Chapter

Chapter 11. Organization, Staffing, and Budget

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund
Published Date:
September 1999
Share
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

The IMF consists of a Board of Governors, an Executive Board, a Managing Director, a First Deputy Managing Director, two Deputy Managing Directors, and a staff of international civil servants. The institution’s founding Articles of Agreement require that staff appointed to the IMF demonstrate the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence and reflect the organization’s diverse membership.

Executive Board

The IMF’s 24-member Executive Board, as the IMF’s permanent decision-making organ, conducts the institution’s day-to-day business. In 1998, the Board held 131 formal meetings, 6 seminars, and 4 informal sessions. The Executive Board carries out its work largely on the basis of papers prepared by IMF management and staff. In 1998, the Board spent 59 percent of its time on member country matters (Article IV consultations and reviews and approvals of IMF arrangements); 28 percent of its time on multilateral surveillance and policy issues (world economic outlook, developments in international capital markets, IMF financial resources, the architecture of the international monetary system, the debt situation, and issues related to IMF lending facilities and program design); and its remaining time on administrative and other matters.

Departments

The IMF staff is organized primarily into departments with regional (or area), functional, information and liaison, and support functions (Figure 8). These departments are headed by directors who report to the Managing Director.

Figure 8International Monetary Fund: Chart of Organization

Note: Organization as of April 30, 1999. Parentheses indicate number of budgeted regular staff.

1 The Institute also supports two training centers: the Joint Vienna Institute (Vienna, Austria) and the Singapore Regional Training Institute (Singapore).

2 As part of ongoing efforts at budgetary consolidation and redeployment, the Technical Assistance Secretariat was placed under the Office of Budget and Planning as of October 1998.

Area Departments

Six area departments—African, Asia and Pacific, European I, European II, Middle Eastern, and Western Hemisphere—advise management and the Executive Board on economic developments and policies in countries in their region. Their staffs are responsible also for reaching understandings on arrangements for the use of IMF financial resources and review performance under IMF-supported arrangements. Together with relevant functional departments, they provide member countries with policy advice and technical assistance, and maintain contact with regional organizations and multilateral institutions in their geographic areas. Supplemented by staff in functional departments, area departments carry out much of the IMF’s bilateral surveillance work through direct contacts with member countries. In addition, 75 area department staff are assigned to members as IMF resident representatives (see Box 18).

Functional and Special Services Departments

The Fiscal Affairs Department is responsible for activities involving public finance in member countries. It participates in area department missions on fiscal issues, reviews the fiscal content of IMF policy advice and IMF-supported adjustment programs, and provides technical assistance in public finance. It also conducts research and policy studies on fiscal issues, as well as on income distribution and poverty, social safety nets, public expenditure policy issues, and the environment.

The IMF Institute provides training for officials of member countries—particularly developing countries—in such areas as financial programming and policy, external sector policies, balance of payments methodology, national accounts and government finance statistics, and public finance.

The Legal Department advises management, the Board, and the staff on the applicable rules of law. It prepares most of the decisions and other legal instruments necessary for the IMF’s activities. The department serves as counsel to the IMF in litigation and arbitration cases, provides technical assistance on legislative reform, responds to inquiries from national authorities and international organizations on the laws of the IMF, and arrives at legal findings regarding IMF jurisdiction on exchange measures and restrictions.

The Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department provides analytical and technical support, including development and dissemination of good policies and best practices, to member countries and area departments on issues related to central banking, monetary and exchange policies and instruments, financial sector systems and soundness—including prudential regulation, supervision, and systemic restructuring—capital flows, and exchange measures and systems. In surveillance activities and requests for the use of IMF resources, the Department reviews issues related to its areas of competence and provides its expertise in policy assessment and development. It also delivers and administers technical assistance in these areas, coordinating with collaborating central banks, supervisory agencies, and other international organizations.

The Policy Development and Review Department traditionally plays a central role in the design and implementation of IMF financial facilities and operations. In recent years, it has spearheaded the IMF’s work in the area of strengthening the architecture of the international financial system. Together with the Research Department, it takes the lead also in multilateral surveillance, policy coordination, and associated review and support activities. With area departments, the Policy Development and Review Department helps mobilize other financial resources for member countries using IMF resources, including work on debt and program financing (through the Paris Club and international banks).

