantly eased monetary policy by cutting policy rates—in the case of advanced economies to historic lows. And half of the central banks in emerging markets and lower income countries have also cut policy rates. The effects of rate cuts will be reinforced through central banks’ guidance about the future path of monetary policy and expanded asset purchase programs.

Second, central banks have provided additional liquidity to the financial system, including through open market operations. Third, a number of central banks have agreed to enhance the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity through swap line arrangements. And finally, central banks have reactivated programs used during the global financial crisis as well as launched a range of new broad-based programs, including to purchase riskier assets such as corporate bonds. By effectively stepping in as “buyers of last resort” in these markets and helping contain upward pressures on the cost of credit, central banks are ensuring that households and firms continue to have access to credit at an affordable price.

Major central banks helped prevent a credit crunch through interest rate cuts and other extraordinary measures amounting to over $6 trillion.

To support information exchange and international cooperation, the Fund has launched a Policy Actions tracker that provides updates on fiscal, monetary and financial policy actions taken by countries around the world.

Back to Top

What more can countries do?

As the IMF Managing Director has noted, exceptional times require exceptional action. Countries should focus on three priorities: first, protect lives. That means countries should place health expenditures at the top of the priority list. This includes funding health systems—getting resources to doctors, nurses and hospitals, the purchase of medical equipment, and to help the most vulnerable people. It also means refraining from restrictions of export of medical supplies so everybody can have access to them, including poor countries.

Second, protect livelihoods. This means ensuring that the lifelines for households and businesses are available during this period of economic standstill. This includes cash transfers, wage subsidies and tax relief, helping people to meet their needs and businesses to stay afloat. For those laid off, unemployment insurance could be temporarily enhanced, by extending its duration, increasing benefits, or relaxing eligibility. Where paid sick and family leave is not among standard benefits, governments should consider funding it to allow unwell workers or their caregivers to stay home without fear of losing their jobs during the epidemic.

On monetary policy, providing ample liquidity to banks and nonbank finance companies—particularly to those lending to small- and medium-sized enterprises, which may be less prepared to withstand a sharp disruption—is critical at this stage. Governments could also offer temporary and targeted credit guarantees for the near-term liquidity needs of these firms. Similarly, financial market regulators and supervisors could also encourage, on a temporary and time-bound basis, extensions of loan maturities.

Finally, prepare for recovery. Countries should work with health professionals on planning the reopening. Countries should also be ready for fiscal stimulus to lift demand and help the economy to come back. Once the current crisis abates, countries will face elevated debt levels, bankruptcies, unemployment and rising inequality – so they must begin to put measures in place now to protect us against those challenges.

The pace of economic recovery will depend on policies undertaken during this crisis. If policies ensure that workers do not lose their jobs, renters and homeowners are not evicted, companies avoid bankruptcy, and business and trade networks are preserved, the recovery will occur sooner and more smoothly. For countries that do not have the fiscal space to undertake these measures, the IMF stands ready to support these countries through its lending facilities.

Back to Top

What is the impact of coronavirus on the global economy?

As the Fund noted in its April 2020  World Economic Outlook (WEO) report, this is a crisis like no other, and there is substantial uncertainty about its impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. A lot depends on the epidemiology of the virus, the effectiveness of containment measures, and the development of therapeutics and vaccines, all of which are hard to predict. In addition, many countries now face multiple crises—a health crisis, a financial crisis, and a collapse in commodity prices, which interact in complex ways. Policymakers are providing unprecedented support to households, firms, and financial markets, and, while this is crucial for a strong recovery, there is considerable uncertainty about what the economic landscape will look like as we gradually emerge from this lockdown.

The WEO Update published in June projects global growth at –4.9 percent in 2020, 2.1 percentage points below the April WEO forecast. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a more negative impact on activity in the first half of 2020 than anticipated, and the recovery is projected to be more gradual than previously forecast. Global growth in 2021 is projected at 5.4 percent. Overall, this would leave the level of 2021 real GDP some 6 ½ percent lower than in the pre-COVID-19 projections of January 2020. The adverse impact on low-income people is particularly acute, imperiling the significant progress made in reducing extreme poverty in the world since the 1990s.

