Old Guard IMF ‘Game-players’ in Collusion with IMF’s Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) ‘Game-players’

Petition to the British Royal Crown

Report to the British Crown: State of the Union during the Demise of Democracy

I. State of Affairs in ‘The Swamp’ and Rise to Power of a Dictatorship in USA

II. Workplace Bullying and Incompetence in IMF, World Bank, and UN

III. IMF ‘Game-players’ and Cover-up of Corruption in Banking Systems 

IV. ‘Keep America Great’ vs. ‘Make America Great (and White) Again’

V. Old Guard IMF ‘Game-players’ in Collusion with IMF’s Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) ‘Game-players’

Another example of ‘old guard’ IMF ‘game-players’, complicit to the cover-up of predatory and corrupt banking systems and financial markets is Nemat Shafik, an Egyptian national and newly-appointed Director of the London School of Economics. Ms. Shafik obtained this position after having served as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England and Deputy Managing Director of the IMF. During Shafik’s tenure in the IMF she was responsible for creating its Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) (the “IMF’s university”) under the direction of Sharmini Coorey, a Sri-Lankan national. Unfortunately, Ms. Coorey is another ‘old-guard, game-player’ in the IMF who needs to be investigated for gross mis-management of her department, and systemic labor rights violations within it—as explained in my report “Workplace Bullying in the IMF”—as well as the role her department is playing in maintaining the ‘game-playing’ and incompetence within finance ministries around the world.

Shafik and Coorey are perfect examples of how, AND WHY, putting women, particularly minority women, in positions of power only reinforces oppressive traditions and customs, and encourages bullying, abuses of power, negligence and incompetence within their communities, by turning a blind-eye to the problems around them. It is common knowledge in the development community that women utilize resources on feeding and clothing their children, while men use them in gambling, ‘drink’, and prostitution. While even narcissistic, psychopathic women will prioritize limited resources towards fulfilling the survival needs of their off-spring; once those needs are met, these women will utilize resource for their own hedonistic pursuits (stylish clothing, beauty care, gaining social status, etc.). Most women, particularly alpha-dominance women, will rarely, if ever, prioritize the ‘general welfare’ of the community, or group—and why they have been kept out of positions of power in the past. Alpha-dominance men (aka male-supremacists), on the other hand, will prioritize limited resources on hedonistic and narcissistic pursuits—and why affairs and sexual harassment and misconduct is such an enormous problem in the IMF (World Bank, UN, White House, US Congress, State Department, etc., etc.). However, while narcissistic and immoral men will utilize resources for their own hedonistic pleasures, they will also use them to build commerce and trade—and why financial resources have traditionally been concentrated in their hands. Of course there do exist a few honorable ‘ladies’ and ‘gentlemen’ in the world whose concern for their communities and fellow man precede their own wants and needs. Unfortunately, in the present paradigm, these people are disempowered as well as marginalized by the psychopaths.   

ICD, under the direction of Coorey and its managers (ie. Deputy Directors, Dominique Dessruelle (former), Gerd Schwartz, Andrew Berg, and Ralph Chami, Mark Lewis, and Robert Powell), is a ‘petri-dish’ of why, and how, agencies are failing to do their jobs with even a minimum of diligence and integrity, as well as how their efforts are counter-productive to the mandates of their organizations. Instead of training and technical assistance that teaches civil servants in finance ministries to assure integrity, transparency, and accountability within banking systems and financial markets; ICD, under the direction of Coorey and her deputy directors, are encouraging and perpetuating customs of nepotism, corruption, bureaucratic mis-management and negligence in ministries across the globe. One of my more interesting assignments while working in the IMF was in the Financial Integrity Group (FIN), of the Legal Department (LEG), under the direction of Jody Myer. Instead of encouraging ‘ostrich-playing’ and psychopathic ‘game-playing’, Coorey and ICD should be working closely with FIN in breaking up the mafia networks, which control banking systems and financial markets. Former Managing Director of the IMF, Rodrigo Rato, is a perfect example to what extent IMF personnel at the highest levels are involved in corruption within banking systems—as highlighted in the Guardian’s article “Former IMF chief gets four years in jail for embezzlement in Spain.”

It should be noted that Robert Powell, Director of ICD’s Strategy Evaluation (ICDSE), is an ardent Trump supporter, as well as a misogynist, male-chauvinist, and typical white-supremacist. And, it is his division which is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of ICD’s efforts. However, instead of examining the effectiveness of their capacity building efforts under the mandate of the IMF, they, along with the IMF’s Committee on Capacity Building (CCB), are ONLY counting the number of training and technical assistance (TA) programs that ICD is distributing to middle and low-income countries each year—at the cost of $330 million to taxpayer, and with no consideration as to the broader macro, and micro-economic, impact on implicated economies.

The mission and objectives of ICD are laid down in the August ‘14 report “IMF Policies and Practices on Capacity Development,” and I quote, 

1. The principles presented in this document focus on areas that govern the Fund’s provision of CD, including its objectives, scope, prioritization, partnership with donors, delivery, monitoring and evaluations, and transparency.

2. These principles apply equally to technical assistance (TA) and training. They reflect important changes to the Fund’s CD activities over the last decade, including a marked rise in CD delivery, a sharp expansion of donor financing, and more explicit attention to the results—improved outcomes in member countries.

