We are a diverse group of non-profit organizations with varying missions that collectively believe in the value of the international financial institutions (IFIs).

Find relevant reports from our members and the Congressional Research Service, publications from the IFIs, and other useful resources.

IFI WG Hill Handout - FY22 Appropriations  (2) (1).pdf

Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriations - Funding for the IFIs

The International Financial Institutions (IFIs) Working Group is a diverse coalition of non-profit organizations. We collectively believe in the value of IFIs in addressing global development challenges, advancing multilateralism, and setting high standards across the development finance landscape.

Handout IFIs Working Group Overview .pdf

Amidst a historic global crisis, the Biden Administration’s first budget request reflects its commitment to U.S. global leadership and multilateralism. According to the World Bank, the coronavirus crisis, which shows no signs of abating in the developing world, threatens to push 150 million people into extreme poverty by the end of 2021 and reverse decades of developmental progress. For many developing economies, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are a critical lifeline, providing invaluable resources and support. The Administration’s budget request constitutes a vital commitment to these institutions and their essential role in rebuilding the world economy.

Analysis-Presidents_FY22_Budget_Request.pdf

Analysis: The President's FY22 Budget Request and the International Financial Institutions

In August 2021, the IMF Board of Governors approved a $650 billion allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) - the largest in the history of the IMF to boost global liquidity and help countries recover from COVID-19 crisis.

SDRs are allocated to IMF member countries in proportion to their existing quotas with US$275 billion going to emerging market and developing countries. Advanced economies have the option to re-allocate or "channel" their SDRs to low-income countries. 

SDR_A_Primer-Website.pdf

Overall, the papers focus on how the WBG’s policy and programmatic interventions can be best focused to result in tangible change in the lives of affected communities and to ensure that no one is left behind. Among the recommendations put forth, the most consistent across the five thematic papers include: 

Expand partnerships with NGOs and meaningfully engage refugees, host communities, and local civil society to strengthen institutional response and coordination. Among the IDA18 Regional Sub-Window for Refugees and Host Communities (RSW) projects, only four projects acknowledged the importance of partnerships with NGOs. 

Conduct contextualized analysis of forcibly displaced populations and identify barriers that hinder access to basic social services and economic opportunities. The analysis should include socio-political aspects and other non-legal barriers that impede displaced persons from accessing services and opportunities. The analysis should also identify where integrated approaches across relevant sectors are required. This can help the Bank better understand how to strengthen project interventions and identify areas where it can better support government policies and practices. 

Share existing evidence and lessons learned in managing forced displacement crises across Bank teams and external actors to build capacity and expertise on what works in a diverse range of fragile and forced displacement settings. 

Leverage internal resources and knowledge to ensure a more coherent WBG approach is adapted to and applied to forced displacement settings. The WBG has rich experience and extensive resources in addressing issues like gender and legal identity through a variety of frameworks, tools and initiatives. These resources should be expanded to cover the forcibly displaced in all their diversity. By harmonizing and improving linkages across resources within the WBG, programming and financing will be more effectively designed and implemented to respond to displacement challenges.

Thematic-Papers-on-Fragile-Forced-Displacement-Contexts.pdf

Thematic Papers on Fragile & Forced Displacement Contexts: Recommendations for the World Bank Group and Other Investors 

The reallocation of SDRs into the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) is a channel that has already been used by several countries (see here and here), and the IMF has called on advanced countries to use some of their new SDRs to buttress the PRGT further. But many have pointed out that loans from the PRGT can only be used to support a prescribed list of low-income countries for a limited set of purposes. Thus, there have been calls for another IMF-based fund that can support a larger number of countries, particularly vulnerable middle-income countries (MICs), and can be used to provide financial flexibility as LMICs confront recovery from the pandemic and the transition to a resilient, sustainable, and equitable future global economy. This note considers the technical challenges of establishing such a fund, which we dub a Global Resilience Trust (GRT).

The reallocation of SDRs into the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) is a channel that has already been used by several countries (see here and here), and the IMF has called on advanced countries to use some of their new SDRs to buttress the PRGT further.

reallocating-SDRs-IMF-global-resilience-trust_.pdf

Reallocating SDRs into an IMF Global Resilience Trust

A significant proportion of DFI financing is channelled through financial intermediaries (FIs) such as national and commercial banks in developing economies, microfinance institutions, and private equity funds. These types of institutions allow DFIs to significantly broaden their scope and reach more clients by effectively disaggregating finance to a scale suitable for smaller stakeholders such as SMEs. However, the introduction of an additional step in the financial value chain has implications for transparency; the extent and detail of sub-project disclosure is almost always less than that with direct investments. A lack of transparency means that it is unclear where a great deal of this development finance ends up, the development impacts that it has, and the environment and social risks that it holds for project affected communities.

