arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2511.08617

The effects of International Monetary Fund programs: a systematic review with narrative synthesis on poverty, inequality, and social indicators

Abstract

This systematic review with narrative synthesis examines the social impacts of International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs. We systematically searched five academic databases and grey literature following PRISMA guidelines and included 53 empirical studies that met predefined eligibility criteria. For each study we assessed risk of bias, with particular attention to how endogeneity, selection bias, and confounding were handled. Because of substantial heterogeneity in outcomes and research designs, results were synthesized narratively rather than through meta analysis. We find that a minority of studies, often using methods with higher risk of bias such as propensity score matching, report no systematic adverse social effects. By contrast, a large body of work using stronger quasi experimental designs, especially instrumental variable strategies, links IMF conditionality to higher income inequality, worse health outcomes (notably tuberculosis and child mortality), and growth of the informal economy. Overall, the best available evidence indicates that IMF programs, particularly those centered on fiscal austerity and structural reforms, impose significant social costs and that a redesign of conditionality is needed to protect social spending and advance the Sustainable Development Goals.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ricardo Alonzo Fernández Salguero. 2025-11-06. The effects of International Monetary Fund programs: a systematic review with narrative synthesis on poverty, inequality, and social indicators. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08617

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN