This paper provides an interim update on implementation of the 2018 Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement on Governance. This update is in advance of a comprehensive formal review of the Framework scheduled for mid-2021.

This paper reviews the implementation of the “2018 Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement on Governance” (the “2018 Governance Framework”). The Board adopted the 2018 Governance Framework to promote a more systematic, effective, candid, and evenhanded engagement with member countries regarding corruption of macro critical dimensions and governance vulnerabilities that allow corruption. Building upon various sources of information, including surveys with key stakeholders, the paper provides a comprehensive stocktaking of the Fund’s work in governance and corruption since 2018, and makes specific proposals to further improve implementation of the Framework.

This report by the external expert panel (“the panel”) examines the effectiveness and appropriateness of the safeguards assessments policy in the five years since its last review in 2015. In addition to expressing an opinion on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the safeguards assessment policy, the panel also makes recommendations to the Executive Board for its consideration to improve and optimize the benefits to be garnered from the safeguards assessment policy. The panel’s opinion is based on (i) consultations with key stakeholders, including central bank authorities, IMF Executive Directors’ offices, and Fund staff; (ii) examination of safeguards assessment and other Fund-specific documents; and (iii) study of international reference materials.

Urgent policy action is needed to control the pandemic, limit scarring, and transform the global economy. The global recovery continues, thanks to unprecedented monetary, fiscal, and financial support over the past year. However, pandemic-induced divergences are persisting, driven by stark differences in access to vaccines and policy space. The Fund will continue to support the membership deal with these ongoing and new challenges. Our priorities are to: vaccinate the world population to stem the spread of pandemic; calibrate policies to limit scarring, support the recovery, and counter growing divergences within and between countries; and accelerate the transformation of the global economy to achieve a more inclusive, greener, and digital recovery.

This note provides operational advice and information to help staff implement the IMF Strategy for Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCS) approved by the Executive Board on March 9, 2022. Topics covered include (i) the new IMF FCS classification methodology, which is aligned with that of the World Bank; (ii) the preparation of Country Engagement Strategies (CES) that will be rolled out across FCS to ensure that Fund engagement is appropriately tailored to country-specific manifestations of fragility and/or conflict; (iii) advice on tailoring the thematic focus of Article IV consultations and Fund analytics to FCS, as well as on the prioritization, design, and implementation of capacity development (CD) projects in fragile contexts; (iv) guidance on making full use of the flexibilities of the lending toolkit; (v) guidance on engaging in specific FCS situations, including building accountable institutions to exit fragility, cases of rising fragility risks, active conflict, post-conflict, and addressing the impact of external shocks and spillovers; and (v) strengthening partnerships with humanitarian, development, and peace actors, in accordance with the Fund's mandate. Dedicated annexes provide additional information on the CES process, addressing good governance in FCS, program design, and country examples of Fund engagement in FCS.

Against the background of a strong economic performance over the last quarter of a century, Peru has been hit by multiple shocks in the last several years. Adequate policies and very strong policy frameworks have made the economy resilient. Following a steep decline in 2020 at the outset of the pandemic and a rapid recovery in 2021, growth slowed significantly in 2022 as the policy stimulus was withdrawn and external and financial conditions deteriorated. Recent political developments suggest that the new government needs to work across the political spectrum to create broader political consensus, reduce uncertainty, ease social tensions, and boost growth.

The COVID-19 pandemic put significant pressures on fiscal accounts during 2020 through a contraction of revenues and increased spending needs to tackle the pandemic and its economic fallout. In response to these pressures, the countries benefitting from the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) have faced difficult choices to reprioritize spending, especially capital spending, even as they allowed higher overall fiscal deficits. This note summarizes the findings from the update of the fiscal monitoring system for the COVID-19 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI). The DSSI was endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers on April 15, 2020 and extended twice in October 2020 (until end-June 2021) and April 2021 (until end-2021). During May–December 2020 (the first phase), 43 countries participated, and 42 countries have formally requested their participation in the initiative during January–June 2021 (the second phase, as of July 30, 2021).

