In our previous article, we explored whether IMF-supported programs impose austerity on countries in financial crisis, examining the balance between fiscal consolidation and social impacts. A related concern often raised is whether the IMF encourages or requires reductions in priority spending areas health, education, social protection, and public investment precisely when economies are under strain.
For ordinary citizens a parent relying on public schools, a patient needing affordable healthcare, a low-income family depending on subsidies, or a community benefiting from infrastructure projects these sectors are lifelines. During hard times, such as recessions, debt pressures, or external shocks, protecting or expanding them seems intuitive. Yet debates persist on the IMF’s role in influencing these expenditures through its lending programs.
This article reviews the IMF’s official policies, implementation practices, rationale, evidence from programs, criticisms from independent sources, and observed outcomes all based on verified IMF documents, evaluations, and external analyses.
Also in Explained | Do IMF-Supported Programs Impose Austerity on Countries in Financial Crisis?
The IMF’s Stated Policy on Priority Spending
The IMF states that it does not promote cuts to essential social spending or productive investment during crises. Its 2019 Strategy for IMF Engagement on Social Spending (with operational guidance updated in 2024) defines social spending as including social protection, health, and education. The Fund views these as important for inclusive growth, poverty reduction, and macroeconomic stability.
Key features include:
- Encouraging adequate levels of priority spending.
- Using “social spending floors” minimum targets in many programs to prevent reductions.
- Allowing flexibility for increased spending during severe shocks.
For public investment, IMF guidance advises protecting efficient, growth-enhancing projects while improving management to avoid inefficiency.
The Fund argues that protecting these areas helps mitigate crisis impacts on vulnerable groups and supports long-term recovery.
Rationale Behind the Approach
In lending programs, the IMF seeks to restore sustainability while addressing social needs. Fiscal adjustments may be required for high deficits or debt, but the Fund recommends ring-fencing priority sectors to avoid disproportionate harm.
Social spending floors aim to ensure minimum allocations, often as indicative targets (monitored flexibly) or stricter criteria. The approach evolved following a 2017 Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) report, which found inconsistent engagement on social protection and recommended stronger integration.
How This Works in Practice
In programs:
- Floors are included in many arrangements, especially for low- and middle-income countries.
- Targets may cover aggregate social sectors or specific items like health budgets.
- Public investment is encouraged for efficiency, with reprioritisation over broad cuts.
IMF analyses, such as a 2025 paper on Sub-Saharan Africa, indicate that social spending targets have supported human capital in some contexts.
During COVID-19, many emergency loans had limited conditions, facilitating expanded social and health spending.
Evidence and Outcomes
Outcomes are mixed:
- In some programs, nominal social spending has increased or been maintained due to floors.
- Donor financing unlocked by IMF programs has sometimes boosted sector budgets.
However, real spending (adjusted for inflation) or as a percentage of GDP has declined in certain cases. Implementation gaps, external shocks, or narrow floor definitions can limit effectiveness.
Criticisms and Challenges
Independent observers and civil society groups raise significant concerns:
- Organisations like Oxfam describe social spending floors as a “fig leaf for austerity,” arguing they are often set too low, narrowly defined, or non-binding, failing to prevent overall cuts.
- A 2023 Oxfam analysis found that for every $1 encouraged in additional social spending, broader austerity measures required cuts of about $4.
- Human Rights Watch and others note that around one-third of floors were not met in reviewed programs, with indirect pressures (e.g., wage bills, subsidy reforms) squeezing sectors.
- Trade unions and NGOs highlight that fiscal consolidation can constrain public sector hiring or real-term allocations in health and education.
- Critics argue floors do not fully offset contractionary effects, potentially exacerbating inequality or slowing recovery.
The 2017 IEO evaluation acknowledged past inconsistencies, prompting reforms, but subsequent reviews suggest protections remain inadequate in some contexts.
Evolution of IMF Practices
The Fund has made changes:
- Post-2019 strategy and 2024 guidance emphasise proactive social spending engagement.
- Reduced structural conditions overall.
- Increased focus on inequality, gender, and climate-resilient investments.
Yet external analyses question whether these shifts fully address underlying fiscal pressures in programs.
A Balanced Perspective
The IMF’s official policy does not promote lower spending on health, education, social protection, or productive investment during hard times. It actively incorporates safeguards like floors and flexibility to protect these areas, viewing them as essential for equitable and sustainable outcomes.
In practice, results vary widely. Safeguards have preserved or increased spending in numerous cases, but critics provide evidence that floors are often insufficient against broader consolidation requirements, leading to real-term declines or unmet needs in others.
The debate reflects differing views on crisis management: the IMF prioritises sustainability to prevent worse long-term harm (Example – via inflation or debt spirals), while critics advocate stronger protections, alternative financing, or looser targets to prioritise immediate social needs.
Outcomes depend on program design, national implementation, revenue efforts, and external factors. Independent evaluations highlight progress since earlier decades but ongoing challenges in effectiveness.
For citizens worldwide, these policies influence access to vital services amid crises. The tension between fiscal discipline and social priorities remains central to discussions on international financial support.
In an era of frequent shocks climate events, pandemics, inequality the IMF’s framework continues to evolve, amid calls for even greater emphasis on robust, binding social and investment protections.
Also in Explained | Why Is IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva Planning a Visit to Sri Lanka in February 2026?
