Chapter

Chapter 7. Technical Assistance and Training

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund
Published Date:
October 2002
Share
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

Besides its policy advice and financing, the IMF provides technical assistance and training to its member countries in its areas of expertise—including revenue administration and expenditure management, central banking, financial sector sustainability, exchange rate systems, economic and financial statistics, and related legal fields. Technical assistance is an important benefit of IMF membership and is free in most cases, except when provided to countries that can afford to defray the costs incurred in dispensing the assistance. The IMF’s technical assistance aims at strengthening the design and implementation of sound macroeconomic and financial policies, and at transferring know-how in the process. By doing this, the IMF seeks to bolster the institutional capacity of its members and endeavors to deliver assistance that will have lasting benefits for the member’s economy, including on sustainable growth and on poverty alleviation in the case of poorer member countries. Technical assistance helps countries to adopt and implement effective reforms, benefiting from the IMF’s worldwide experience in addressing similar problems in other countries and from its high-caliber experts, drawn from the staff as well as from top public and private institutions, central banks, and economic agencies around the world.

The IMF’s membership has, in the past few years, attached increasing importance to technical assistance to reinforce the effectiveness of the IMF’s surveillance and program work. Technical assistance is also expected to play a central role in supporting the work of the IMF in crisis prevention and management; in capacity building for low-income countries; and in restoring macroeconomic stability in postcrisis situations. For example, systematically following up recommendations relating to the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), adopting international standards, tracking public expenditure and other indicators for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism (Box 7.1) have all led to increased demand for technical assistance.

Against this background, the IMF’s Executive Board has emphasized the need for linking IMF technical assistance to institutional priorities; for improving the efficiency of technical assistance delivery; and for mobilizing additional external resources. In the face of the limited supply of technical assistance, effective coordination and collaboration among providers—especially the international financial and development institutions and bilateral development agencies—have become even more important.

In recognition of the increasing impact of technical assistance on the IMF’s other core operational activities—surveillance and use of financial resources—management decided to strengthen its oversight of IMF technical assistance by upgrading the former Technical Assistance Secretariat to a separate office under the Office of the Managing Director in June 2001. The Office was renamed the Office of Technical Assistance Management (OTM), was expanded, and is now headed by a Director.

A more complete description of the goals, scope, and operational methods of the IMF’s technical assistance is available in a number of documents, including the Policy Statement on IMF Technical Assistance (2001), accessible on the IMF’s website.

Prioritizing the IMF’s Technical Assistance

During the previous financial year, the Board put in place a process to allocate resources for technical assistance more effectively and to better align technical assistance with policy priorities. The resulting framework is based on a set of “filters” used to assess the merit of individual technical assistance requests or projects and to help staff make allocation decisions.7 IMF technical assistance has been divided into five main program areas covering crisis prevention, poverty reduction, crisis resolution and management, post-conflict/post-isolation cases, and regional/multilateral arrangements. These program areas are complemented by three further categories of filters, as follows:

Box 7.1Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism: Technical Assistance and Coordination Efforts

Since April 2001, the IMF has intensified its work in the global efforts to combat money laundering. These efforts took on heightened importance in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, as reflected in the November 2001 and April 2002 communiqués of the IMFC. Both communiqués underscored the need for enhanced technical assistance to help countries identify and remedy gaps in their efforts on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). As a result, the IMF has intensified technical assistance for AML/CFT to member countries and is coordinating its activities with the World Bank and other organizations to enhance the effectiveness of assistance and avoid duplication of effort. (See Chapter 3.)

To align its technical assistance for AML/CFT with its mandate and core areas of expertise, the IMF has focused on strengthening financial sector supervision (both onshore and offshore sectors) and the legal and institutional framework for AML/CFT. These areas broadly include:

  • Formulation of AML/CFT laws and regulations that meet international conventions and best practices;
  • Development of the legal and institutional framework for financial intelligence units that meet Egmont Group requirements, including arrangements for cross-border cooperation;
  • Strengthening the regulatory and supervisory frameworks for the financial sectors that focus on AML/CFT review, compliance, and control mechanisms; and
  • Training and awareness programs on AML/CFT for the public and private sectors. An important element of IMF technical assistance is its work with national authorities and offshore financial centers to prevent abuse of their financial systems and territories by criminal elements.