The Research Department conducts policy analysis and research in areas relating to the IMF’s work. The department plays a prominent role in developing IMF policy concerning the international monetary system and surveillance and cooperates with other departments in formulating IMF policy advice to member countries. It coordinates the semiannual World Economic Outlook exercise and prepares the annual International Capital Markets report, as well as analysis for the Group of Seven policy coordination exercise and the Executive Board’s seminars on World Economic and Market Developments. The department also maintains contacts with the academic community and with other research organizations.

The Statistics Department maintains databases of country, regional, and global economic and financial statistics and reviews country data in support of the IMF’s surveillance role. It is also responsible for developing statistical concepts in balance of payments, government finance, and monetary and financial statistics, as well as producing methodological manuals. The department provides technical assistance and training to help members develop statistical systems and produces the IMF’s statistical publications. In addition, it is responsible for developing and maintaining standards for the dissemination of data by member countries.

The Treasurer’s Department formulates the IMF’s financial policies and practices; conducts and controls financial operations and transactions in the General Department, SDR Department, and Administered Accounts (including the ESAF Trust and related accounts); controls expenditures under the administrative and capital budgets; and maintains IMF accounts and financial records. The department’s responsibilities also include quota reviews, IMF financing and liquidity, borrowing, investments, the IMF’s income, and operational policies on the SDR.

Box 18IMF Resident Representatives

At the end of 1998/99, the IMF had 75 resident representatives in 68 member countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere regions. These posts—typically filled by one staff member—enhance the provision of IMF policy advice and are often set up in conjunction with an IMF-supported adjustment program. A recent internal evaluation concluded that these representatives—who typically have exceptional access to key national policymakers—can have a major impact on the quality of IMF country work. In particular, resident representatives alert the IMF and the host country to potential policy slippages, provide on-site adjustment program support, and can play an active role in IMF outreach in member countries.

Information and Liaison

The External Relations Department edits, produces, and distributes the IMF’s nonstatistical publications; provides information services to the press and general public; maintains contacts with nongovernmental organizations and parliamentary bodies; and manages the IMF’s website (see also Appendix V).

The IMF’s Offices in Asia and the Pacific, in Europe, in Geneva, and at the United Nations maintain close contacts with other international and regional institutions (see Appendix IV).

Support Services

The Administration Department manages recruitment, training, and career planning programs; supervises the operation of the IMF’s headquarters building and leased space; provides administrative services to the organization; and administers the Joint Fund-Bank Library.

The Secretary’s Department assists management in preparing and coordinating the work program of the Executive Board and other official bodies, including scheduling and assisting in the conduct of Board meetings. The department also manages the Annual Meetings, in cooperation with the World Bank, and is responsible for the IMF’s archives, communications, and security program.

The IMF’s bureaus, offices, and secretariats are responsible for computer services; translation services; auditing, evaluation, and work practices; budget matters; technieal assistance; and investments under the staff retirement plan.

Box 19IMF Internal Evaluations

In early 1999, the IMF’s Office of Internal Audit and Inspection, with the assistance of outside experts, completed a two-year review of the effectiveness and efficiency of support services in the IMF. The review assessed 13 distinct services delivered by more than 900 IMF personnel, including regular, contractual, and vendor staff:

  • information services (technology, telecommunications, language, document management, and library services);
  • facilities and related services (facilities management, building capital projects, travel management, and procurement services); and
  • financial support and control services (accounting and financial reporting, administrative expenditure and control, budgeting, and internal audit).

The review concluded that the IMF’s internal services provide quality support to the organization’s “core” activities. The quality of services had been maintained despite increases in workloads that had far outpaced the minimal growth in budget resources for support services in recent years. Costs are within comparators’ norms in a number of service areas, and higher in others.

The review showed that a range of opportunities for improvement exists at both institutional and departmental levels. These include promoting strategic direction setting, realigning organizational responsibilities, flattening the organizational structures, streamlining processes, increasing efficiency through greater use of technology, and improving performance monitoring. The internal review also prompted IMF management to announce a reorganization of the IMF’s services and personnel functions, to take effect on July 1, 1999.

