Results reveal that even after controlling for the factors that lead countries to seek IMF support, IMF agreements lead to lower levels of foreign direct investment (FDI). Countries that sign IMF agreements, ceteris paribus, attract 25% less FDI inflows than countries not under IMF agreements.

He thinks that the referendum result reflects the Greeks have overcome their fear despite the disappointment of Greek prime minister Aleksis Tsipras.

Topics include the concern of some countries regarding the reluctance of the U.S. government to increase the funds available to the IMF, BRICS boost the lending power of the IMF by giving 75 billion U.S. dollars, and the IMF package for the international bailout of Indonesia in 1997.

This article examines the IMF's initial response to managing the effects of the global credit crunch, focusing on the new round of large IMF loans approved in late 2008 and early 2009, to assess how much IMF lending policies have changed in practice compared with earlier international crisis episodes. While the organisation has continued to promote conventional loan policy targets aimed at achieving low inflation, low budget deficits, and sustainable public debt, the preliminary evidence also suggests the IMF is developing a more flexible approach to crisis management in borrowing member states. Changes include a greater tolerance for unorthodox policies such as short-term capital controls, greater differentiation in the treatment of borrowers based on their economic circumstances, easier access to precautionary IMF financing for prime borrowers, and more flexibility in the use of loan conditionality.

The Fund’s surveillance of macroeconomic issues has expanded to cover topics with little direct relevance to its mandate. Moreover, though no industrialized country has drawn on the Fund for more than twenty years, such countries still dominate the Fund’s decision-making. These developments have sparked calls for reform. Proposals to modify the Fund’s activities, lending facilities, and governance have come from many experts, including the Fund’s managing director. Others, who find the Fund illegitimate or obsolete, have called for its abolition. This Council Special Report, written by Peter B. Kenen under the auspices of the Council’s Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, rejects the urgings of the abolitionists and goes on to contend that efforts to reform the Fund deserve U.S. support. Many countries remain at risk for financial crises, and a strong Fund that can take the lead in responding is in the U.S. interest. With well-managed reform, the Fund could also play a useful role in resolving global economic imbalances. Overall, the report argues, the United States should not try to achieve unilaterally what the Fund can and should achieve multilaterally.