Tag Archives: conditionality

Guest Post: Embracing and Enhancing IMF’s Governance Conditionalities To Fight Corruption

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s guest post is from Beauty Emefa Narteh, the Executive Secretary at the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition, and Leslie Tsai, General Counsel at the Chandler Foundation and lead for the organization’s efforts to support good governance, increased transparency and accountability, and robust international and national integrity ecosystems

 IMF bailouts of countries in financial distress often come with unpopular strings attached—strict conditionalities related to fiscal policy that often force countries to make deep spending cuts and to increase taxes on food, healthcare, and fuel. These painful austerity measures have often proved counterproductive, plunging countries into recession and sparking anti-government riots and protests.

But while IMF conditionalities have gotten a deservedly bad reputation, a relatively new category of IMF conditionalities, focused on governance reforms, presents the 3.3 billion people living in countries swept up in the current global debt crisis with something precious: hope and the possibility of a true pathway to financial stability. The IMF’s expanded the use of governance-related conditions is a based on a belated acknowledgement of a point that civil society leaders and anticorruption champions around the world have long emphasized: that governance issues are as macroeconomically critical as fiscal policy, and that when corruption bloats and distorts government spending, a narrow focus on economic policy alone will be insufficient to pull countries out of chronic economic crisis. Notably, the IMF’s governance conditionalities are far more popular among ordinary citizens than their standard austerity measures. This is not only because corruption is widely seen as a scourge that most heavily burdens the poor, but also because anticorruption systems that protect government coffers can blunt the need for cuts to social spending over the long term.

The IMF’s governance conditionalities provide a powerful if imperfect tool for savvy civil society leaders who have long advocated for increased government accountability and stronger anticorruption systems. When governments are in discussions with the IMF about bailouts, domestic civil society groups in those countries can use this opportunity to press for much-needed progress on anticorruption. Continue reading →

When Did EU Anticorruption Conditionality Work, and When Did It Fail?

Posted on by
Reply

When countries apply for membership in the European Union (EU), the EU has substantial leverage to insist on various economic, political, and governance reforms—including anticorruption reforms. The EU has used this leverage, mandating (among other things) various anticorruption measures as a condition for accession. Has this worked? Does this form of conditionality help galvanize meaningful improvement in the corruption situation in candidate countries?

One of the most systematic attempts to answer this question, a 2014 study by Mert Kartal, compared corruption trends from 1995-2012 in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that did and did not apply for EU membership. The study found that applicant countries made significant progress during the accession process—but after accession, these countries’ anticorruption performance tended to deteriorate substantially. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the EU loses its leverage after accession takes place. Nevertheless, the finding is disheartening, in that it casts doubt on whether the EU was able to spur meaningful, lasting anticorruption reform. Notably, though, the results were not uniform across the twelve applicant countries studied: In some, the improvement that occurred prior to accession almost completely reversed after accession, but in others, the improvements appeared more sustainable. Diving into individual stories of accession suggests several factors that may have played an important role in the success or failure of EU attempts at using the carrot of membership to spur sustainable anticorruption reform. Continue reading →

Performance Over Promises: The MCC’s Formula for Fighting Corruption

Posted on by
3

Can foreign aid be used to spur anticorruption reforms? Many donor agencies have tried. The typical approach is to make aid to a recipient country conditional on the adoption of a series of substantive anticorruption or good governance reforms. Unfortunately, there is little data to suggest conditional aid buys reform. To the contrary, grants of conditional aid have been associated with increases in corruption, slower policy reform, and the deterioration of governance generally. While one might expect that, all else equal, conditional aid would result in relatively more aid flowing to more honest governments, it seems the opposite is true: after controlling for a country’s poverty level, regime type, and other factors, it appears that more aid goes to more corrupt countries.

Twenty years ago, a small U.S. federal agency, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), took a different approach to spurring anticorruption reform through foreign aid. The MCC, which provides large ($100M+) grants to low-income countries, embraced a strategy that differed from traditional aid conditionality in two ways. First, rather than selecting aid recipients on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, the MCC determines eligibility using a uniform scorecard. As relevant here, the MCC requires that, to become eligible for MCC grants, a country must score above an absolute level on the World Bank Institute’s “control of corruption” index. (Countries must also score above the median for their income class on ten of twenty additional indicators.) The MCC provides grants to most countries that do meet those criteria. (Of the 80 countries are eligible under this scheme, at least 50 have received funding.) Second, and relatedly, once countries are deemed eligible, no further conditions are attached to MCC funding, which can be directed towards any purpose and is rarely withdrawn. On average, countries receive $160M in unconditional funding, though grants have been as large as $698M.