During the financial year, IMF management initiated an internal review of IMF technical assistance for consideration in 1999/2000 (see Chapter 9).

Following the completion of an internal evaluation of support services (see Box 19), IMF management announced a reorganization of services in the IMF aimed at further efficiency improvements, as well as at a saving of budgetary resources in 1999/2000 and in the period ahead. The change—effective July 1, 1999—reorganizes the IMF service functions into two new departments:

  • a Technology and General Services Department, made up of the Bureau of Computing Services, Bureau of Language Services, the Administrative Services Division, the Joint Library, and certain service functions of the Secretary’s Department; and
  • a Human Resources Department, made up of the personnel functions in the current Administration Department.

See Figure 8 for staffing by department as of April 30, 1999.

Staff

The Managing Director appoints a staff whose sole responsibility is to the IMF, whose efficiency and technical competence are to be of the “highest standards,” and whose diversity—reflecting its membership—are to give “due regard to the importance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.” To this end, and to provide the continuity and institutional memory necessary to maintain a good and close working relationship with member countries, the IMF’s employment policy is designed to recruit and retain a corps of international civil servants interested in spending a career, or a significant part of a career, at the IMF. At the same time, a number of Directors have stressed that the IMF increasingly recognizes the value of shorter-term employment and recruitment of mid-career professionals consistent with the changing labor market and the benefit of fresh perspectives. And, in the case of a number of skills and jobs—relating mainly to technology, certain services, and highly specialized skills in economics—business considerations have called for shorter-term appointments or for outsourcing.

Meeting to discuss the IMF’s human resource policy in June 1998, Executive Directors agreed that the IMF’s policy had served the institution well but faced difficult challenges—particularly in light of increased work pressures, changes in the required skills mix, the need to strengthen human resource development, and an external work environment with increasingly flexible labor. While drastic changes in the overall strategy were not necessary, these elements needed attention.

Directors emphasized the importance of diversity in the IMF’s staff. Although in terms of gender and nationality, diversity had improved in recent years, further progress was needed with both the representation of women, especially at senior levels, and of member countries and regions that continued to be underrepresented, especially the Middle East.

For economists, the large majority of professional IMF staff, first-rate training in macroeconomics and quantitative methods and policy experience were key requirements. Directors believed that the shifts in skill requirements that the IMF had experienced—for example, the strong demand for expertise in banking and financial sector issues—could be accommodated largely within existing training and recruitment strategies. A number of Directors stressed the need for greater movement of staff into and out of the IMF to promote skill renewal and bring new blood to the institution.

Directors cited the recent departure of a large number of economists from among the IMF’s best per-formers, who had joined private sector financial companies. The increase in the demand for the expertise of IMF economists should be taken into account in the review of some aspects of the IMF’s human resource strategy, including its compensation system, although the IMF clearly could not and should not match private sector compensation levels. Directors generally expressed concern about the serious erosion in recent years of the competitiveness of salaries at mid- and senior levels with respect to the U.S. market. They recalled that it had been agreed in the 1998 compensation discussion to review the shape of the IMF’s pay-line and the salary comparators, jobs, and weights, given the possibility of the World Bank and the IMF adopting different pay structures in the future. (In December 1998, the World Bank adopted a new compensation system, departing from a joint IMF and Bank compensation system that had been in place since 1989.)

Concerning employment policy, several Directors expressed concern that an ad hoc application of employment policy with regard to contractual relationships and vendor arrangements may have led to unfair treatment. In a subsequent review of employment policy and practice, in January 1999, the Board stressed that employment policy must be based on the principles of fair and transparent labor practices and it endorsed the adoption of a revised employment framework to deal with inconsistencies in employment policies.

At their June 1998 meeting, Directors were concerned about the heavy work pressures in the IMF, which had been intensified by the crisis in Asia. They agreed that work pressures should be eased, which was first and foremost a matter of setting the right priorities, streamlining, and providing adequate staff and dollar resources. To help the staff cope with a work environment expected to remain demanding and fast paced, Directors supported exploring more flexible work arrangements. They also emphasized the need for a strong follow-up on an earlier report on employee health in the IMF. In addition, the Board agreed that it was vital for a knowledge-based institution to give staff sufficient recovery time and opportunities for intellectual renewal, including through more active use of sabbatical leave and secondments. Directors also supported more active encouragement of staff to spend part of their career outside the IMF to acquire additional skills and relevant experience. They favored initiatives to improve management and supervisory skills within the IMF and to enhance career development programs, and they welcomed the improved program of formal training in economics.

