IMF & World Bank: Evolving Roles in Agriculture

Agriculture remains the backbone of livelihoods for billions, yet it is deeply entangled with the global financial and policy frameworks shaped by international institutions. Among these, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have exercised profound and lasting influence. While neither was founded with agriculture as its core mandate, their interventions from macroeconomic prescriptions to direct financing of rural projects have redefined how farming, food security, and rural development are understood and pursued across the developing world. This article examines their historical legacies, evolving roles, areas of collaboration, persistent critiques, and emerging directions in shaping the future of global agriculture.

Founded in 1944 at Bretton Woods, both the IMF and the World Bank emerged from the wreckage of World War II with complementary missions. The IMF’s mandate centers on ensuring global monetary stability, offering policy advice and financial support to countries grappling with balance-of-payments crises. While not an agricultural development agency per se, its macroeconomic interventions such as enforcing fiscal discipline, managing exchange rates, and curbing inflation shape the enabling environment in which agricultural policies and investments unfold (IMF, 2023).

The World Bank, by contrast, took on the longer-term mission of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. Its agricultural footprint has been extensive, with the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) committing $12.1 billion to agriculture and food security in FY2023 alone (World Bank Annual Report, 2024). Beyond financing, the Bank provides technical assistance, policy advice, and global data analysis that set benchmarks for national and regional agricultural strategies.

Historical Context: From Structural Adjustment to Rural Reforms

The 1980s and 1990s saw the joint imposition of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which remain one of the most controversial chapters in the IMF–World Bank legacy. Under SAPs, borrowing countries were required to cut subsidies, liberalize trade, and privatize state enterprises as conditions for receiving loans. While intended to stabilize economies and integrate them into global markets, these reforms often had devastating effects on rural communities. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, fertilizer subsidy cuts led to a 15–20% decline in input use among smallholders, widening yield gaps and reducing food security (Binswanger-Mkhize, 2023).

Criticism of these programs catalyzed a strategic shift. The World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report: Agriculture for Development openly acknowledged past missteps and called for more holistic approaches that integrated rural development, social protection, and sustainability (World Bank, 2008). This marked a turning point, signaling greater attention to poverty alleviation and climate resilience alongside macroeconomic reform.

The IMF’s Evolving Role in Agriculture

The IMF’s influence in agriculture is indirect but powerful, shaping the fiscal and monetary conditions that determine whether governments can invest in the sector. By stabilizing currencies and curbing hyperinflation, the Fund helps create environments conducive to long-term agricultural investments. For example, a 2023 IMF-supported program in Zambia focused on fiscal consolidation, which freed up resources for irrigation and rural infrastructure (IMF Country Report, 2023).

Debt sustainability is another critical dimension. With over 60% of low-income countries either at high risk of debt distress or already in it (IMF, 2024), the IMF’s frameworks for debt restructuring directly affect the fiscal space available for agricultural investments. Without such measures, governments often divert scarce resources to debt servicing instead of investing in climate-smart infrastructure or farmer support.

A more recent innovation is the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), which provides affordable, long-term financing to help countries adapt to climate change and future shocks. Several countries have already used RST funds to invest in climate-smart agriculture and food system resilience, illustrating how the IMF is broadening its role beyond traditional macroeconomic stabilization to explicitly address sustainability (IMF, 2024).

The World Bank’s Direct and Expansive Role

Unlike the IMF, the World Bank has a direct and expansive footprint in global agriculture. It remains the world’s largest multilateral financier of agricultural development. In FY2023, nearly 70% of its agricultural lending was directed toward climate adaptation and mitigation (World Bank, 2024). This reflects a strategic alignment with global priorities around climate-smart food systems.

Key initiatives highlight this orientation. The Food Systems 2030 Trust Fund, a $300 million multi-donor facility, supports transformation projects aimed at making food systems more inclusive, nutritious, and sustainable. The Africa Regional Integration Program, meanwhile, works across 19 countries to enhance climate-smart agriculture, boost productivity, and improve cross-border trade in food staples.