As the pace of IMF and World Bank assessments accelerates, the need for closer coordination with donors and organizers of technical assistance will become critical. To this end, the IMF and the World Bank, in collaboration with the UN, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the Egmont Group have begun a global coordination initiative to avoid duplication of effort and enhance the effectiveness of available resources. In April 2002, the IMF and the World Bank organized a meeting in Washington of representatives from institutions that are globally active in AML/CFT, including the FATF, the UN, the Egmont Group, regional FATF-style bodies, multilateral development banks, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and bilateral donors. The main aim of this meeting was to enable stakeholders to target their technical assistance efforts more effectively and to establish a network of contacts among participating organizations. This meeting also provided a forum for exchanging views on the priority areas for technical assistance and the need for resources to build institutional capacity, particularly for the regional FATF-style bodies.

  • Target filters: the technical assistance must fall within the IMF’s core areas of specialization, support a limited number of key program areas, or buttress policy priorities.
  • Effectiveness filters: the technical assistance must be deemed likely to have a substantial impact and be effectively supported and implemented by the recipient country. It also should be sustainable in terms of financing and lasting in its effect.
  • Partnership filters: technical assistance requests have preference when they are delivered regionally, benefit several recipients, draw on multiple financial sources, or complement third-party assistance.

Although the overall volume of technical assistance delivered was broadly stable during FY2001 and FY2002 at some 340 person-years, and in spite of the relatively short period of implementation of the prioritization system, some shift among activities has taken place, mainly toward work in crisis prevention, postconflict/isolation cases, and regional initiatives (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1Technical Assistance Delivery Indicators for Main Program Areas and Key Policy Initiatives and Concerns

(Field delivery in person-years)1

FY2001FY2002
Main Program Areas
Crisis prevention28.632.6
Poverty reduction77.369.3
Crisis resolution and management35.928.9
Post-conflict/isolation18.523.2
Regional27.234.9
Total187.4188.8
Key Policy Initiatives and Concerns
Assistance on standards and codes, excluding FSAP16.213.6
FSAP-related1.83.4
HIPC-associated13.721.4
Safeguarding IMF resources0.50.6
Offshore financial centers1.45.1
Policy reform/capacity building153.8144.7
Total187.4188.8
Source: IMF Office of Technical Assistance Management.Note: FSAP = Financial Sector Assessment Program; HIPC = Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

Excludes headquarters-based activities related to technical assistance.

Source: IMF Office of Technical Assistance Management.Note: FSAP = Financial Sector Assessment Program; HIPC = Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

Excludes headquarters-based activities related to technical assistance.

New Developments

In recent years, regional arrangements to deliver the IMF’s technical assistance have taken on greater prominence, particularly for delivering training, facilitating countries’ participation in the General Data Dissemination System (GDDS), and cooperating with established regional organizations. The IMF has also used regional technical assistance centers to enhance the delivery of assistance to members, especially those facing similar needs. This approach was originally conceived to provide technical assistance to small island economies in the Pacific region in 1993, with the establishment of the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Center (PFTAC) in Suva, Fiji. Jointly established by the IMF and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as the regional office for the “Fiscal and Monetary Management Reform and Statistical Improvement Project” in 15 Pacific island countries, the center has been operating successfully ever since.

Modeled on the PFTAC, a new regional technical assistance center was established in the Caribbean—the Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Center (CARTAC)—in November 2001 (Box 7.2). As with the Pacific island countries, the Caribbean governments have a strong voice in the formulation of technical assistance work plans to ensure that they reflect national priorities and realities and benefit from strong local ownership in their design, implementation, and follow-up. Member governments’ representatives play an important role in guiding CARTAC’s overall policies through their participation in its Steering Committee. Among other activities, the center is in the process of setting up an information-exchange website where stakeholders will be able to post information on current and proposed technical assistance activities.

