LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Mark Plant

Bernat Adrogué

December 2nd, 2022

The IMF can ramp up lending now

0 comments

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Mark Plant

Bernat Adrogué

December 2nd, 2022

The IMF can ramp up lending now

0 comments

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

In an article originally published by the Center for Global Development,  Bernat Camps Adrogué (MSc Political Economy of Late Development alum 2021) and Mark Plant call for the IMF to step up lending for countries in need while they wait for the loss and damage fund discussed at COP27 to come to fruition.

The Global North can make an immediate down payment on the promises made at COP27 to increase financing for emerging markets and developing countries (EDMCs). EDMCs need not wait for a loss-and-damage fund (a mere proposal is due in a year!). Nor need they queue for a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), destined for a select few countries but with at least a year’s gestation period.

How can countries ensure that funding starts to flow now? By pushing the limits of the funding mechanisms already in place.

For example, let’s look at the IMF’s support for the poorest countries in Africa, whose finances have been drowned in the wake of COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many of these countries also face enormous investment costs to adapt to climate change, for which they bear no responsibility.

The 39 sub-Saharan African countries eligible to receive loans from the IMF’s pool of concessional money, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT), currently have credit outstanding of about $16.5 billion. The IMF has some self-imposed standards on how much a country can borrow annually and cumulatively (see the details here). These are calibrated as a percentage of the country’s shareholding in the IMF, or IMF quota; the overall cumulative limit is 435 percent of quota. Here’s where the 39 PRGT-eligible countries stand:

Table 1. Current borrowing of PRGT-eligible African countries

If we brought all the countries to their maximum borrowing from the PRGT, it would increase lending by $32.7 billion, bringing total lending to $49.2 billion (table 2). (Blend countries borrow from the PRGT and the IMF’s General Resources Account, or GRA—we bring those countries to their PRGT limit. This also includes loans to some countries whose policies may not currently be sufficiently strong to gain IMF support, but we were after a ceiling figure and did not want to make judgments here about the merits of any country’s policy stance.)

Table 2. Current and potential PRGT commitments in billions of $US

How does this compare to other lending efforts by the IMF? Table 3 gives some perspective. Perhaps the most pertinent example is the current loan to Argentina from the IMF’s GRA—the loan was for $43.8 billion (about 1,000 percent of its IMF quota) to benefit 45 million Argentinians. While per capita lending is not the right metric for IMF support, the contrast is nonetheless stark.

Table 3. Some IMF loans (population and GDP per capita in the year of the loan)

We noted earlier that many African countries are in or near debt distress, which some give as a reason for limiting IMF loans. But this can be wrong-headed as PRGT loans (0 percent interest, 10-year maturity, 5-year grace period) are often cheaper than much of the financing currently on countries’ books and certainly more affordable than going to the market. And loans from the IMF’s new facility, the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), are even cheaper for PRGT-eligible countries. Paying off more expensive loans with PRGT or RST financing could be a good deal. And could tide countries over while they wait for the oft-promised but as-yet-undelivered grant financing to support the transition.

Does the IMF have room to lend at these levels? According to our latest figures, the PRGT has about $27.3 billion more in lending capacity. So the IMF would need at least $5 billion more in loanable funds. The G20 committed to recycling $100 billion of the SDRs they received in August 2020. At least $35 billion have yet to be allocated to any use, so why not expand the PRGT, which is an easy way to recycle SDRs? Increased lending will also require some shoring up of the PRGT’s finances. As suggested in an earlier paper, the PRGT is not in immediate danger of default, and it is easy to put it back on a sustainable basis if the IMF starts now. And RST lending can complement PRGT lending too.

The estimates above come from pushing the PRGT to its limits—probably not a good idea for a handful of African countries that are poorly governed or in deep debt distress. But advanced countries can do more to jumpstart the promises made at COP27. Shareholders need to do three things:

  • Give the nod to staff to lend more: while not relaxing prudential standards, pushing the envelope for those countries that can benefit from more IMF lending, either from the PRGT or the RST.
  • Get more loanable funds to the PRGT and RST by SDR recycling or hard currency loans.
  • Start the five-year process of putting the PRGT on a sustainable basis.

Why not use the facilities and funds and pools of money we have more aggressively, at least until some of the COP27 promises start to be delivered?


The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Main Image Credit: Dieter Telemans via Climatevisuals.org.

About the author

Mark Plant

Mark Plant is co-director of development finance, a senior policy fellow, and chief operating officer of CGD Europe. His appointment to CGD follows a long career at the International Monetary Fund, where he was most recently the director of Human Resources. Prior to that, Plant worked extensively with African countries, culminating in his appointment as deputy director of the IMF’s African Department. He also held a range of senior positions in the Strategy, Policy and Review Department, where he had oversight of the IMF’s policies towards low-income countries, including its work on the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) and the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Before joining the IMF, Plant held senior positions in the US Department of Commerce and at the General Motors Corporation. He began his career teaching economics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Bernat Adrogué

Bernat Camps Adrogué is a research assistant with the Sustainable Development Finance team at the Center for Global Development. Prior to joining CGD, he worked as a research assistant for Stanford and Princeton University and as a researcher for London School of Economics European Society. Adrogué holds a Master's degree in Political Economy of Late Development from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and Bachelor's degree in Economics from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), awarded with the Advanced Quantitative Methods certificate.

Posted In: Climate and Environment | Climate Emergency | Development Economics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RSS Justice and Security Research Programme

RSS LSE’s engagement with South Asia

  • Cox’s Bazaar: Insecurity, Criminality and Rohingya Women
    Women and girls have always been amongst the worst victims of all forms of violence. Their continuing plight in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh is highlighted in this stark blog by Kathy Win, based on her fieldwork in Cox’s Bazaar and Rakhine State.   Rohingya women and girls are amongst the most affected victims of […]
  • The ‘Sri Lanka’ Syndrome: Lessons for Bangladesh and South Asia
    The dramatic collapse of Sri Lanka’s economy in 2021 and the attendant misery it has wrought for her citizens has alerted other countries in the region, as well as international observers, to the possibility of such developments in other countries as well. In this cautionary post, Kamal Uddin Mazumder presents a comparative view, with Bangladesh in focus.   […]