Beyond financing, the Bank plays an important role in policy reform and technical assistance. In India, the World Bank’s expertise contributed to the National Innovation on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), which fostered the development of drought-resistant crop varieties and improved water-use efficiency (World Bank, 2023). Additionally, through flagship publications such as the Future of Food Report (2023), the Bank provides data-driven insights that inform global investment flows and national agricultural strategies.

Collaborative Synergies and Country Success Stories

In recent years, the IMF and the World Bank have sought to harmonize their efforts, recognizing that macroeconomic stability and sectoral transformation must advance together. Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs) are a joint diagnostic tool that integrates climate priorities with national development planning. Ghana’s CCDR, for example, recommended reinvesting cocoa revenues into diversified farming systems, ensuring both climate resilience and farmer welfare (World Bank–IMF, 2023).

Crisis response has also driven collaboration. During the global food crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine, the IMF offered budgetary support while the World Bank financed emergency food production and distribution projects. Together, their interventions exceeded $45 billion, showcasing how their complementary roles can mitigate both immediate shocks and long-term vulnerabilities (World Bank–IMF Joint Statement, 2023).

Vietnam’s agricultural transformation offers perhaps the most striking example of successful synergy. Stabilized by IMF-supported macroeconomic policies and empowered by World Bank-funded projects, Vietnam shifted from food scarcity to becoming a leading agro-exporter. A recent $100 million digital agriculture initiative is providing half a million smallholders with access to real-time market data, financing, and climate advisory services, boosting farmer incomes by 18% and reducing post-harvest losses (World Bank Project Appraisal Document, 2024).

Persistent Criticisms and Challenges

Despite progress, criticisms endure. Policy conditionalities can still prioritize macroeconomic stability over local realities. Austerity measures, for instance, may reduce fiscal space for essential investments such as agricultural extension services or rural health programs. Similarly, the emphasis on public–private partnerships raise concerns that smallholders may be sidelined if agribusinesses dominate value chains (Oxfam, 2024).

Another critique concerns the pace of transformation. While sustainability rhetoric has grown stronger, significant financing still supports conventional, input-intensive farming models rather than fully transformative agroecological systems (IPES-Food, 2023). For critics, this raises doubts about whether institutional commitments are sufficiently bold to meet the scale of the climate and food security challenges ahead.

Future Directions

Both institutions are now articulating ambitious future agendas to reconcile inclusivity, sustainability, and economic growth. Four frontiers stand out. First, digital agriculture will be scaled up through fintech, satellite imagery, and mobile extension services, enhancing farmer access to markets and advisory tools. Second, nature-positive production is being mainstreamed, with lending increasingly tied to regenerative practices and payments for ecosystem services. Third, transition support is gaining traction, ensuring that communities dependent on high-emission agricultural practices are not left behind in the shift to greener systems. Finally, both institutions are tailoring agricultural programs for fragile and conflict-affected states, linking food system resilience to peacebuilding and economic recovery.

Conclusion

The IMF and the World Bank have traveled a long journey from the contested era of structural adjustment to their current focus on resilience, inclusion, and climate-smart agriculture. While their legacies remain mixed, their evolving roles demonstrate an increasing awareness of the need for integrated approaches. The IMF provides macroeconomic stability and debt relief that create fiscal space for investment, while the World Bank delivers targeted financing, technical expertise, and data-driven insights. Together, their synergies when responsive to local contexts and inclusive of smallholder voices have the potential to steer global agriculture toward a future that is not only more productive but also more sustainable and equitable. The challenge is to ensure that this transformation is both accelerated and truly inclusive, delivering for people, planet, and prosperity.

References: Binswanger-Mkhize; IMF; IPES-Food; World Bank; Oxfam

Please note that the views expressed in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of any organization.

The writer is affiliated with the Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture and can be reached at emansaleemes9@gmail.com

Related Stories