The Global Financial Stability Report published in April shows that the financial system too has felt a dramatic impact, and a further intensification of the crisis could affect global financial stability. Since the pandemic’s outbreak, prices of risk assets have fallen sharply, although there has since been a recovery, as indicated in the GFSR Update published in June. At the worst point of the market selloff when the COVID-19 crisis unfolded, risk assets suffered half or more of the declines they experienced in 2008 and 2009.

Many countries have taken extraordinary steps and far-reaching measures to save lives and safeguard economies, and to set the stage for recovery. This includes fiscal actions amounting to almost $11 trillion to contain the pandemic and its damage to the economy, as well as central bank actions amounting to over $6 trillion.

Supporting emerging market and developing countries is an urgent priority. They are already more economically vulnerable than the advanced economies—and now particularly hard hit by a lack of medical supplies, a sudden stop of the world economy, reduction in tourism and remittances, capital flight and, for some, a sharp drop in commodity prices.

Back to Top

How many countries have requested assistance?

The IMF is responding to an unprecedented number of calls for emergency financing – from 102 countries so far. The Fund has doubled the access to its emergency facilities—the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) —allowing it to meet the expected demand of about $100 billion in financing. These facilities allow the Fund to provide emergency assistance without the need to have a full-fledged program in place. Financing has already been approved by the IMF’s Executive Board at record speed for more than 70 countries. In June, the IMF approved the first stand-by-arrangement since the beginning of the pandemic. Please see the IMF’s COVID-19 Financial Assistance and Debt Service Relief tracker where you can find the most recent detail data.

Back to Top

How fast can you provide emergency financing?

After a country has formally requested support, staff assesses qualification requirements, work with the authorities to prepare a letter of intent, and prepare a staff report for the IMF Executive Board. We have streamlined our internal review processes and expect to be able in many cases to make financing available within weeks after a request for emergency financing.

Back to Top

What do countries need to do to qualify for emergency assistance?

Any IMF member may apply for emergency assistance. There are some requirements for support under the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI), including that the county’s debt is sustainable or on track to be sustainable, that it has urgent balance of payments needs, and that it is pursuing appropriate policies to address the crisis. We also take into account any debt restructuring operation underway and its prospects for success, which underscores the importance of every stakeholder making an effort to support countries in distress.

For countries that have existing Fund arrangements in place, it may be appropriate to augment and/or rephase access under the arrangements, or in cases where that may not be feasible to do on a timely basis, they may request support under the RCF or RFI.

Back to Top

Why are some countries ineligible for IMF financing? Shouldn’t there be exceptions during a pandemic? And why is the IMF concerned about debt sustainability during the crisis?

Under the IMF’s Articles, the IMF may only provide its general resources under adequate safeguards and to assist members to solve their balance of payments problems. Debt sustainability is a key safeguard for IMF resources.

Debt sustainability is a key factor for two related reasons. First, IMF lending into an unsustainable debt situation would further exacerbate the countries’ debt and balance of payments problems rather than resolving them. Second, because IMF’s lending is revolving, it is essential that members are in a position to repay their loans, so that in the future, sufficient funds exist for the IMF to lend to other countries in need. Therefore, the IMF is required to establish, before it lends, that the borrowing country’s debt is sustainable, and that by implication it will be able to repay that debt.

When the IMF determines that a country’s debt is not sustainable, it is precluded from lending (including emergency financing) unless the member takes steps to restore debt sustainability over a realistic period. In such cases, it would be critical to resolve the debt burden and not to overburden the economy, for example, by imposing unrealistic fiscal targets through higher taxes and reduced public spending. However, it is the country authorities’ decision whether to approach their creditors to begin debt restructuring discussions that would deliver the necessary relief. The IMF could proceed with lending (including emergency financing) once it has adequate assurances that debt sustainability will be restored.

Back to Top

Shouldn’t the IMF ask a country’s external creditors to forgive their loans? Can’t the IMF force creditors to do this?

The IMF cannot interfere in debt contracts between countries and their creditors. These are contracts to which the IMF is not a party.

It is always the member country’s decision whether to restructure its debt or not, and the IMF advises members to stay current on their obligations to the extent possible. The IMF cannot lend if a country’s debt is unsustainable unless the country is taking steps to restore debt sustainability.