Our working paper, published in August 2021, found that the level of DFI FI transparency is low, particularly at the level of sub-investments, making it near-impossible to track the flow of development finance. Our research examined the transparency of 17 bilateral and multilateral DFIs and found that:

There are numerous examples of data disclosure via sources other than the DFI.

The Equator Principles offer an example of financial sector disclosure that can inform efforts to improve DFI FI disclosure.

National banking privacy regulations can act as a barrier to improving transparency. However, these can be partly addressed by financial institutions seeking consent to disclose from their clients.

DFI-Transparency-Initiative-WS5-Financial-Intermediaries.pdf

DFI Transparency Initiative Work Stream Five: Financial Intermediaries

To respond to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has committed its $1 trillion lending capacity and as of March 15, 2021, had provided $107 billion worth of financial assistance to 85 countries around the world. Oxfam has reviewed the publicly available IMF COVID-19 loan documents associated with 107 loans to these countries, extracting and collating select data from each loan document relevant to spending, accountability, and proposed recovery measures.

Under its surveillance mandate, the IMF has conducted several virtual Article IV Consultations in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis. Oxfam has reviewed the Article IV reports, published between September 2020 and March 2021, of countries which received loans from the Fund.  The inclusion of Article IV reports is meant to shed further light and details on the direction of the Fund’s country-specific policy recommendations as the crisis has evolved since the disbursement of the loan.

The tracker covers the amounts of funding IMF committed and disbursed to borrowing countries by region (column 2), types of financing instruments the Fund has employed (column 2), the borrowing countries’ current debt situation (column 3), fiscal policy measures, particularly social spending aimed at addressing the crisis (column 4), anti-corruption and transparency measures which countries have committed to undertake (column 5), and proposed fiscal measures for the recovery period (column 6). 

There is an overwhelming amount of information available on the IMF’s website and associated with each loan. This particular dataset has been compiled for the benefit of persons and institutions wanting a snapshot view of what governments are borrowing, what they intend to do with these funds, and what policy measures the IMF is encouraging countries to take during the pandemic and in the recovery period. The intention is to shine more light on these agreements, find trends, provide citizens and civil society with a starter-kit to understand these loans better, and be able to hold governments and the IMF more accountable.

All text provided in this tracker are direct excerpts manually selected and extracted from publicly available official IMF reports. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this dataset and all information is believed to be correct as of March 15th, 2021.

Note: An earlier version of this dataset remains available here which was correct as of September 2020.

Final IMF COVID Financing Tracker - Phase 2 (March 15 2021).pdf

Behind the numbers: a dataset on spending, accountability, and recovery measures included in IMF COVID-19 loans

In 2020, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) joined efforts by other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to rapidly scale up support to developing countries to address COVID-19. Beyond headline numbers, there has been less focus on how ADB’s support was distributed by country income group, sector, modality, and product. Using an updated dataset on commitments and disbursements between 2018 and end of December 2020, we compare “pre-crisis” and “crisis period” trends. We overlay ADB data on other publicly available datasets reflecting population size, mobility levels, and government fiscal stimulus to evaluate the responsiveness and size of ADB support vis-à-vis other MDBs. Our findings show ADB’s response was most significant in the countries that most needed support—low income economies with sharp GDP declines and limited fiscal response capacity. The health and public sector management sectors had significant surges in commitments, and impacted the modality used. While there was a rise in grant and concessional financing in 2020, non- concessional loans and sovereign operations still dominated during the crisis period. We suggest further work on how these changes impact development outcomes, with a view to recalibrating the bank’s strategies in some sectors and products in the medium term. 

how-effectively-asian-development-bank-responding-covid-19-early-assessment.pdf

How Effectively Is the Asian Development Bank Responding to COVID-19? An Early Assessment

The approval of a new allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the first effort to deal with the financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis on a global level. The extra $650 billion of reserve assets to be injected onto the balance sheets of the world’s central banks is an important response to the financial squeeze felt by many countries, especially lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that do not have the space for the kind of fiscal and monetary expansion that many developed countries have undertaken.

