The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports sit at the intersection of economic analysis and historical memory. The institution’s legacy of “conditionality,” particularly in the Global South, continues to shape a cautious distance today. Yet its technical capacity, extensive data resources and ability to provide global comparisons make it equally difficult to dismiss these reports outright.
In Türkiye, debates surrounding IMF assessments are often filtered through political lenses. However, an international institution’s analysis of a country’s economic outlook is neither a prophecy to be revered nor an external voice to be ignored. What truly matters is understanding the assumptions that shape the data, the economic models underpinning the recommendations and the extent to which the report captures Türkiye’s unique structural dynamics. In economics, confidence, expectations and international perception are as real as inflation figures, yet the methodology behind every report deserves just as much scrutiny as the numbers themselves.
For this reason, approaching the IMF’s assessment of Türkiye requires neither sanctification nor categorical rejection. A report does not determine Türkiye’s fate, but it shapes how we discuss the economy. My intention here is not to suppress or inflame the ongoing debate around the IMF’s findings and advice, but to redirect it toward more meaningful questions.
The IMF was established in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference, with the primary objective of maintaining the stability of the international monetary system, preventing currency crises and supporting the economic stability of its member countries. The IMF provides financial and economic advice to its members, collects macroeconomic data and regularly publishes economic reports. These reports are not merely technical analyses; they also serve as a key reference point for international investors.
The significance of IMF reports largely stems from their ability to influence investor psychology. Assessments of a country’s credit risk, debt sustainability, or growth projections are closely linked to the evaluations made in these reports. Therefore, IMF publications are followed not only to interpret economic indicators but also to understand and anticipate market expectations.
These reports also provide a framework for policy choices. IMF recommendations typically focus on fiscal discipline, structural reforms, monetary policy priorities and maintaining external balance. However, it is important to remember that these reports are not prescriptive solutions; they are analyses built on assumptions and specific economic models.
The defining feature of IMF reports is not that they prescribe a “one-size-fits-all” policy package, but that they present an analysis built on specific assumptions, models and international comparisons. While analytically coherent, these reports cannot fully capture the unique realities of every country. This is precisely why global experience shows that there is never a single, uniform formula in dealing with the IMF. The contrast between South Korea’s rapid recovery and Argentina’s prolonged cycle of instability does not stem from the IMF’s recommendations themselves, but from how countries adapt those recommendations to their own economic structures, institutional capacities and political conditions. In other words, an IMF report is not a ready-made prescription; yet, when read correctly, it offers a framework that can help countries design their own coherent and context-specific policy mix.
Türkiye’s history with the IMF goes far beyond seeking emergency financing during periods of crisis; it offers a significant body of experience in building discipline, predictability and credibility in economic governance. The post-2001 program strengthened Türkiye’s macroeconomic foundations through fiscal discipline and banking sector reforms. At the same time, however, it left a lasting imprint on the public memory, creating strong reservations and well-justified criticisms regarding IMF-backed policies. Today’s cautious approach toward IMF reports can be traced directly to this historical experience.
We often observe this in life: When we are a direct party to an issue, we cannot always remain calm or objective while trying to solve it. This is simply part of being human; our emotions and interests naturally shape our judgments. That is why an external, third-party perspective can sometimes be far more solution-oriented, much like the strategic approach that cut through the Gordian knot. The same applies to economics: looking at a problem solely from within a country can limit our ability to see the broader picture and the long term. Balancing conflicting societal interests and finding a Pareto-optimal outcome is never easy. At this point, analyses produced by international institutions offer a valuable perspective. That is precisely why these reports should be taken into account.
Under Article IV of its Articles of Agreement, the IMF sends a mission to each member country annually to assess economic conditions and provide policy recommendations; a report is then published based on this evaluation. Last week, the Fund released its 2025 report on Türkiye. What matters is not only the figures but the narrative that accompanies them, because the most important messages are embedded in the analytical commentary.
In its 2025 assessment, the IMF presents recommendations in five key areas aimed at reducing existing risks in Türkiye and strengthening growth: fiscal policy, monetary and exchange-rate policy, income policy, financial stability and structural reforms. The IMF’s rules, methodology, and tone are well known, and the institution consistently reiterates them. In this year’s report, the point I wish to highlight in particular is the positive progress on financial stability, because achieving success is difficult, but sustaining it is even more challenging.
The report speaks positively about developments in financial stability, yet as a Turkish citizen, I would underscore several specific points: "risks remain elevated,” “prudent economic policies have delivered significant gains,” and “inflation is still high enough to leave the economy exposed.” The key lesson for Türkiye’s policy trajectory in the coming period emerges precisely from these warnings: We now need policy actions that are even more effective than those implemented so far.
A simple metaphor helps illustrate the challenge of fighting inflation. Imagine trying to lose 20 kilograms (44 pounds). When we change our daily habits, the first 5 kilos often come off easily. Yet stepping outside our comfort zone is never easy; that is the first struggle. The hardest part, however, is losing the last 5 kilograms. At that point, the marginal benefit of following the rules declines; even with the same effort, the results shrink dramatically. And after months of strict dieting, the thought of eating yet another portion of steamed broccoli becomes unbearable; our willpower weakens.
In the same way, the disinflation process has required sacrifices, both from policymakers and society at large. This is why, as we advance, preserving credibility and guiding expectations carefully will be far more important than before.
For Türkiye, when the IMF’s latest findings are read together with global examples, the central message becomes clear: Economic policy delivers lasting results only when stability is maintained without complacency, supported by strong communication and structural reforms.
The most valuable takeaway for Türkiye from IMF reports is not to see them as an “authority,” but as an external lens that reflects the economy like a mirror. That outside perspective can reveal details we may miss up close, and it can help us recognise long-term risks before they grow larger.