As of December 31, 1998, the IMF employed 671 assistant staff and 1,525 professional staff (approximately two-thirds of whom were economists). Some 428 additional positions fall into the category of “other authorized staff’ (experts, consultants, Economist Program participants, and other nonregular resources). Of the IMF’s 182 member countries, 123 were represented on the staff. (See Table16 for the evolution of the nationality distribution of IMF professional staff since 1980.)

Table 16Nationality Distribution of Professional Staff by Region(In percent)
Region1198019901998
Africa3.85.85.5
Asia12.312.715.1
Japan1.41.91.6
Other Asia10.910.813.5
Europe39.535.133.2
France6.95.54.6
Germany3.74.34.2
Italy1.71.42.7
United Kingdom8.28.06.6
BRO countries21.3
Other Europe19.015.913.8
Middle East5.45.55.7
Western Hemisphere39.141.040.3
Canada2.62.84.1
United States25.925.925.3
Other Western Hemisphere10.612.310.9
Total100.0100.0100.0

Regions are defined on the basis of the country distribution of the IMF’s area departments. The European region includes countries in both the European I and European II Departments. The Middle East region includes countries in North Africa.

The Baltics, Russia, and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

Regions are defined on the basis of the country distribution of the IMF’s area departments. The European region includes countries in both the European I and European II Departments. The Middle East region includes countries in North Africa.

The Baltics, Russia, and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

During 1998/99, 3,006 staff-years were used in the IMF, compared with 2,946 in 1997/98. Included in the 1998/99 total were 1,990 regular staff-years (1,988 in 1997/98), supplemented by other resources, including Economist Program staff, overtime, and contractual and other temporary staff-years for a total of 2,641 staff-years (2,592 in 1997/98); 233 staff-years for the Office of Executive Directors (230 in 1997/98); and 132 staff-years for externally financed technical assistance and other resources (123 in 1997/98).

Recruitment and Retention

Over the course of 1998, 170 new staff members joined the organization (104 economists, 28 professionals in specialized career streams, and 38 assistants)—an increase of 21 over the 149 staff members hired in 1997. Of the new hires in 1998, 63 were midcareer economists and 41 entered the Economist Program—a two-year program aimed at familiarizing “entry level” economists with the work of the IMF by placing them in two different IMF departments each for a 12-month period. Candidates for the Economist Program typically are completing a Ph.D. in macroeconomics or a related field, or have already finished their graduate studies and have one or two years’ work experience. Economist Program economists who perform well during the two-year period are offered regular staff appointments.

During 1998, 162 staff separated from the organization. The separation rate of professional staff rose to 8 percent (122 staff) in 1998 from 7 percent (104 staff) in 1997, well above the long-term average of about 5 percent. The increase in turnover owed largely to a sudden and sharp rise in resignations of economists joining private sector financial firms and a larger number of retirements, including those encouraged by incentives.

Salary Structure

To recruit and retain the staff it needs, the IMF has developed a compensation and benefits system designed to be competitive, to reward performance, and to take account of the special needs of a multinational and largely expatriate staff. The IMF’s staff salary structure is reviewed and, if warranted, adjusted annually on the basis of a comparison with salaries paid by selected private financial and industrial firms and public sector organizations in the United States, France, and Germany. On the basis of updated analyses of comparator salaries, the salary structure was increased by 4.3 percent in 1998/99, and the Board approved an increase of 4.1 percent for 1999/2000.

Diversity

As mentioned earlier, the Executive Board continued to emphasize staff diversity as an important asset for improving its effectiveness as an international institution. The IMF’s Special Advisor on Diversity, supported by the Managing Director, designed a number of initiatives and indicators to strengthen and monitor nationality and gender diversity (Tables 16 and 17), as well as diversity management in the organization. The Special Advisor works closely with departments to identify issues and opportunities for strengthening diversity and to develop departmental diversity action plans. In 1998/99, departments continued to implement these plans, which typically include diversity initiatives in recruitment, recognition of diversity needs in staff and career development, as well as measures to help ensure grade and salary equity, orientation and mentoring programs for newcomers, measures to improve communication and increase the transparency of information, and promotion of family-friendly work arrangements. The IMF is also placing greater emphasis on people management skills in the performance assessment of supervisors and in promotion decisions—skills of particular importance in an institution with a diverse work force.

