IMF concludes 2026 review of 2026 program design, conditionality

International Monetary Fund has said that it has concluded the 2026 Review of Program Design and Conditionality. It said this is part of a series of major policy reviews that the IMF is undertaking to help support its members navigate an uncertain and complex global economic context. 

Alongside the Review of the Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries, the Comprehensive Surveillance Review, and other reviews, the 2026 ROC seeks to ensure that the Fund’s lending toolkit is effective in helping vulnerable members resolve their balance of payments (BOP) problems and restore medium-term external viability.

The 2026 ROC assesses IMF-supported programs under the General Resources Account (GRA) and the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) during January 2018 and December 2024, a period marked by major global shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, and heightened economic uncertainty. 

It draws lessons from program experience and identifies areas for strengthening program design and implementation, considering multiple shocks, evolving financing conditions, implementation capacity, country ownership, and persistent vulnerabilities. Its findings are based on extensive analytical work and initial reform proposals discussed at informal discussions by Executive Directors in October 2025 and April 2026.

The ROC finds that Fund-supported programs responded with speed and agility to successive major shocks, helping member countries address urgent BOP needs and avoid excessively sharp pro-cyclical adjustment. Where adjustment was timely and sustained, countries rebuilt buffers and strengthened macroeconomic fundamentals. However, restoring medium-term external viability proved challenging in other cases as new shocks and implementation shortfalls weighed on outcomes.

The ROC proposes targeted refinements to program design and implementation to make programs more coherent, realistic, and adaptable in the context of a volatile and changing external environment, and more focused on durably resolving members’ BOP problems and catalyzing financing. These refinements represent a further evolution of the existing program framework that remains rooted in the 2002 Guidelines on Conditionality.

Implementation will be phased, focusing initially on updating the operational guidance note and developing new analytical tools and templates for country teams. Thereafter, the focus will shift to country-level implementation.

It said “Executive Directors welcomed the 2026 Review of Program Design and Conditionality (ROC), which assesses the performance of IMF‑supported programs during 2018‑2024, a period of major global shocks and heightened uncertainty, and recommends measures to ensure that programs are well calibrated to help member countries resolve their balance of payments (BOP) problems in a more uncertain and shock‑prone global economic environment. They broadly supported the reform proposals as outlined in the staff paper.

“Directors agreed that during the review period the Fund responded with speed and agility to successive shocks, helping members stabilize their economies. At the same time, they noted that resolving BOP problems and restoring medium‑term external viability remained challenging in some cases, particularly where shocks were recurring, vulnerabilities were deep seated, or implementation fell short.

“Directors considered that a more uncertain global environment heightens the importance of timely and balanced adjustment and financing, supported by focused reforms to strengthen growth and resilience. In this context, they reaffirmed the appropriateness of the 2002 Guidelines on Conditionality. 

“Directors broadly supported the proposed reform package that represents targeted refinements to program design and implementation and that, taken together, would help make Fund‑supported programs stronger, more coherent, and better able to play a catalytic role. They emphasized the importance of ensuring evenhandedness and tailoring to country circumstances to strengthen program ownership and success. Directors particularly welcomed the proposed integrated approach across the ROC, Comprehensive Surveillance Review, and ongoing capacity development work.

“Directors supported efforts to strengthen the coherence of program design and ensure that programs are grounded in credible macroeconomic and financing assumptions, taking into account members’ implementation capacity, with the objective of resolving members’ BOP problems and restoring medium‑term external viability. 

“Directors stressed that fiscal adjustment is essential to restore macroeconomic stability. Drawing on program experience, most Directors agreed that adjustment should, where critical to resolving BOP problems and to the extent feasible, be front‑loaded, supported by realistic, high quality, and growth friendly measures, and paying due regard to country circumstances and distributional impacts, particularly in Low‑Income Countries and Fragile and Conflict‑Affected States. 

“At the same time, many Directors cautioned against a general recommendation for front‑loading adjustment. A number of Directors emphasized stronger alignment between phasing of access and the pace and depth of reforms.