President Biya was re-elected as President of Cameroon on October 7 by a large margin, amidst some violence in anglophone regions. Growth is projected to gradually increase from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 3.8 percent in 2018, driven by construction activity ahead of the Africa Cup of Nations (CAN) and large infrastructure projects. Fiscal consolidation as of end-June was in line with program objectives, but faces significant headwinds in the second half of the year owing to accelerating capital spending and revenue shortfalls. The goods trade balance worsened significantly in H1 and private capital outflows increased, contributing to a slower-than-anticipated buildup of external buffers. The medium-term outlook remains positive with growth expected to increase to 4.4 percent in 2019 and reach 5 percent in the medium-term. Risks from heightened global uncertainty, insufficient adjustment at the regional level, and continued insecurity in the anglophone regions are increasing.

"Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries continue their considerable past achievements. The Millennium Development Goals—which were to have been met by 2015—helped focus attention on achieving progress towards poverty reduction, better health outcomes, and improvements in education in the ASEAN developing countries. The 17 SDGs—adopted in 2015 and to be met by 2030—cover a wider set of interlinked development objectives, such as inclusion and environmental sustainability, which are important for all countries, including all ASEAN member countries. ASEAN countries have made significant progress in improving incomes and economic opportunities, including for women, and reducing poverty since 2000. Reflecting the economic dynamism of the region, strong income growth, structural transformation, and infrastructure improvements continue to support sustainable development in ASEAN. With continued income growth and strong policy efforts, most ASEAN countries are on track to eradicate absolute poverty by 2030, a major milestone. Also, several ASEAN countries already do relatively well in terms of gender equality. As a result, given support from continued income gains, economic welfare in ASEAN countries is expected to continue converging towards advanced Asia levels. Ensuring more inclusive and environmentally sustainable growth presents a key challenge for ASEAN. Despite some progress, income inequality remains relatively high in several countries and the shift towards manufacturing strains environmental sustainability. These challenges hamper ASEAN welfare convergence relative to advanced Asia. Policies to close these gaps in sustainable development can lead to significant gains. For the lower-middle-income ASEAN countries, in particular, more determined policy efforts are needed to improve infrastructure, as well as health and education outcomes. Remaining sustainable development challenges call for comprehensive, country-specific SDG strategies formulated in the context of national development plans and close monitoring through the voluntary review process. Pursuing sustainable development entails sizeable spending needs. Estimates for Indonesia and Vietnam, the two cases studies considered in this paper, show that reaching the level of best performers in their income group in infrastructure, health, and education by 2030 could entail an additional cost of 51⁄2–61⁄2 percent of GDP per year. While development needs vary across countries, estimates suggest large spending needs for most ASEAN countries. Meeting them will require efforts on multiple fronts, including improvements in spending efficiency, tax capacity, and support from the private sector. For developing ASEAN countries, concessional financing from development partners will be required. The IMF continues to engage ASEAN countries in key areas as they pursue their SDGs. As called for in their mandates, ASEAN and the IMF both strive for economic growth and sustainable development through economic integration and collaboration among their member countries. The IMF has increased its engagement with ASEAN countries to support their policy efforts through its policy diagnostics, advice, and capacity development. ASEAN countries have also received support through IMF initiatives in strengthening revenue mobilization, building state capacity for infrastructure provision, pursuing economic and financial inclusion, addressing the challenges of climate change, strengthening economic institutions for good governance, and building statistical capacity. While fundamental reforms to improve sustainable development take time to bear fruit, there is evidence that efforts have started to pay off. "

Encapsulating Law Reform requires the creation of a discreet space occupied with normative self-generation, self-correction, and self-adaptation in the very anatomy of law and the architecture of legal systems. This ‘living dynamic trait’ should be a hallmark of the genetic material in the modern-day institution of law. This edited volume sheds light on Law Reform in its domestic, comparative, regional, and international settings. It examines the process of Law Reform and explains the need for a constant appraisal to keep its wheels optimally operational. The book takes a holistic approach to understanding Law Reform and calls for such an approach in the very process of Law Reform. It begins by looking at Law Reform processes from a theoretical perspective. Thereafter, it sheds light on domestic Law Reform processes in civil and common law legal systems. This is followed by a focus on Law Reform at the international level with a critical appraisal of the International Law Commission (ILC), drawing on its performance in international economic and environmental law. Included in this consideration is also the role played in Law Reform by the IMF, World Trade Organization/World Intellectual Property Organization, Multilateral Development Banks, and the African Union Commission on International Law. This volume should appeal to students, serious scholars, policy makers, judges, and the community of national and international lawyers interested in bringing effective reform in the national and international arenas.