IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office

IMF News, July 19, 2024

Source details

Canonical URL: IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office

Assess how successfully the IEO has met its goals to:
- serve as a means to enhance the learning culture within the IMF,
- strengthen the IMF’s external credibility,
- support the Executive Board’s institutional governance and oversight responsibilities.
This review was the fourth external evaluation of the IEO. Previous evaluations were published in 2006, 2013, and 2018.

Pablo García‑Silva (Chair) — currently Professor at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez; former Vice Governor of the Central Bank of Chile; former Executive Director of the IMF.
Daouda Sembene — founder and CEO of AfriCatalyst; former senior economic advisor to the President of Senegal; former Executive Director of the IMF.
Zhongxia Jin (up to April 29, 2024) — former Director‑General of the International Department at the People’s Bank of China; former Executive Director of the IMF.

Directors welcomed the fourth external evaluation and thanked the Panel for its thorough analysis and recommendations.
The IEO has:
- established a high degree of credibility,
- developed a reputation for rigor,
- been fundamental to strengthening the IMF’s learning culture,
- supported institutional governance and oversight,
- enhanced the IMF’s external credibility.
These objectives were generally considered to be equally important.

Early‑stage evaluations
- Most Directors supported the suggestion for the IEO to consider undertaking early‑stage evaluations to provide timely feedback on emerging issues while respecting non‑interference.
- Directors considered the non‑interference clause to provide sufficient flexibility for targeted early‑stage evaluations when warranted, but recommended being judicious.
- A few Directors cautioned that early‑stage evaluations should be avoided in general to prevent interference with ongoing operations and blurring mandates.

Human resources (HR) policy and staffing
- Directors broadly welcomed the Panel’s recommendation to eliminate rigidities and better balance objectives in the IEO’s HR policy within the budgetary envelope.
- Expected benefits: alleviate staffing pressures, preserve institutional memory, and address recruitment and retention challenges.
- Encouraged the IEO to work with the Evaluation Committee (EVC) and HRD to review HR policy.
- Several Directors cautioned against bespoke HR policies for the IEO that would conflict with Board requests for streamlining and harmonization.

Topic selection
- Directors welcomed the finding that topics selected during the evaluation period have been appropriate and relevant and noted a more strategic focus relative to past evaluations.
- Broad support for enhancing the topic selection process — making it more structured, transparent, and informed by Management’s and Executive Board’s suggestions — while preserving IEO independence in final topic decisions.
- Some Directors expressed reservations about Management suggesting topics; others saw no need to set explicit criteria for topic selection to preserve flexibility.

Product line, timeliness, and workload
- Merit seen in simplifying IEO product line to short and full‑scale evaluations.
- Recommendation: full‑scale evaluations completed within 18 months to support timeliness and relevance.
- Many Directors wanted flexibility to adapt evaluations (including number of recommendations) to topic complexity.
- A few Directors cautioned against a proliferation of evaluations due to resource, staff workload, and IMF absorptive capacity implications.

Engagement, ownership of recommendations, and interim reporting
- Directors agreed ownership of IEO recommendations could be strengthened through early and informal engagement with the Executive Board, Management, and staff, while preserving IEO independence; engagements should be flexible and informal.
- Many Directors did not see merit in introducing an “interim findings report” because of risks of prematurely locking in findings and increasing demands; a few were open to interim reports to enhance prioritization.

Joint evaluations and coordination with other IFIs
- Many Directors saw potential for joint evaluations by the IEO and other IFI evaluators in common areas, emphasizing careful coordination and a structured but practical approach mindful of resource constraints.
- Some Directors were skeptical about joint evaluations given practical challenges.
- Directors saw value in concurrent but separate evaluations and benefits from collaborative approaches to sharing information, methodologies, and best practices.

Evaluation policy
- Directors welcomed the suggestion for the IEO to develop an evaluation policy.
- They look forward to the IEO developing this policy in coordination with the EVC and in consultation with staff.

Recommendations with broad support and outstanding issues will be followed up by the EVC, the IEO, staff, and Management.
Directors will have further opportunities to discuss concrete proposals in the coming months.

IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office — Press Release No. 24/282, July 19, 2024