“Directors underscored the importance of a balanced policy mix, including an appropriate role for monetary, exchange rate, and macro‑financial policies, and generally supported the more systematic integration of external sector assessments into program design. At the same time, a few Directors stressed the need to maintain flexibility, including on the choice of nominal anchors and the integration of external assessments. 

“Directors welcomed piloting a Medium‑Term Structural Reform Strategy—focused on reforms that are critical to resolving the member’s BOP problem and built where feasible on existing country strategies—to help prioritize and sequence structural conditionality, strengthen implementation, and better integrate capacity development.

“Directors agreed that heightened uncertainty calls for a more adaptable approach to program design and implementation. They supported the use of risk‑informed baselines, complemented by sensitivity and scenario analyses where appropriate, particularly in higher‑risk cases. 

“Directors urged taking into account implementation capacity and potential implementation risks arising from electoral dynamics and other political economy factors to ensure program success, and supported strengthening the guidance and tracking on the use of political assurances, which would continue to be sought on a case‑by‑case basis. 

“They further supported more risk‑based and candid contingency planning, while emphasizing that its scope and granularity should be tailored to country circumstances and risks and accompanied by carefully calibrated communications. Directors agreed that Enterprise Risk Assessments (ERA) could be leveraged more effectively for cases posing major or critical risks to the Fund to inform discussions of evolving risks, contingent responses, and potential program recalibration.

“Directors welcomed the systematic tracking of performance against original targets to help assess whether program objectives remain achievable and support timely recalibration and course correction. They noted that adjustors should preserve appropriate adaptation to evolving circumstances while safeguarding program goals. Directors underscored the importance of credible, well‑specified and transparently monitored corrective actions for missed performance criteria where waivers are granted on that basis, as laid out in the staff paper.

“Directors noted that a credible financing strategy, supported by sound and transparent debt management, is critical to program success and the Fund’s catalytic role. They supported embedding realistic and consistent assumptions on external and domestic financing in program design and emphasized the importance of adapting financing plans as conditions evolve, including through prudent and nimble use of market‑based financing when conditions permit. 

“Directors broadly supported incorporating project financing conservatively and transparently in macroeconomic frameworks, consistent with Fund policies. They further supported a more risk‑based approach to monitoring senior debt exposures, particularly where debt vulnerabilities are elevated, to help preserve the Fund’s catalytic role over time.

“Directors agreed that Fund‑supported programs should remain firmly focused on resolving BOP problems and restoring medium‑term external viability, which are at the core of the Fund’s lending framework. They stressed that Fund financing should support, not substitute for, necessary adjustment and reform, and that each arrangement needs to stand on its own merits, without an ex‑ante presumption of a follow‑on engagement. 

“Directors supported avoiding program overload by prioritizing measures critical to program objectives, while recognizing that deeper structural reforms would require careful sequencing, sustained implementation, and effective collaboration with other international financial institutions.

“Directors welcomed more systematic and candid end‑program assessments to strengthen transparency, accountability, and learning from past program experience. They supported the proposed changes to the longer‑term program engagement (LTPE) framework, including expanded coverage to facilitate earlier assessments of prolonged Fund engagement and the refocusing of Peer Reviewed Assessments (PRAs) as Longer‑Term Assessments (LTAs) to draw lessons from past engagement while avoiding duplication with other program tools and frameworks. A number of Directors stressed the need to avoid stigmatizing follow‑on arrangements driven by repeated shocks or longer‑term challenges.

“Directors supported the proposed phased implementation strategy of the reform package. They welcomed the focus on developing guidance, tools, and templates in the near term, alongside piloting selected reforms before broader rollout. Directors stressed the key role of the revised Operational Guidance Note in the consistent and evenhanded implementation of the reform package, with many Directors stressing that staff should closely monitor and keep the Board informed on implementation. Directors highlighted the need for a phased, proportionate, and risk‑based approach to implementation within the existing budget while enhancing impact and containing administrative burdens, particularly for low‑capacity members, and welcomed synergies with related institutional workstreams.”