The debt restructuring negotiations, and the specific terms of the debt restructuring, as well as the decision on what debt to include in the restructuring, are left to the authorities and their legal and financial advisors.

In the context of a sovereign debt restructuring, based on a realistic debt sustainability analysis (DSA), the IMF’s role is to determine the financing envelope that needs to be filled with financing/debt relief. The IMF’s objectives are that the debt restructuring achieves high creditor participation and restores debt sustainability consistent with the DSA. The IMF does not manage the debt restructuring process.

Back to Top

Why can’t the IMF provide more debt forgiveness beyond the Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust? The IMF and WB have forgiven debt before—with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative—and the crisis now is much greater than then, so why not?

The IMF under its charter is not permitted to simply cancel claims or write off debt. Instead, the IMF’s ability to provide debt forgiveness on its loans to members is based on the availability of grants for the repayment of those loans. The IMF can mobilize these grants from donors, and the IMF does this through trust funds such as the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT).

The CCRT allows the IMF to provide debt relief for the poorest and most vulnerable countries hit by catastrophic natural or public health disasters.  In April, 2020, the IMF expanded its provision of debt service relief under the CCRT to cover exceptional balance of payments needs arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic, by  freeing up financial resources of the Low Income Countries (LICs)to respond to the pandemic.

The CCRT is providing grant-based debt service relief to the 29 poorest LICs with outstanding credit to the IMF, for an initial period 6 months. Efforts are underway, through a fundraising campaign, to request grants from a broad range of donors and to extend the duration of grant-based debt relief to these members to up to two years.

The IMF has also temporarily increased access limits under its concessional emergency lending facility, the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) under the PRGT, to respond more effectively to LICs’ urgent needs.  It has accelerated approval procedures for emergency financing. The IMF is currently seeking additional donor support to expand its PRGT concessional lending for low-income countries.

Back to Top

How do the IMF’s current debt forgiveness efforts compare to previous ones undertaken by the institution?

The Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) allows the IMF to provide debt relief for the poorest and most vulnerable countries hit by catastrophic natural disasters or public health disasters. Financed by resources that include donor contributions, it provides grants to pay for debt service to the IMF for a limited time. A new feature in the current CCRT debt relief initiative is to provide grant-based debt relief in tranches so that debt relief can be immediately available to all eligible countries hit by the Covid-19 pandemic without having to wait until the CCRT receives sufficient resources. The up-front grants for an initial tranche covering eligible debt falling due to the IMF within a period not exceeding six months were already disbursed in April, and additional tranches would be provided within the next two years when the CCRT is expected to receive further financial contributions.

In April 2020, the IMF expanded its provision of debt service relief under the CCRT to cover exceptional balance of payment needs arising from COVID-19, to help low-income countries create space for urgent spending needs to address the pandemic. Debt service relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was mobilized faster than under previous debt relief initiatives, and efforts are currently underway to expand CCRT resources for longer periods of up to two years.

Debt relief was previously also provided under the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), which complemented the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) by providing additional resources to help eligible countries achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

The IMF Executive Board adopted the MDRI in November 2005, and it became effective on January 5, 2006. The IMF delivered MDRI debt relief of SDR 2.3 billion to 30 qualifying countries. In contrast to the CCRT, which provides grants to pay for debt service for a limited time, the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI provided grants to cancel the debt (as specified in the respective initiatives). However, it also took much longer to put them in place, both in mobilizing the needed resources and in implementation. There is no longer any outstanding IMF debt eligible for MDRI debt relief, and the MDRI trust accounts have been unwound.

Back to Top

How is the IMF helping low-income countries struggling to service their debt?

The IMF Managing Director and the President of the World Bank recognized the heavy burden this crisis is having on Low Income Countries and, on on March 25, called on bilateral creditors to suspend debt service payments from the poorest countries. The G20 responded to this call on April 15 by suspending repayment of official bilateral credit from the poorest countries. This will serve as a powerful, fast-acting initiative that will do much to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of millions of the most vulnerable people. The International Institute for Finance, too, responded to this call urging private-sector creditors to forgo debt payments until the end of the year without declaring borrowers in default.