The purpose of this note is to reframe the concept of SDRs and then to outline in broad the types of proposals that have been mooted as a basis for more detailed work over the coming months.

We want to see what proposals are in line with international mandates for SDR use and what political considerations come into play, but most importantly outline the technical work that needs to be done so that the SDRs can be “put to work” when they become available in August 2021.

challenge-reallocating-sdrs-primer.pdf

The Challenge of Reallocation SDRs: A Primer

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increase in unpaid care work all over the world, causing women to leave the workforce, reversing decades of progress on gender equality, and resulting in increased focus and empathy around the global childcare crisis. Recognizing a gap in the evidence regarding multilateral development banks’ current (and historical) investments in childcare solutions, in this paper we seek to establish a baseline, exploring the extent to which MDBs have invested in childcare over time, across geographies, and through various sectors and activities. Using project data from eight multilateral development banks’ project databases, we compiled all projects with a childcare component from 2000 to June 2021. Our analysis explores best practices across institutions, identifies gaps and areas for improvement, and makes recommendations for how MDBs can increase and improve investments in childcare.

multilateral-development-banks-investments-childcare.pdf

A Review of Multilateral Development Banks’ Investments in Childcare

The COVID-19 pandemic has dealt a huge blow to every country, and many governments have struggled to meet their populations’ urgent needs during the crisis. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has stepped in to offer extra support to a large number of countries during the pandemic. However, Oxfam’s analysis shows that as of 15 March 2021, 85% of the 107 COVID-19 loans negotiated between the IMF and 85 governments indicate plans to undertake austerity once the health crisis abates.

The findings in this briefing paper show that the IMF is systematically encouraging countries to adopt austerity measures once the pandemic subsides, risking a severe spike in already increased inequality levels. A variety of studies have revealed the uneven distribution of the burden of austerity, which is more likely to be shouldered by women, low-income households and vulnerable groups, while the wealth of the richest people increases. Oxfam joins global institutions and civil society in urging governments worldwide and the IMF to focus their energies instead on a people-centred, just and equal recovery that will fight inequality and not fuel it. Austerity will not ‘build back better’.

bp-covid-loans-imf-austerity-110821-en.pdf

Adding Fuel to Fire: How IMF demands for austerity will drive up inequality worldwide

Recent work by the CGD researchers through the COVID-19 Gender and Development Initiative suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted women particularly severely, disproportionately affecting their paid and unpaid work, income, and food security, while also exacerbating the risk of gender-based violence. In response to the pandemic, multilateral development banks (MDBs) rapidly expanded their financing across a range of areas, including health and social protection, but little is known regarding whether new operations have been designed to address the crisis’ disproportionate impacts on women. This note builds upon previous CGD research to examine how MDB operations in response to COVID-19 have considered gender differences in their design, and how that design has evolved across institutions, with a particular focus on social protection measures in lower-income countries. We focus our analysis on social protection projects, recognizing this as the primary policy lever of choice by governments and supporting donor institutions as they sought to mitigate the risks of rising poverty and food insecurity in the COVID-19 context, as well as a critical component of policy packages capable of promoting an inclusive recovery. Similar analyses could also be undertaken for projects related to broader economic development, health, education, or other sectors.

Gender-MDB-social-protection-response-covid.pdf

Gender in the MDB Social Protection Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is in the process of a considerable transformation, designed to grow its operations and expand their development impact. By 2030, the Corporation has committed that 40 percent of annual own-account commitments will be in International Development Association (IDA) and fragile and conflict-affected states, requiring a quadrupling of annual program delivery in those countries. In addition, the corporation has promised to invest more heavily in climate-friendly projects, as well as focus more on projects with the potential for significant development outcomes.

