Entorno competitivo

There are a number of implications for this study. The first implication of this study is focused upon how we assess what impact IMF programmes might have on the SES of women and other socio-economic indicators. Both programme design and programme implementation provide accurate frameworks for understanding how the IMF interacts with socioeconomic factors and follows existing research from Ivanova, Mayer, Mourmouras and Anayitos (2001), Bird and Rowlands (2002), Mercer-Blackman and Unigovskaya (2004) Edwards (2005) and Vreeland (2006) who all highlight the importance of considering implementation and compliance levels in IMF programmes when exploring the impact of IMF programmes. In the case of this study, the complexity of assessing impact was seen when results differed depending upon interaction. In the case of maternal health, participation in an IMF programme showed potential as results pointed towards a statistically significant reduction in maternal mortality rates and lifetime risk of maternal death. However, the programme design and the programme implementation failed to harness this potential. In the case of female education, it was when the model considered programme design and programme implementation that the results pointed towards a positive impact on female enrollment into primary, secondary and tertiary education. There are strong theoretical reasons for the diversion in results. The broader implication outside of this study is that it confirms the need for a more comprehensive approach when assessing the impact of IMF programmes. All future research which is attempting to explore the impact IMF programmes have should

179

consider both programme design and programme implementation to arrive at a more accurate result.

The second implication from this study is that there is variation in impact of IMF programmes, both at a regime level and at a regional level. For example, in the case of female education, the statistically significant impact IMF programmes have on female enrollment into primary, secondary and tertiary education was only present in democracies. This study is similar in its findings to Bauer et al. (2012) in that the pooling of data obscures the actual impact that IMF programmes have. Such variation implies that there are different processes at play at regime and regional level in the design and implementation of IMF programmes. Theoretically, I borrow from Bremmer (2006) and Hellman (1998) and argue that different domestic political preferences play a role in autocracies. However, the wider implication is that the results from this study confirm the need for all future studies exploring the impact of IMF programmes to consider potential variation and build into their research design methods which interrogate any potential variation.

The third implication centres around the understanding of what impact that the IMF can have upon the SES of women. Existing research is consistent, IMF programmes mainly negatively impact on women. However, this study has variable findings and, in some ways, run counter to current research. Yes, this study finds some statistically significant negative impacts of IMF programmes on women, specifically on the fertility rates of women in autocracies and more precisely in Africa, along with negative impacts on the labour force participation of women. However, this study also finds statistically significant and positive impacts on female education and maternal mortality rates. This study provides evidence that our current understanding of what impact IMF programmes have upon women may not be fully correct. Rather this study provides evidence that IMF programmes have the potential for some positive impact, but in the main, have no material impact on a host of indicators related to the SES of women.

Fourthly, this study has implications for the IMF, specifically around the role it could play to ensure its programmes maximise their potential and also mitigate against risks of programmes disproportionately and negatively impacting women. This study found that IMF programmes had some positive and some negative impacts upon female education. However, there is evidence of gender-differentiated impacts of IMF programmes. Implementation of IMF programmes had a negative impact on the progression rates of both females and males to secondary schooling, but the reduction of females was much higher. Similarly, there also seems to be gender differentiated impacts of IMF programmes upon literacy rates. It is imperative that where states need to implement an IMF agreement, that the programme, at least does not have a negative impact on the SES of women but also avoids any disproportionate negative impact from a gender perspective.

180

Fifthly, this study and its results have implications for the IMF in relation to its core objective and helping a state regain economic stability and moving towards economic growth. The key to economic growth, innovation and stability, is an educated and healthy population who have opportunities to contribute to the labour market. I argue that IMF programmes which negatively impact these elements is actually counter-productive and is actually stopping the IMF from achieving its own goals. I would also argue that it is not enough for IMF programmes to not have a negative impact, or even have no impact, upon the SES of women (or men), rather, in order to help states, regain economic stability and stimulate growth, I argue that IMF programmes should aim to have a positive impact on the SES of people, in particular, their participation in the labour force.

Finally, this study also highlighted the current emphasis on gender within the IMF which should be welcomed. This also has implications for the IMF and its next steps regarding gender. For example, the IMF has the power to build in elements of its agreements which support and encourage states to implement policies which would improve the SES of women. The IMF has the ability to ensure that gender budgeting is mainstreamed in its programmes and that a focus on gender is also built into its country reports so that quarterly progress assessments factor in consideration of gender. This would be particularly beneficial in countries where there is severe gender inequality. One of the notable findings in this study has been the lack of parity in data collection across genders for various socio-economic indicators. The IMF also has within its power, the ability to specify and guide states undergoing IMF programmes, around the gathering of such data. The IMF itself acknowledges the lack of an integrated gender policy and has yet to adopt a systematic approach to gender in its macroeconomic analysis and policy advice (IMF, 2012). Steps to change this are necessary and important. The IMF holds considerable influence and power and needs to show leadership in this area. As already highlighted at the beginning of this study, if the IMF does not consider the gendered impacts of economic policy choice, then why would we expect a state to be able to either implement a gendered sensitive economic policy or even care about gendered sensitive economic policies?