To the Editor:

The article presented an out-of-date and one-sided picture of the International Monetary Fund.

One critic was quoted accusing the I.M.F. of seeking as a matter of policy to make financial crises worse. A country normally turns to the fund as a crisis is deepening. While I.M.F. assistance ideally will ameliorate the situation rapidly — and sometimes does — it ultimately is aimed at creating breathing room for a country to address its economic problems.

Another critic was quoted as claiming that the conditions attached to I.M.F. programs fail to address the big picture. This does not take account of all the work in recent years to refocus the fund's lending programs on the key macroeconomic and structural measures that can help to bring a country out of a crisis. The evidence is clear that this effort has made a difference. From Brazil in 1998 to Turkey right now, loan conditions have concentrated on the big picture — and have made a difference in bringing about recovery.

The article also says the fund has been criticized as failing to encourage countries to make the most difficult economic decisions. This is patently untrue, but in a way refreshing, since we normally are accused of steamrollering national sovereignty.

Finally, the article asserts that the fund will have much to answer for in Argentina, and that it is shifting blame for the crisis onto the Argentines. This misses the point. In Argentina, the I.M.F. supported an economic program that over the past decade enjoyed widespread popular support. There certainly was reason to believe that it could succeed. To have undercut confidence in those policies would no doubt have left us with far more to answer for.