The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is constantly working to improve, but how well are they really doing? The Executive Board recently concluded its Fifteenth Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR), a deep dive into the progress of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) designed to address recommendations from the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). This report, discussed on November 12, 2025, offers a fascinating glimpse into the IMF's self-improvement efforts.
Since January 2007, the PMR has been tracking the implementation of IEO recommendations endorsed by the Board. The Fifteenth PMR specifically assessed the past year's advancements across 48 actions detailed in 11 MIPs. Intriguingly, this included one brand-new MIP, born from an IEO evaluation that followed the Fourteenth PMR.
The report's findings? Substantial progress has been made, despite ongoing workload challenges. The implementation rate hit 50%, with 24 actions completed. This is on par with the previous PMR's 54% and significantly higher than the average 35% per year observed over the last seven monitoring cycles. Progress was particularly swift in more recent MIPs, such as those addressing the IMF's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its engagement with Small Developing States.
Four MIPs – focusing on IMF collaboration with the World Bank, data practices, the IMF's role as an advisor, and the categorization of open actions – will be retired from PMR monitoring after this cycle. Furthermore, the prototype slippages framework, integrated with the Fund’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework, has been formally adopted. This, along with the 2019 Framework to Address Open Management Actions, aims to bolster the evaluation follow-up process.
So, what did the Executive Board think?
Executive Directors generally approved of the PMR's assessment, acknowledging the progress despite persistent pressures. They recognized that the action plans are integrated into ongoing workstreams and are a blend of strategic and operational initiatives. While progress was generally widespread, some Directors suggested a more qualitative, risk-based evaluation approach.
But here's where it gets controversial...
Directors highlighted areas needing continued attention. They echoed concerns about whether the new mission chief and country team tenure metric adequately addresses continuity and tailored advice, particularly for Fragile and Conflict-affected States (FCS) and Small Developing States (SDS). Ensuring sufficiently long tenures was seen as vital for building trust and providing effective, country-specific support. Some Directors also emphasized the need for better budget reporting to support strategic decision-making.
Further discussions revolved around enhancing collaboration with the World Bank on macro-structural issues. There was also a call to revisit the decision not to publish indices on CFMs when resources allow, while others expressed concerns about the retired action on the share of underrepresented nationals and women at senior levels, stressing the need for follow-up across other workstreams to achieve diversity targets.
Directors also noted the progress made on overdue actions, with over half newly overdue. They stressed the importance of prioritizing implementation efforts amidst heavy workloads and multiple demands. They encouraged timely completion of overdue actions linked to the Capacity Development Guidance Note and the Review of Conditionality. Furthermore, there was an emphasis on ensuring that the reformulated overdue action on social protection effectively guides the Fund’s involvement in this area.
Finally, the Directors welcomed the permanent implementation of the prototype slippages framework, which will further strengthen the evaluation follow-up process.
What do you think? Do you agree with the IMF's assessment of its progress? Are there any areas where you believe they could improve? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