At the time the MCC was created, this approach was labelled “crude and dogmatic.” Critics complained that the MCC approach would divert aid away from the countries in greatest need of both aid and reform, and towards countries that already outperformed their peers. But the evidence strongly suggests the MCC’s approach has spurred meaningful anticorruption reforms, at least among countries near its eligibility threshold. Researchers have compared countries are right above the threshold to others right below the threshold, and found that up to 38% of countries just below the threshold have implemented substantive anticorruption reforms as a result of MCC’s creation (see here and here). Analysis of statements and correspondence with officials from MCC candidate countries (from, for example, leaked embassy cables, meeting transcripts, and the like) provides corroborating evidence that countries near the threshold utilized the scorecard to galvanize reform.

Why has the MCC’s performance-based approach been more successful in catalyzing anticorruption reform than traditional conditional aid? It’s impossible to say for sure, but the research to date suggests a few intriguing hypotheses: Continue reading →

TI Senegal to IMF: Hold Our Government to its Anticorruption Commitments

Posted on by
1

Last June the International Monetary Fund approved $1.8 billion in loans to Senegal to stave off a debt crisis. Funds were conditioned among other measures on the government’s promise to strengthen the fight against corruption, a condition the government accepted wholeheartedly and without reservation. Indeed, IMF Deputy Director Kenji Okamura assured the IMF board before voting the loan that the Senegalese government was serious about anticorruption reform, that it recognized it was “critical to the restoration of growth and fiscal stability” (here).

The government’s promises and Okamura’s assurances are now in doubt. Forum Civil, the Senegal chapter of Transparency International, reported in late October that the government has done virtually nothing to keep its promises.  

The Fund is not helpless in the face of the government’s broken promises. The loan funds are being disbursed in tranches; each tranche requires board approval and a meeting to okay the first tranche set for December. Moreover, four of the anticorruption reforms – enforcing the asset declaration system, strengthening the anticorruption agency and the prosecution, and tightening the civil service ethics code — are “structural benchmarks. That is, IMF procedures require the Board to assay progress on each before okaying a tranche.

In its October report, reprinted below, the Forum Civil documents the government’s failure to live up to its promises, lays out immediate steps it should take to demonstrate it intends to keep them, and urges the IMF, for the sake of the citizens of Senegal and their future, to hold the government to its commitments

Continue reading →

Lankan Civil Society and IMF Staff: Allies in Sri Lanka’s Fight Against Corruption

Posted on by
Reply

Sri Lanka is recovering from one the worst bouts of kleptocratic rule in modern times. That recovery crucially depends of course on ending its rulers’ wholesale theft of the nation’s resources, an effort where the International Monetary Fund staff and Sri Lankan civil society have wittingly or unwittingly joined forces.

The alliance has Its roots in events of 2022. That spring citizens had had enough. With the economy cratering and poverty skyrocketing, they joined to force the latest in a string of kleptocrats from office (pictured here). That summer the replacement government pledged to fight corruption. That fall IMF staff recommended approval of a $2.9 billion loan to help the country dig out of the hole corruption dug.

Sri Lanka’s corruption was so blatant, and the link between it and the economy’s free fall so clear that IMF’s staff insisted that in return for the loan the government promise to enact a program “reducing corruption vulnerabilities through improving fiscal transparency and public financial management, introducing a stronger anti-corruption legal framework, and conducting an in-depth governance diagnostic, supported by IMF technical assistance.”   

One year on, as the IMF board considers whether to release a second tranche of the loan, that promise remains unfulfilled.  The evidence is in two reports released in September, one by Sri Lankan civil society (here) and the other by the IMF staff (here). Both chronicle the government’s numerous failures to implement promised reforms. Both point the same underlying problem: the impunity high level officials continue to enjoy.

Continue reading →

The U.S. Approach to Corruption in Ukraine: Change or Continuity?

Posted on by
1

[A quick note: I drafted the post below last week, before the horrific events in Israel over the weekend. I have nothing useful to say about that tragedy–I have no expertise in military or security policy, Middle Eastern politics, terrorism, or anything along those lines. But I wanted to express my deepest sympathy to those who have been affected by Hamas’s horrific and inexcusable attack on innocent civilians. I will continue to write posts on assorted corruption-related issues, like the one below, because that’s what I know and that’s what I do. But this is one of those moments when other things seem so much more important. Am Yisrael Chai.]

