Why Do Countries Request Assistance from International Monetary Fund? An Empirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the determinants behind persistent and prolonged stays under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) program and its effectiveness, using panel data consisting of 70 countries that have requested IMF support multiple times, during the period 1980–2018. By employing panel survival analysis, we conclude that weak economic indicators, e.g., current account deficit, high debt service ratio, low GDP, are the main reasons that force a country to reach out to the IMF support program. We further extend our analysis to investigate the effectiveness of the IMF program by dividing our sample into two groups, based on income level. To overcome the issue of endogeneity, we implement the panel instrumental two-stage least squares (2SLS) fixed-effect model. In the light of our analysis, we find a contemporaneous positive impact of the IMF fund program on the economic growth of upper middle-income countries, while, for low-income countries, its contemporaneous impact is insignificant, but becomes visible over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".