Table 17Gender Distribution of Staff by Level
198019901998
Staff LevelNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
All staff
Total (all levels)1,444100.01,774100.02,1961100.0
Women67646.882746.61,01746.3
Men76853.294753.41,17953.7
Support staff
Total613100.0642100.0671100.0
Women49280.354084.157786.0
Men12119.710215.99414.0
Professional staff
Total646100.0897100.01,238100.0
Women17326.827430.539732.0
Men47373.262369.584168.0
Economists
Total362100.0529100.0788100.0
Women4211.67013.215319.4
Men32088.445986.863580.6
Specialized career streams
Total284100.0368100.0450100.0
Women13146.120455.424454.2
Men15353.916444.620645.8
Managerial staff
Total185100.0235100.0287100.0
Women115.9135.54315.0
Men17494.122294.524485.0
Economists
Total99100.0184100.0245100.0
Women44.094.92711.0
Men9596.017595.121889.0
Specialized career streams
Total86100.051100.042100.0
Women78.147.81638.1
Men7991.94792.22661.9

Some 428 additional positions fall into the category of “other authorized staff” (experts, consultants, Economist Program participants, and other nonregular resources).

Some 428 additional positions fall into the category of “other authorized staff” (experts, consultants, Economist Program participants, and other nonregular resources).

The departmental progress reports submitted to the Managing Director in 1998/99 showed significant improvements in diversity awareness and management practices. Progress had also been achieved in the recruitment, promotion, and overall representation of underrepresented staff groups and those earlier identified as having unequal career opportunities. These favorable trends were concentrated among junior level staff, but if sustained, would in time also become evident at managerial levels. Achieving satisfactory diversity of staff in an institution that emphasizes career employment is a goal that necessarily takes time to achieve.

Administrative and Capital Budgets

The IMF’s Administrative and Capital Budgets are considered, respectively, in the context of rolling three-year and five-year medium-term budget outlooks that are reviewed each year by the Executive Board. When the Board discussed the budget outlook in January 1999, Directors agreed that the past year had been marked by an unusual level of global economic uncertainty. Thus the medium-term budget outlook exercise was seen as transitional, focusing on the period immediately ahead and the work at hand.

The five-year outlook for the Capital Budget remained consistent with the strategy to continue and finalize the major building projects already approved and continue with other capital investments that would result in cost savings, or that were required to comply with building codes or to maintain existing buildings and equipment inventory. The Board approved a management proposal to transfer major multiyear software development projects from the Administrative Budget to the Capital Budget as part of the IMF’s five-year Information Technology strategic plan.

Budget Outlook

At the time of the budgetary outlook discussion in January 1999, the Board recognized that prospects for the future IMF workload were complicated by the continuing risks in the world economy and the pending decisions on the precise form and shape of the new architecture of the international monetary and financial system, and the related allocation of responsibilities among international agencies and the private sector. Against this background, the budget strategy for 1999/2000 would:

  • devote resources to strengthening the IMF’s capacity to deal with
  • the new and expanded tasks that had emerged over the past two years;
  • continue to place the highest priority on the quality and timeliness of the IMF’s work, and on the need to be prepared to face unexpected tasks;
  • enhance partnerships with other organizations, notably the World Bank, to seek comparative advantages in sharing responsibilities and selecting work programs;
  • address the urgent need to bring the staffs workload back to a more sustainable level;
  • continue efforts to generate savings through more efficient internal procedures and organization, redeployment of staff and other resources to meet shifting priorities, investment in information technology, work practices, and implementation of efficiency reviews; and
  • assess the budgetary implications of any new developments that may affect the future responsibilities and workload of the IMF.

