It is helpful to know what the IMF’s current view of the role of conditionality in its programmes: the statement is here.
Additional material:
The Independent Evaluation Office provides critiques of various aspects of IMF work:
There is a query page to see who borrowed what and when from IMF:
In his recent Richard H. Sabot Lecture, Ken Rogoff addresses the question of whether the IMF is guilty of imposing excessive austerity as part of a bailout. The paper is here. A summary quote:
I will argue that the simplest and perhaps most cutting version of the IMF austerity charges is simply confused. IMF loans typically relieve austerity; they do not make it worse. IMF support helps a country engage in less procyclical budget contraction than it might have been forced to do otherwise. That said, the IMF’s judgments in calibrating programs involve a huge range of subjective decisions about politics, psychology, and economics, judgments that are difficult to get “right” consistently. Toward the end of my remarks, I will argue that in many respects, the greatest problem with IMF programs is not excessive austerity with debtors but excessive generosity toward creditors.
The FT carries an article which highlights that some (unnamed) officials elsewhere in Europe think that raising the corporate tax rate should be part of the deal. One quote
Patrick Honohan has given an interview to Morning Ireland (audio available here) that provides some more clarity as to what is going on in relation to Ireland borrowing from the IMF and EU.
Update: For those without access to audio, here‘s an almost-accurate transcript from the Guardian’s new Irish business blog (I doubt somehow if Ireland will be borrowing in the form of FDRs. Different kinds of dead presidents are likely to be involved.)