Last week, a piece in Politico discussed the contents of a confidential (but not classified) U.S. State Department’s “integrated country strategy” for Ukraine; a shorter public version of that strategy document was released last August, but the version Politico obtained was longer and more detailed. The big headlines coming out of the Politco story (both literally and figuratively) concern corruption. The U.S. strategy document, Politico notes, “sees corruption as the real threat,” and “warns Western support may hinge on cutting corruption.” The Politco story made a bit of a splash among some of the people who follow these issues closely, but I don’t think it tells us much that we didn’t already know, and the new material from the confidential version of the report, so far as I can tell from Politico’s reporting, mainly concern political calculations that are basically common knowledge, though perhaps a bit sensitive for the U.S. government to declare formally in a public document.

Let me start out by noting one thing that I think the Politico piece gets exactly right, and that poses a general, and by now familiar, challenge to those who both support Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and believe anticorruption reforms are vital for the country’s future success. As the Politico story puts it:

The [Biden] administration wants to press Ukraine to cut graft … [b]ut being too loud about the issue could embolden opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine, many of them Republican lawmakers who are trying to block such assistance. Any perception of weakened American support for Kyiv also could cause more European countries to think twice about their role.

This is indeed a real issue, and a rhetorical and political challenge. Having said that, I think the Politico story, perhaps inadvertently, may simultaneously (1) understate the extent to which the U.S. government has already been willing to publicly raise the need for serious anticorruption reforms in Ukraine, and (2) overstate the extent to which the U.S. is relying on a coercive approach (mainly express or implied aid conditionality) to press for such reforms. A few thoughts on each: Continue reading →

Macro-Criticality: The International Monetary Fund’s Black Box

Posted on by
3

Back in 2018, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promised to tackle corruption within its member states when that corruption is “macro-critical”—that is, when corruption “affects, or has the potential to affect, domestic or external [macroeconomic] stability.” The IMF’s declaration that corruption is, or at least can be, “macro-critical” was an important development, one that anticorruption professionals applauded as a “major step forward.” For those less familiar with the IMF, though, the significance of the “macro-criticality” finding may not be immediately obvious. To understand this particular piece of IMF jargon, and why it’s so important for when and how the IMF engages in anticorruption work, it’s necessary to understand a bit more about how the IMF operates.

First and foremost, the IMF is a “monetary agency, not a development agency.” In contrast to a development agency like the World Bank, the IMF does not finance specific projects, nor is its mandate to promote economic development and poverty reduction as a general matter. Rather, the IMF helps protect global macroeconomic stability by lending funds to governments in dire straits. Furthermore, the IMF often requires, as a condition for receiving these emergency loans, that the recipient governments adopt institutional or policy reforms—a controversial practice known as “conditionality.” The IMF has also sometimes forgiven loans for particularly debt-burdened countries. And in recent years, the IMF has expanded its capacity development apparatus by providing advice to countries on a wide range of issues related to a country’s macroeconomic management, including central banking, monetary and exchange rate policy, tax policy and administration, and official statistics. All these services function to protect the international monetary system from potential risks, which is the IMF’s primary task.

But although the IMF’s mission is, at least in principle, narrowly focused on macroeconomic stability, the IMF has consistently faced the question of how to distinguish economic policy (which the IMF may influence) from social or political matters that are outside the IMF’s mandate (see, e.g., here, here, and here). Recognizing that there can be a porous boundary between economic and political matters, the IMF developed the concept of “macro-criticality.” So long as an issue—even a political or social issue—affects, or has the potential to affect, the macro-economy in a significant way, the IMF may treat the topic as it would any other issue traditionally recognized to be the IMF’s bread and butter.

And that’s why it was so important that the IMF has declared that corruption is a “macro-critical” issue. Once the IMF considers corruption in a given country to be macro-critical, the IMF may place anticorruption conditions on IMF loans to that country. The macro-criticality finding also validates data collection and capacity building measures related to corruption and anticorruption—measures that would otherwise seem to fall outside the IMF’s jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, confusion persists about when the IMF will consider corruption to be a “macro-critical” issue, and what exactly the IMF promised to do in its 2018 statement. One reason it’s hard to understand what the IMF actually committed to is because there are many ways for an issue to affect domestic or external macroeconomic stability. Perhaps most importantly, it’s important to distinguish a finding that an issue, such as corruption, is globally macro-critical—in the sense that there is robust evidence that this issue can have significant effects on macro-economic stability—from a finding that this issue is macro-critical in a particular country. Even a globally macro-critical issue may not by macro-critical in a specific country, either because the country in question already has adequate safeguards in place to address the issue, or because the macroeconomic risks associated with this particular issue are minimal in comparison to other country-specific threats.

Continue reading →