Frequently Asked Questions on Governance Diagnostic

A Governance Diagnostic (GD) analyzes and recommend actions for addressing systemic corruption vulnerabilities and strengthening integrity & governance in IMF member countries.

GDs examine the severity of corruption vulnerabilities in a country across the six core state functions of fiscal governance, central bank governance and operations, financial sector oversight, rule of law, market regulation, and AML-CFT. GDs also assess the effectiveness of anti-corruption legal and institutional frameworks. Following the analysis, GDs propose prioritized and sequenced advice on systematically addressing the vulnerabilities.

A GD is voluntary for both, a member country and the IMF, and is an IMF capacity development activity. 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. At times, a call for a GD may arise during IMF lending and surveillance activities, and remains a voluntary exercise in such cases.

GDs are conducted through a series of stages, including a  scoping mission, main mission, and desk work. During the scoping mission, IMF staff frame the remit of the main mission and reach an agreement with the authorities on the focus areas. The main mission, which follows the scoping mission, is centered on assessing the substantive governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities within core state functions. This phase concludes with the production of a comprehensive report that outlines the findings and recommendations.

Genuine cooperation between IMF staff and authorities is essential for a successful GD, requiring the 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.

^[1] In some cases, referred to as Governance Diagnostic Assessment or Governance and Corruption Diagnostic 

A member country is expected to fully own the reform program and address governance and corruption vulnerabilities identified in a Diagnostic. Authorities are also expected during the production of a Diagnostic to provide access to all necessary legal and administrative documents and facilitate the Governance Diagnostic mission team’s contacts with civil society organizations, the private sector, think tanks, and academia for the purpose of obtaining their perspectives on corruption and governance issues.

To encourage transparency and facilitate extensive support from all key stakeholders on governance reforms, a Governance Diagnostic is expected to be published - although at the prerogative of country authorities.

In additional to posting on IMF.org, several authorities have also published GDs on their own web sites, demonstrating strong ownership and active engagement toward future actions. As good practice, some GD reports have been published as the authorities’ own report, prepared in collaboration with IMF. Prior to undertaking a Diagnostic, the authorities often commit to publishing the GD report and/or the reform plan derived from the Diagnostic. 

Findings of the Diagnostic inform authorities’ governance and anti-corruption reforms, IMF-supported programs, surveillance in the context of Article IV missions, and capacity development work. The findings also feature in subsequent IMF engagement and policy advice to member countries and inform program design. Some Diagnostic recommendations become conditionality in subsequent IMF-supported programs.

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. More details on (published) GD reports can be found here.

GD reports draw heavily on local knowledge and expertise within the country. Throughout the exercise, a GD team engages with a variety of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, the private sector, think tanks and academia to gather their perspectives on the issues covered in the Diagnostic, while also closely consulting with the country’s development partners. 

The views from these stakeholders inform the team’s views on key governance and corruption vulnerabilities and help shape the findings and recommendations. This inclusive approach ensures that the Diagnostic is comprehensive and reflective of the local context, enhances transparency, and also fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among all stakeholders involved. In some countries, civil society organizations remain actively involved in the monitoring of implementation of GD recommendations and assessing the impact of reform.