Based on the positive experience with the Pacific and Caribbean Centers, the IMF adopted a similar approach in its new Africa Capacity-Building Initiative, launched in response to a request by African heads of state in 2001 for enhanced IMF support. The Initiative will involve establishing Regional Technical Assistance Centers in Africa (AFRITACs), with the first two to be opened in the fall 2002, on a pilot basis, in East and West Africa. If these are successful, another three centers will be added to cover the rest of sub- Saharan Africa. Each center will have a team of a center coordinator and up to five resident experts who will assist member countries to develop and implement their capacity-building programs, guided by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) each country has drawn up; help implement and monitor their ongoing technical assistance programs; facilitate donor coordination of ongoing capacity-building activities; and provide technical advice.

The IMF has increasingly assisted members with long-term capacity-building efforts; in addition to providing them with immediate policy advice, cooperation and coordination with other bilateral and multilateral providers of technical assistance have received greater emphasis. Such coordination has helped to avoid duplication of effort and to bring in technical assistance inputs that the IMF traditionally does not provide (for example, computer equipment, training equipment, and other materials, as well as hands-on, day-to-day support).

Cooperation between the IMF and other technical assistance providers covers many levels, from the simple exchange of information (for example, through the IMF’s participation at regular consultative group or roundtable meetings to coordinate donor assistance for developing countries), through organizing the provision of complementary forms of assistance (such as working with the United Nations and other bilateral donors involved in reconstruction in immediate postconflict situations, as in the case of Kosovo and East Timor), to a more comprehensive proactive role for the IMF in which it takes the lead in macroeconomic institution building—such as through comprehensive multiyear Technical Cooperation Action Plans (TCAPs).

Responding to calls from the IMFC, G-7, G-20, and the Financial Stability Forum, in April 2002 the IMF joined Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank in launching the Financial Sector Reform and Strengthening (FIRST) Initiative, which will provide a mechanism for coordinating and mobilizing additional financing for technical assistance to help strengthen financial sectors and implement standards and codes. In addition, the IMF is now engaged with the World Bank, the UN, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the Egmont Group in working out how best to coordinate, mobilize, and finance technical assistance efforts in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Although the IMF finances its technical assistance mainly from its own resources, external financing is an important source of additional support. Such external financing is provided as grant contributions under the IMF’s Framework Administered Account for Technical Assistance Activities. There were nine active subaccounts under the umbrella Framework Account.2 The Account was amended in December 2001 to permit the establishment of multidonor subaccounts to support specific technical assistance programs, such as PFTAC and the AFRITACs. Box 7.3 describes the two subaccounts set up during FY2002.

Box 7.2Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Center

The Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Center (CARTAC) provides technical assistance and training in economic and financial management for its member countries. Located in Barbados, the center was inaugurated in November 2001. It is organized as a UNDP regional program with the IMF as executing agency. The IMF manages the center’s operations, provides its program coordinator, and recruits and technically supervises its resident advisors through its technical assistance departments. The center is designed to help Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members and the Dominican Republic strengthen economic and fiscal management; improve financial sector supervision and regulation; and compile more timely and useful economic, financial, and social statistics. Core areas of the center’s technical assistance involve public expenditure management; tax/customs policy and administration; onshore and offshore financial sector regulation and supervision; and economic and financial statistics, as needs-assessments had shown that these were the areas in which improvements were most necessary. Because some of the Caribbean economies are small, and suitably qualified and skilled personnel are scarce, a regional approach was seen as the most cost-effective way of creating sustainable capacity.

The center provides assistance through a program coordinator and a team of five resident advisors, supplemented by short-term contractual specialists. It also features a strong training component, offering in-country workshops, regional training courses, and hands-on professional attachments (internship programs for mid-level government officials). CARTAC’s training activities take place in cooperation with existing institutions, such as the University of the West Indies and the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank. Coordination and cooperation with other entities providing technical assistance in economic and financial management are an important aspect of CARTAC’s work.

Canada contributes over 50 percent of CARTAC’s funding. Other contributors include the U.K. Department for International Development, the Inter- American Development Bank, Ireland, the UNDP, USAID, and the World Bank. The Caribbean Development Bank is seconding a full-time economist. The participating countries contribute to the center’s cost, while the host country provides office space and facilities.