IFC’s board and leadership understand that meeting these goals requires a change in the way that the corporation operates, and a number of recent reforms will help it to deliver. But while these reforms are a welcome start, the IFC will have to change further if it is to meet its targets and reach its development potential. This paper discusses the rationale and elements of that change agenda, focused on ensuring the IFC best serves its ultimate clients.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is in the process of a considerable transformation, designed to grow its operations and expand their development impact. By 2030, the Corporation has committed that 40 percent of annual own-account commitments will be in International Development Association (IDA) and fragile and conflict-affected states, requiring a quadrupling of annual program delivery in those countries. In addition, the corporation has promised to invest more heavily in climate-friendly projects, as well as focus more on projects with the potential for significant development outcomes. 

ifc-three-point-one.pdf

World Bank budget support projects throughout the COVID-19 global health emergency contain significant policy conditionality. On average, each operation required the recipient government to implement 8 policy reforms to secure funding—a reasonable constraint in “normal” times but at odds with the twin imperatives of speed and flexibility in crisis times. In addition, over two-thirds of the World Bank budget support reform conditions were not directly relevant to the COVID-19 crisis. Instead, they focused on a longer-term reform agenda. This puts the World Bank out of step with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which has routed a significant portion of its COVID-19 financing through programs with little to no conditionality. It may also help explain the absence of a surge in budget support since the onset of the global pandemic since onerous reform conditions might discourage governments from requesting the instrument. Crucially, it also raises questions around the effectiveness of how the World Bank is using budget support operations as a crisis response tool. With the COVID-19 emergency far from over for most of the world, the World Bank should focus on providing fast-disbursing programs with lighter policy conditions that are concentrated on mitigating the crisis at hand.

World-Bank-Budget-Support-Time-Of-COVID.pdf

World Bank Budget Support in the Time of COVID: Crisis Finance… with Strings Attached

This note presents estimates of Finance for International Development (FID) in 2018. FID is a grant equivalent measure of cross-border, concessional finance publicly provided for development. We introduced FID last year to better compare development finance provided by both DAC (OECD Development Assistance Committee) and non-DAC countries, the latter having gained importance as development actors in recent decades. We produced estimates of FID for 40 of the world’s major economies, which accounted for around 90 percent of global GDP in 2018. FID attempts to measure all cross-border assistance given for the purpose of development—including grants, technical assistance, and the grant equivalent of all concessional loans and contributions to multilateral organisations—but excludes various in-donor costs (such as spending on scholarships) that are part of the DAC’s own measure of development assistance, official development assistance (ODA).

Finance-international-development-update.pdf

Finance For International Development Update

Oxfam welcomed the World Bank’s effort to frontload resources from IDA19 in order to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and understands the need and urgency of replenishing IDA coffers earlier than expected. Given the tremendous financing needs, Oxfam supports a strong IDA20 replenishment. Oxfam also hopes to see a robust policy package attached to IDA20 that is appropriately ambitious for the next three years--aimed at supporting an end to this pandemic as quickly as possible, and propelling IDA countries forward towards a just economy after COVID-19 that is more equal and inclusive, that protects the planet, and that ends poverty.

Oxfam IDA20 Position Paper June 2021.pdf

Oxfam Position Paper on IDA20 Replenishment

The Quality of Official Development Assistance (QuODA) measures and compares providers of official development assistance (ODA) on quantitative indicators that matter most to development effectiveness and quality. It aims to encourage improvements to the quality of ODA by highlighting and assessing providers’ performance. 

Visit QuODA.CGDev.org to explore the latest QuODA results. CGD's interactive tool lets you compare countries and agencies to answer the question, “How are development cooperation providers performing on their commitments and the indicators that matter to improving the quality of official development assistance?"

The Quality of Official Development Assistance (QuODA) measures and compares providers of official development assistance (ODA) on quantitative indicators that matter most to development effectiveness and quality. It aims to encourage improvements to the quality of ODA by highlighting and assessing providers’ performance.

QuODA-brief-2021.pdf

The Quality of Offical Development Assistance

With the support of their respective member countries, international financial institutions (IFIs) provide financial and technical assistance to lower-income countries to support economic growth and improve living standards. IFIs provide support through grants as well as through loans at favorable, below-market rates.

The IFIs are the largest source of international financing for many low- and middle-income countries, making these institutions key partners in national development agendas. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have mobilized unprecedented levels of financial resources to support countries in responding to the health and economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, including devastating worldwide surges in hunger and malnutrition.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, IFIs have mobilized unprecedented levels of financial resources to support countries in responding to the health and economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, including devastating worldwide surges in hunger and malnutrition.

IFI hunger COVID responses FINAL.pdf

This factsheet details appropriations from FY2016-FY2021 for eight major IFI accounts: IDA, AfDF, AsDF, IFAD, IBRD, AfDB, ADB, and IDB.  

International financial institutions (IFIs) or multilateral development banks (MDBs), so-called because they are funded by multiple countries and partners, provide financial assistance to developing countries to promote economic and social development.

Resources