Directors generally recognized that after a number of years of budget consolidation, additional tasks had resulted in excessive workloads and unsustainable levels of uncompensated overtime. In response, Directors saw a need to return to a more sustainable level of workload and to strengthen the IMF’s capacity to deal with the new and expanded tasks that had emerged over the past two years. Most Directors supported management’s proposal for an increase in the authorized staffing in 1999/2000 (see below), although views differed on the size of the increase. Directors emphasized the need to achieve an efficient division of labor with other institutions in the context of implementing any work arising out of the discussions on the new global financial architecture; ensure an adequate level of resources devoted to technical assistance; and continue efforts at identifying savings from work practice reviews and new technology.

Budgets and Expenditure in 1998/99

The IMF’s Administrative Budget for the financial year ended April 30, 1999 was $519.5 million. For the Capital Budget, $14.4 million was approved for projects beginning in financial year 1999 ($6.5 million for building facilities and $7.9 million for EDP equipment systems). The estimated cost of major IMF activities is shown in Table 18. Actual administrative expenditures during the year totaled $520.6 million, and capital project disbursements totaled $43.9 million, including $25.3 million for major building projects (Table 19).

Table 18Estimated Cost of Major IMF Activities, Financial Years 1998–20001(In millions of US. dollars)
ActivityFinancial

Year

1998
Percent

of

Total
Financial

Year

1999
Percent

of

Total
Budget

Financial

Year 2000
Percent

of

Total
Staff and management
Surveillance141.128.5147.428.3172.730.0
Use of IMF resources104.321.1114.322.0131.422.8
Technical assistance81.616.588.417.096.316.7
External relations23.24.726.25.029.65.1
Administrative support90.118.286.816.794.616.4
Subtotal440.388.9463.189.0524.691.1
Executive Board235.47.137.47.237.16.4
Board of Governors319.64.020.13.914.12.4
Subtotal55.011.157.511.051.28.9
Total495.3100.0520.6100.0575.8100.0
Note: Details may not add to total because of rounding.

Cost estimates for financial years 1998 and 1999 are based on year-end data.

The Executive Board costs include salaries and benefits of Executive Directors, Alternates, and Assistants; business and other travel; communications; building occupancy; books and printing; supplies and equipment; data processing; other miscellaneous costs of Executive Directors’ offices, and the costs of staff support services provided for Executive Directors.

The costs of the Board of Governors consist mainly of the travel and subsistence of Governors, the costs of staff support services provided for the Board of Governors, including the costs of the Annual Meetings, and other miscellaneous administrative services.

Note: Details may not add to total because of rounding.

Cost estimates for financial years 1998 and 1999 are based on year-end data.

The Executive Board costs include salaries and benefits of Executive Directors, Alternates, and Assistants; business and other travel; communications; building occupancy; books and printing; supplies and equipment; data processing; other miscellaneous costs of Executive Directors’ offices, and the costs of staff support services provided for Executive Directors.

The costs of the Board of Governors consist mainly of the travel and subsistence of Governors, the costs of staff support services provided for the Board of Governors, including the costs of the Annual Meetings, and other miscellaneous administrative services.

Table 19Administrative and Capital Budgets, Financial Years 1997–20001(Values expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Financial Year Ended

April 30, 1997:

Actual Expenses
Financial Year Ended

April 30,1998:

Actual Expenses
Financial Year Ended

April 30, 1999:

Actual Expenses
Financial Year Ending

April 30, 2000:

Budget
Administrative Budget
I. Personnel expenses
Salaries216,350229,150249,171270,060
Other personnel expenses129,550117,213122,039147,925
Subtotal345,901346,363371,210417,985
II. Other expenses
Business travel39,30246,83147,12846,940
Other travel26,96028,01028,07233,025
Communications10,69310,50610,96311,274
Building occupancy41,89942,87744,92747,450
Books and printing8,5799,6699,70412,192
Supplies and equipment7,9418,1649,5427,609
Data processing19,73525,76526,01824,600
Miscellaneous9,92412,93013,56016,276
Subtotal165,033184,752189,914199,365
III. Reimbursements–39,368–35,836–40,506–41,566
Total Administrative Budget471,564495,279520,619575,784
Less: Reimbursement for administering the SDR Department–5,914–6,000–4,767
Reimbursement for administering the SAF/ESAF–43,78823
Net Administrative Budget expenses4421,862489,279515,852
Capital Budget
Capital project budgets520,12327,24014,44047,330
Capital project disbursements150,51256,15043,903

Administrative Budget as approved by the Board for the financial year ending April 30, 2000, compared with actual expenses for the financial years ended April 30, 1997, April 30, 1998, and April 30, 1999; and Capital Budget as approved by the Board for capital projects in financial years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Due to rounding, details may not add to total.