Box 7.3Recently Established Technical Assistance Subaccounts

Two new technical assistance subaccounts were established during FY2002.

  • The United Kingdom—Department for International Development (DFID) Technical Assistance Subaccount was established in June 2001 to enhance the capacity of members to formulate and implement policies in the macroeconomic, fiscal, monetary, financial, and related statistical fields. Three contributions have been made to support the following specific projects: (1) Cambodia TCAP program ($1.2 million); (2) Distance Learning for African Countries ($0.9 million)—a 15-month project that will finance the participation of 80 officials in the IMF Institute’s Financial Programming and Policies course using distance-learning techniques supplemented by a two-week residential component; and (3) General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) Project for Anglophone Africa ($2.4 million)—a two-year technical assistance project to help 14 countries in Anglophone Africa improve their capacity to produce and disseminate reliable and timely macroeconomic and social statistics using the GDDS as a framework.
  • The Italy Technical Assistance Subaccount was established in November 2001 to enhance the capacity of member countries to formulate and implement policies in the macroeconomic, fiscal, monetary, financial, and related statistical fields, including training programs and projects that strengthen the legal and administrative reform frameworks in these areas. The first contribution of about $2 million is earmarked for financing technical assistance to strengthen the capacity to formulate and implement policies related to international standards and codes for financial, fiscal, and statistical management, including work related to combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia, and other members of the former Soviet Union.

In FY2002; external financing from bilateral and multilateral donor partners accounted for some 25 percent of total IMF technical assistance; Japan continued to be the largest donor, providing some 70 percent of this external financing. Other bilateral donors included Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multilateral donors included the Asian Development Bank, the European Union, the Inter-American Development Bank, the UNDP, and the World Bank.

Technical Assistance Delivery in FY2002

Changes in the geographical distribution of technical assistance delivery in FY2002 indicate how it has been prioritized (Table 7.2 and Figures 7.1 and 7.2). With the added emphasis on poverty reduction over the last few years, sub-Saharan Africa’s share rose, and in FY2002 received the largest share of technical assistance from the IMF. Technical assistance delivered to central and southern European transition countries peaked in FY2001, reflecting the large capacitybuilding effort in the Balkans, but has since started to decline. Consistent with the trend over the past five years, technical assistance for eastern European countries declined notably, as most of the transition economies’no longer require the massive amounts of help that were delivered to them a decade ago. Technical assistance to the Asia-Pacific region has remained high, in spite of the waning impact of the 1997–98 financial crisis, reflecting a shift in delivery toward post-conflict cases, such as Cambodia and East Timor; a continued high level of assistance to support reforms in Indonesia and Mongolia; and increased technical assistance to China. The level of assistance to other geographical regions, as well as for interregional projects, has remained broadly the same.

Table 7.2Technical Assistance Sources and Delivery, FY1998–FY2002

(In effective person-years)1

FY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001FY2002
IMF technical assistance budget257.1266.2251.7265.5268.8
Staff165.6164.0158.5171.8172.2
Headquarters-based consultants22.020.316.422.723.2
Field experts69.481.876.971.073.4
External technical assistance resources92.499.285.577.777.8
United Nations Development Program22.814.38.78.49.6
Japan53.670.368.059.556.2
Other cofinanciers16.014.78.89.812.0
Total technical assistance resources349.5365.4337.2343.2346.6
Technical assistance regional delivery293.8308.5282.2275.8280.0
Africa64.572.969.868.271.9
Asia and Pacific47.257.944.457.063.1
Europe I24.822.724.130.230.3
Europe II49.244.940.440.832.6
Middle East29.231.927.527.822.4
Western Hemisphere36.232.528.223.728.0
Regional and interregional42.745.847.928.031.7
Technical assistance nonregional delivery 255.656.955.167.566.6
Total technical assistance delivery349.5365.4337.2343.2346.6
Technical assistance delivery by department
Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department121.9127.2112.2101.2115.5
Fiscal Affairs Department103.2107.4101.4111.997.5
IMF Institute51.454.554.648.249.2
Statistics Department47.248.949.154.456.0
Legal Department10.512.78.615.415.5
Other departments 315.414.711.312.212.9
Total technical assistance delivery349.5365.4337.2343.2346.6
Source: IMF Office of Technical Assistance Management.