3. In response to the recent financial crisis, the Fund ramped up CD to countries with financial arrangements to facilitate the implementation of crisis-resolving measures. With the receding crisis, focus is shifting toward CD that helps member countries strengthen policies and institutional frameworks to boost resiliency to shocks. At the same time, the Fund continues to provide CD aimed at steadily enhancing institutional and policymaking capacity in member countries, in particular low-income countries, fragile, and small states.

Mandate and Objectives

4. The IMF’s Articles of Agreement provide the legal basis for the Fund’s CD efforts. Article V, Section 2(b) allows the IMF to provide, upon request, “financial and technical services” that are consistent with the IMF’s purposes as set forth in Article I. In accordance with the Articles, it is open to any Fund member to request these services. Moreover, these services are voluntary for both the member and the Fund.2 That is, the services are only provided to the country authorities if requested and the Fund is under no obligation to honor the request.

5. Consistent with its mandate, the main objective of the Fund’s CD activities is to help member countries build strong institutions and boost skills to formulate and implement sound macroeconomic and financial policies. Some of these efforts also aim to deepen the dialogue between Fund and member country experts on specialized aspects of macroeconomic and financial policy issues, complementing policy discussions between member countries and the Fund related to surveillance or Fund-supported programs. Strong institutions with skilled officials help in promoting economic stability and sustainable growth, as envisaged in the Fund’s Articles of Agreement.

6. The Fund’s CD program works to achieve its objectives through two main means: TA and training…

Then, their report of March ‘17, “2018 Quinquennial Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy”, provides further evidence as to the deficiency of ICD (and the IMF) in assuring that training and TA are effectively fulfilling the mandate of the IMF—promoting global economic stability—and I quote,

The Fund’s capacity development strategy was last discussed by the Board in June 2013, and the Board subsequently endorsed the 2014 statement on IMF Policies and Practices on Capacity Development. The 2018 review of the CD strategy will include backward and forward-looking components:

· The backward-looking component will consider the prioritization, funding, monitoring and evaluation, and delivery of CD as set out in the 2014 statement.

· The forward-looking component will provide the opportunity to outline reforms to increase the impact of CD. Emphasis will be on making CD more effective and efficient while building on its existing strengths.

· Conclusions from the 2018 review will be reflected in a revised statement on IMF Policies and Practices on Capacity Development. The Fund’s CD activities (over $330 million in FY2016) represent slightly more than one quarter of the IMF’s budget and are focused on its unique expertise: macroeconomics, fiscal policy and management, monetary policy and financial systems, related legislative frameworks, and macroeconomic and financial statistics. These activities represent a continuum across a number of dimensions. However, for reporting purposes TA and training are recorded separately.1 Sub-Saharan Africa received the largest share of TA (39 percent) and training (28 percent) in FY16, followed by Asia and Pacific (TA: 18 percent; training: 20 percent) and Western Hemisphere (TA: 19 percent; training: 17 percent). About half of these activities are financed by development partners. Annex I provides additional key facts on CD.

2013 Strategy Findings and Recommendations

Following the creation of ICD, the 2013 strategy paper provided the first opportunity to significantly strengthen CD governance and presented the first integrated strategy for CD. Directors agreed that CD should be: (i) focused on the Fund’s core macroeconomic and financial mandate; (ii) integrated with other core responsibilities of the Fund; (iii) nimble in its response to changes in country needs; and (iv) effective in strengthening institutional capacity. The Executive Board endorsed a number of recommendations to achieve these objectives, including with respect to updating the governance structure, enhancing prioritization, clarifying the funding model, and strengthening monitoring and evaluation. The Executive Board also saw scope for fostering greater integration of TA and training, exploiting new technologies for delivery, and leveraging CD as outreach.

Prior to 2013, the planning, prioritization, and funding of TA and training were conducted without centralized coordination of these functions—posing risks to ensuring full consistency with the institutional priorities. There was no mechanism to identify and align CD priorities with the Fund’s overall priorities nor to determine the overall envelope and plans for externally-financed CD initiatives that could serve as a guide to the Fund’s external fundraising efforts. There was also no interdepartmental process to ensure that new externally-financed initiatives were in line with CD priorities. In addition, the external funding envelope was not integrated into the Fund’s medium-term budget.

Since 2013, significant progress has been made to address these shortcomings—with the 2013 CD strategy providing a comprehensive framework for CD activities and the substantial strengthening of the CD governance and prioritization framework (see Box 1)….

· Prioritization has been strengthened in accordance with the 2014 statement on policies and practices on CD. Fund-wide priorities are now informed by the Global Policy Agenda and other papers discussed by the Board (e.g. Financing for Development (FfD), fragile states), Regional Strategy Notes, and other information. They are drawn up in an annual document approved by the interdepartmental Committee on Capacity Building (CCB), chaired by management, and subsequently reflected in the Resource Allocation Plan (RAP), which lists expected CD delivery activities for the coming year. The prioritization process also better integrates priorities at the country and regional levels through: (i) a stronger emphasis on aligning CD priorities outlined in area departments’ Regional Strategy Notes with country needs in both program and surveillance cases; and (ii) area departments’ channeling of authorities’ demands for CD to better inform the RAP process directly.