In April, the IMF Executive Board also approved immediate debt service relief to 29 countries under the IMF’s revamped Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) as part of the Fund’s response to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This provides grants to the Fund’s poorest and most vulnerable members to cover their IMF debt obligations for an initial phase over the next six months and will help them channel more of their scarce financial resources towards vital emergency medical and other relief efforts. The Fund is currently fundraising with the goal of significantly increasing the CCRT, so that we can extend the duration of grant-based debt relief to our most vulnerable members to up to two years.

Back to Top

How can we be sure the IMF’s emergency money doesn’t get wasted?

The IMF will monitor the implementation of policy commitments made by countries receiving emergency lending, including measures to ensure that disbursements of emergency lending are not wasted. Specifically, we are pursuing the following:

  • First, we will be monitoring whether countries receiving emergency financing are re-orienting spending toward crisis-mitigation efforts.
  • Second, we are assessing which public financial management, anti-corruption, and anti-money laundering measures we can ask members to put in place that will not unduly delay urgently needed disbursements. Commitments are tailored to country-specific circumstances, but include measures such as (i) undertaking and publishing online an independent ex-post audit of crisis-mitigation spending and (ii) publishing procurement documentation for crisis-mitigation spending online, including the names of the companies awarded these contracts, their beneficial owners, and validation of delivery of the contracted goods and services.
  • Third, all countries receiving emergency financing must commit to undertaking a “Safeguards Assessment”. These assessments provide reasonable assurance to the IMF that a central bank's framework of governance, reporting, and controls is adequate to manage resources, including IMF disbursements. Where there are shortcomings, IMF staff make time-bound recommendations and closely monitor their implementation. Given that emergency financing is provided as an upfront disbursement, such assessments will be conducted after the disbursement, but before the approval of any subsequent financing for the member country under a more traditional multi-year financing arrangement.
  • Fourth, many of the countries receiving emergency assistance now either already have existing multi-year financing arrangements with the IMF or will be seeking such arrangements soon. These multi-year arrangements are better-suited than emergency financing to addressing longer-term structural issues that underpin poor governance and corruption. We will continue to include governance and anti-corruption measures in these programs as part of our ongoing implementation of the 2018 Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement on Governance.

More information on this topic can be found in this Factsheet.

Back to Top

Will the IMF consider selling some of its gold reserves to provide more resources to its members?

The IMF does not consider this. Gold provides fundamental strength to the IMF’s balance sheet, benefiting both creditors and debtors alike, and enabling the IMF to play its effective role as a crisis lender. This role is particularly important at present when the IMF is undertaking exceptionally large support for its membership in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back to Top

The IMF is calling for countries to implement green recovery plans. Will there be any conditionality tied to this? If not, how will you be able to enforce it?

In the immediate crisis-containment phase, the scope to implement green recovery plans may be limited, given the overriding priority of providing urgent relief to households and firms, which should not be delayed.

However, as countries move from containment and stabilization to recovery, green recovery plans will likely be reflected in IMF-supported programs where structural reforms are critical for macroeconomic developments.

Reforms could include public investment projects focused on boosting climate-smart technologies or helping adaptation (e.g. irrigation); drafting a medium-term climate plan; or financing additional climate spending with green bonds. The inclusion of specific reforms as conditionality will depend on the criticality of the reforms for achieving the goals of the program, taking into account the circumstances of the member.

Back to Top

Would the IMF support withholding loans to countries that refuse to cut or further reduce fuel subsidies?

There is no predetermined set of conditionality applied to countries seeking IMF financial support. Rather, a specific reform would be part of conditionality only if it is deemed critical to achieving the goals of the program, monitoring its implementation, or needed to implement provisions in the IMF Articles of Agreement or IMF policies. Program design and, in particular, conditionality are tailored to the circumstances of the member country, reflecting its domestic social and political objectives and economic priorities, and aimed at achieving macro-economic stability. In addition, conditionality and program design also reflect the provisions of the facility under which the financing is being provided. As such, the set of reforms, and their sequence and timing, will vary from program to program.

That said, although it is not always part of conditionality, the IMF has advised countries to remove fuel subsidies. IMF research shows that removing fuel subsidies could result in up to 4 percent of global GDP in additional resources over the medium term, which can instead be invested in people, growth, and help protect the most vulnerable.