Skip to main content
ENES

Search the Bretton Woods Project site

IMF launches review of its civil society engagement strategy amid increased protests against its policies

Generation Z protest against IMF-supported austerity in Kenya Photo: Shutterstock/ E-rosh
Generation Z protest against IMF-supported austerity in Kenya Photo: E-rosh / Shutterstock

Article summary

Public consultation on IMF’s review of its 2015 civil society engagement strategy opens amid increased protests to IMF policies in programme countries.

In October, the IMF announced it had opened a public consultation, closing on 13 January 2026, on the review of its 2015 Guidelines on the IMF Staff Engagement with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). The review aims to “take stock of developments since [the] guidelines were published in 2015…[and] consider…how we, at the IMF, can best engage with the CSO community at the country, regional and global level.”

The review follows long-standing civil society pressure for improved engagement, including a September 2024 CSO letter demanding a review of the 2015 guidelines (see Observer Autumn 2024). The review takes place in the context of growing social and political instability and grassroot protests against IMF-mandated or supported austerity (see Observer Autumn 2025, Winter 2024, Summer 2021), with two key IMF policy reviews underway (see Observer Autumn 2025, Summer 2025).

The IMF has long recognised what The Economist magazine in June 2024 called its ‘protest problem’. A high-level event at the IMF’s Annual Meetings in Washington in October titled “Strengthening governance through the IMF: Lessons from Kenya and beyond” reflected both the Fund’s recognition of the need to improve its engagement with various stakeholders, and a key challenge: the institution’s propensity to deflect responsibility for the consequences of its own programmes.

Andrés Arauz, of US-based Centre for Economic Policy Research stressed that, “The Fund should recognise parliamentary opposition as a valid stakeholder with whom to engage as CSO concerns are more likely to enter the policy dialogue via the opposition,” adding that, “it should also open dialogue with CSOs on universally applicable human rights law, on the binding nature of Sustainable Development Goals and on the legal status of IMF agreements as international treaties subject to the convention on treaties between states and international organizations.”