An effective person-year of technical assistance is 260 days. New definitions used since 2001; data adjusted retroactively.

Indirect technical assistance, including technical assistance policy, management, evaluation, and other related activities.

Includes the Policy Development and Review Department, the Bureau of Information Technology Services, and the Office of Technical Assistance Management.

Source: IMF Office of Technical Assistance Management.

An effective person-year of technical assistance is 260 days. New definitions used since 2001; data adjusted retroactively.

Indirect technical assistance, including technical assistance policy, management, evaluation, and other related activities.

Includes the Policy Development and Review Department, the Bureau of Information Technology Services, and the Office of Technical Assistance Management.

Figure 7.1Technical Assistance by Function, FY2002

(As a percent of total resources, in effective person-years)1

1 An effective person-year of technical assistance is 260 days. For the IMF Institute, figure excludes training provided or coordinated by the Institute at headquarters.

Figure 7.2Technical Assistance by Region, FY2002

(As a percent of total resources, in effective person-years)

The Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department was the IMF’s largest technical assistance provider and increased its delivery in FY2002 by some 12 percent, to 114 person-years, reflecting the increase in activities linked to the emergence of the new international financial architecture. The Fiscal Affairs Department remained the IMF’s second-largest technical assistance department, although its activities somewhat contracted. The IMF Institute (see below) and the Statistics Department provided the bulk of the remaining technical assistance delivered in FY2002.

Expanded Training by the IMF Institute

In recent years, the IMF Institute has substantially increased the number of training courses for government officials, in response to the large demand from member countries. At the same time, it continued to pay close attention to the evolving needs of member countries in the mix of courses offered and in the development of new courses.

In FY2002, the IMF Institute delivered 117 courses and seminars for officials, providing over 8,700 participant-weeks of training (Table 7.3). The number of training activities and participants rose by 8 percent and 10 percent, respectively, over FY2001 levels, to double what they had been in FY1998. The number of participant-weeks of training rose by 36 percent over the past four years—a more modest increase than in the number of training activities, reflecting the greater emphasis in recent years on shorter and more specialized courses adapted to the needs of the IMF’s member countries.

Table 7.3IMF Institute Training Programs for Officials, FY1998–FY2002
ProgramFY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001FY2002
Headquarters training
Courses and seminars1920222221
Participants658676776798819
Participant-weeks3,6283,8373,6233,6712,982
Regional training institutes and programs1
Courses and seminars2138576780
Participants5671,0951,6322,1022,536
Participant-weeks1,5752,3253,1853,7604,613
Other overseas training
Courses and seminars2120241916
Participants631605775564439
Participant-weeks1,1961,1201,3641,048828
Distance learning
Courses2113
Participants35043134
Participant-weeks410086311
Total courses and seminars6178103108117
Total participants1,8562,3763,1833,4643,794
Total participant-weeks6,3997,2828,2728,5658,734
Source: IMF Institute.

Includes Joint Vienna Institute (established in 1992), IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute (1998), IMF-AMF Regional Training Program in United Arab Emirates (1999), Joint Africa Institute (JAI) in Côte d’Ivoire (1999), Joint China-IMF Training Program (2000), and Joint Regional Training Center for Latin America in Brazil (2001). Data for JAI include courses delivered by the African Development Bank and the World Bank.

These are not included in the total course count below as the residential segment is already reflected in the headquarters’ training category.

Those participants who were invited to the residential part of the courses are included both here and under headquarters training. They are counted only once in the totals below.

Includes only participant-weeks for the distance part of the course. Participant-weeks for the residential part are included in headquarters training.

Source: IMF Institute.

Includes Joint Vienna Institute (established in 1992), IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute (1998), IMF-AMF Regional Training Program in United Arab Emirates (1999), Joint Africa Institute (JAI) in Côte d’Ivoire (1999), Joint China-IMF Training Program (2000), and Joint Regional Training Center for Latin America in Brazil (2001). Data for JAI include courses delivered by the African Development Bank and the World Bank.