The reimbursement of $55,500 was not included in the Administrative Budget by Executive Board decision.

The reimbursement of $56,180 was not included in the Administrative Budget by Executive Board decision.

Net Administrative Budget expenses exclude valuation or loss on administrative currency holdings.

Multiyear Capital Budgets for projects beginning in each financial year.

Administrative Budget as approved by the Board for the financial year ending April 30, 2000, compared with actual expenses for the financial years ended April 30, 1997, April 30, 1998, and April 30, 1999; and Capital Budget as approved by the Board for capital projects in financial years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Due to rounding, details may not add to total.

The reimbursement of $55,500 was not included in the Administrative Budget by Executive Board decision.

The reimbursement of $56,180 was not included in the Administrative Budget by Executive Board decision.

Net Administrative Budget expenses exclude valuation or loss on administrative currency holdings.

Multiyear Capital Budgets for projects beginning in each financial year.

During 1998/99, Administrative Budget resources were used to support the IMF’s work in the following proportions: surveillance and use of IMF resources, with 121 countries classified as program/intensive, an estimated 302 person-years of technical assistance (67.3 percent of expenses); external relations activities to continue making IMF policies and operations more transparent (5 percent); administrative support, where investments in technology and continuing work practice improvements continue to produce savings (16.7 percent); Board of Governors (3.9 percent); and Executive Board (7.2 percent). The distribution of estimated administrative costs by major IMF activities is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9Estimated Cost of Major Activities, Financial Year 1999

(As a percentage of total costs)

Note: Information is based on financial year 1999 outturn of expenditures. The cost of general supervision, training, professional development, and leave has been distributed proportionally to each of the other categories. Because of rounding, details may not add to total.

Budgets and Expenditure in 1999/2000

In support of the budget strategy, the Executive Board, in April 1999, approved an Administrative Budget for 1999/2000 of $575.8 million, representing an increase of 10.8 percent over the approved budget for the previous year, or an increase of 11.8 percent when taking into account the transfer of major software development initiatives to the Capital Budget. In addition, a capital projects budget of $47.3 million was approved for building facility improvements, data processing equipment, and major software development. The 1999/2000 Administrative Budget includes an increase of 98.5 positions in the authorized staffing level to expand the IMF’s surveillance work—particularly for financial sector and related issues, including the development of codes and standards; work related to the use of IMF resources, including increased work stemming from the ESAF reviews and program implementation, the HIPC Initiative, and collaboration with other international financial institutions; technical assistance work, where the scope will be expanded in traditional and nontraditional areas, including work related to fiscal transparency, and in the IMF’s training program with the establishment of the Joint Africa Institute and the Middle East Regional Training Program; and in other areas, where resources are allocated to the external relations program, the human resources strategy, an increase in the number of participants in the IMF’s Economist Program, and in other areas. The increase in authorized staffing will also allow the IMF to reduce the high level of uncompensated overtime and accumulated leave balances.

The Capital Budget represents a continuation of plans for completing major building projects, replacing older facilities and electronic data processing equipment, and, as mentioned, the transfer of major multiyear software development projects from the Administrative Budget to the Capital Budget. This transfer supports the IMF’s five-year information technology strategic plan to improve the way economic, financial, and administrative documents and data are collected, stored, analyzed, shared, and distributed.

The addition to the IMF headquarters building (Phase III) is now completed and staff are occupying the building. Alternatives for the PEPCO building (Phase IV), adjacent to headquarters, are being considered based on current requirements, and a proposal will be presented to the Executive Board for consideration and approval. When the Phase IV project has been completed, staff will be housed in two immediately adjacent buildings owned by the IMF, overall occupancy costs will be reduced, and the IMF’s long-term strategy for housing its staff will have been realized.

    Other Resources Citing This Publication