These are not included in the total course count below as the residential segment is already reflected in the headquarters’ training category.

Those participants who were invited to the residential part of the courses are included both here and under headquarters training. They are counted only once in the totals below.

Includes only participant-weeks for the distance part of the course. Participant-weeks for the residential part are included in headquarters training.

The expansion of IMF Institute training has been greatly facilitated by the development of a network of IMF regional training institutes and programs, following on the favorable experience with the Joint Vienna Institute (JVI), established in 1992 (Table 7.4). Five new regional institutes and programs began operations over the past four years: the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute (STI) in 1998, the IMF-AMF Regional Training Program (RTP) and the Joint Africa Institute (JAI) in 1999, the Joint China-IMF Training Program (CTP) in 2000, and the Joint Regional Training Center for Latin America (BTC) in 2001. The number of training activities at the regional programs rose from 21 in FY1998 to 80 in FY2002.

Table 7.4IMF Institute Regional Training Programs
Regional ProgramDate

Established
LocationCosponsorsParticipating Countries
Joint Vienna Institute1992AustriaAustrian authorities, Bank for International Settlements, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Bank, and World Trade Organization1Transition countries in Europe and Asia
IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute1998SingaporeGovernment of SingaporeDeveloping and transition countries in Asia and the Pacific
IMF-AMF Regional Training Program1999United Arab EmiratesArab Monetary FundMember countries of the Arab Monetary Fund
Joint Africa Institute1999Côte d’IvoireAfrican Development Bank, World BankAfrican countries
Joint China-IMF Training Program2000ChinaPeoples Bank of ChinaChina
Joint Regional Training Center for Latin America2001BrazilGovernment of BrazilLatin American countries and Portugese-speaking African countries

A number of other European countries and the European Union, although not formal sponsors of the JVI, provide financial support.

A number of other European countries and the European Union, although not formal sponsors of the JVI, provide financial support.

This regional approach has allowed the IMF Institute to increase training considerably without expanding its facilities in Washington and to tailor its programs to the needs of the different regions. It has also been a costeffective way of addressing the large demand for training, as cosponsors of the regional training institutes and programs are making substantial financial contributions through cost-sharing arrangements.

New technology applications have also contributed to the expansion of training through a distance-learning Financial Programming and Policies course, delivered for the first time in FY2000. In FY2002, the IMF Institute provided three deliveries of this course, combining 9–10 weeks of Internet-based instruction with a twoweek residential segment in Washington, D.C.

Although the principal focus of its overseas training is now on the IMF regional institutes and programs, the IMF Institute continues to see its cooperation with regional training institutes outside the IMF network as an important tool for capacity enhancement. At the same time, courses and seminars in Washington have remained a central part of the IMF Institute’s program. Headquarters-based courses offer access to a broader range of staff experience and skills than can be marshaled for overseas activities, which is especially important for longer courses. Washington participants can more broadly compare experiences, develop a wider network of contacts, and more easily gain insights into the operations of the IMF.

The IMF Institute pays close attention to curriculum development. In FY2002, new courses on Inflation Targeting and Banking Supervision were delivered, and courses on Assessing Financial System Stability, Financial Market Analysis, Fiscal Sustainability and Transparency, and Macroeconomic Forecasting were under development for delivery in FY2003. The IMF Institute has also continued to tailor programs on key current issues to the needs of high-level officials. In FY2002, these included seminars on exchange rate regimes, investor relations, fiscal rules, and poverty reduction strategies. The active research program maintained by the staff of the IMF Institute, together with the research contributions of visiting scholars, has helped to ensure that programs are topical and state of the art.

1

For a description of these filters, see the Annual Report 2001, Box 7.1, page 75.

2

These include the Japan Advanced Scholarship Program Subaccount, the Australia-IMF Scholarship Program for Asia Subaccount, the Switzerland Technical Assistance Subaccount, the French Technical Assistance Subaccount, the Denmark Technical Assistance Subaccount, the Australia Technical Assistance Subaccount, the Netherlands Technical Assistance Subaccount, the UK-DFID Technical Assistance Subaccount, and the Italy Technical Assistance Subaccount.

    Other Resources Citing This Publication