United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to Congressional

Committees

July 1995 WORLD BANK 

AND IMF

Pay and Benefits

Compared With Those

of Other Organizations

GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-260170 

July 17, 1995

The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

As required by section 583 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act

for Fiscal Year 1995, we reviewed the salaries and benefits of employees of

the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the

benefits provided to employees’ dependents. In accordance with the law

and subsequent discussions with your staff, this report

• explains the system used by the Bank and the Fund to determine pay and

benefits levels,

• provides information on salaries and benefits at these institutions in

comparison with those provided to employees in comparable positions in

the public and private sectors in member countries and the international

sector, and

• discusses the role of compensation in staff recruitment and retention.

Background The Bank and the Fund employ more than 12,000 professional and support

staff, most of whom are located in Washington, D.C.1

 The Fund employs

primarily economists, while the Bank employs a broad range of

professionals (e.g., engineers, health professionals, lawyers, investment

and finance specialists, and economists). Staff compensation (salaries,

benefits, and allowances) accounts for the largest portion of Bank and

Fund administrative expenses, which are paid out of income generated by

1

Unless otherwise stated, references to the Bank apply to all members of the World Bank Group—the

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee

Agency, and the International Finance Corporation. The operations of the fourth member of the Bank

Group—the International Development Association—are carried out by International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development staff.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

the two institutions’ loans and investments. While staff levels increased

during the 1990s, both institutions have announced restructuring plans

under which staff levels will be reduced.

Designing and implementing a compensation system for an international

organization is a complex undertaking, calling for compromise among

member countries on numerous technically involved and politically

contentious issues. Compensation policy at the Bank and the Fund has

been the subject of controversy for many years, with the United States a

leading advocate for conservatism in setting pay and benefits levels. Other

countries, particularly those who are underrepresented in the two

institutions’ workforces, support more generous compensation practices.

Two joint Bank/Fund committees of Executive Directors have invested

more than 6 years of effort in major systemic overhauls, the last of which

resulted in adoption of the current compensation system in 1989.

Nonetheless, member countries continue to have differing views on Bank

and Fund compensation.

Results in Brief The system used by the Bank and the Fund for determining compensation

gives the civil service some consideration but relies most heavily on

prevailing practices in large private companies in the United States,

Germany, and France. To enable the two institutions to compete for the

highest quality employees from all member countries, the system

generates relatively high rates of pay, and benefits commensurate with

average levels in the surveyed markets. Excluding salaries of highest level

management, the average net-of-tax salary among Bank and Fund

professionals is about $86,000.

By design, Bank and Fund pay rates are approximately equal to the 

75th percentile level (P75) for comparable positions in the U.S. market and

are higher than overall European P75 levels.2

 However, they do not

provide the desired margin over pay levels in European private sector

organizations. They exceed the pay rates in the public sector in all

surveyed markets, as well as in the United Nations. Other international

organizations, however, provide compensation that is comparable to that

provided by the Bank and the Fund. Benefits are generally commensurate

with those available to employees in comparator organizations in the three

surveyed countries and the international sector.

2

Midpoints for Bank/Fund pay grades are set about equal to or higher than the pay of 75 percent of the

employees in comparable positions in the surveyed organizations.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

Overall, the Bank and the Fund are able to recruit and retain staff with

only modest difficulty. Problems center on recruiting staff in certain highly

paid professions and from certain high-salary member countries that are

currently underrepresented in the two institutions’ workforces.

System Design and

Operations

The system is designed to provide competitive compensation that will

permit recruitment and retention of the highest quality, multinational

staff—including personnel from countries with the highest internal pay

rates. Bank and Fund officials stressed the need for the highest quality

employees in light of the potential economic impact of the two

institutions’ lending activity and policy reform recommendations.

Professional salaries are based on those provided by selected financial and

industrial concerns and government agencies in the United States.

Because international organization employees generally do not pay

income taxes, all comparisons are on a net-of-tax basis.3

 Benefits are

based on separate quadrennial surveys of comparator organizations in the

United States, France, and Germany. Appendix I provides information on

the U.S., French, and German comparator organizations surveyed for payand benefits-setting purposes.

The system generates relatively high pay rates by, among other things,

(1) giving private sector pay rates twice as much weight as public sector

rates, (2) benchmarking pay at the P75 level among surveyed U.S. private

and public sector organizations combined, and (3) attempting to maintain

at least a 10-percent pay margin over the P75 level among surveyed private

and public sector organizations in other high-salary markets combined.

Other high-salary markets are represented in the survey by France and

Germany. (This margin is intended to provide an incentive to candidates

from other countries to move to the United States.) The system provides

overall benefits commensurate with average levels in surveyed

organizations.

Since 1990, the system has provided incremental annual increases in real

pay—4 percent on average in nominal terms, compared with an average

U.S. inflation rate of about 3.6 percent. In every year except 1995,

increases have been greater than indicated by the U.S. market due to the

desire to maintain the specified margin over the surveyed European

3

That is, actual gross pay received by employees of comparator organizations is reduced to represent

net pay retained after taxes. The net figures are used as the basis for generating Bank and Fund

tax-free pay rates.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

markets. Though some economy measures have been introduced,

employee benefits remain basically unchanged.

Pay and Benefits

Comparisons

In summary, Bank and Fund pay rates

• are approximately equal to P75 levels for comparable positions among all

surveyed U.S. organizations;

• are slightly above P75 levels among all surveyed European organizations;

• are slightly above P75 levels for both U.S. and European comparator

organizations at the lower professional grades;

• are below U.S. P75 levels at the upper grades;

• are higher than P75 levels among public sector comparator organizations

in the United States and Europe; and

• do not provide the desired margin over P75 pay levels among European

private sector comparator organizations.

Base pay is higher than in the international organization compensation

systems we reviewed (those used by the United Nations and the

Co-Ordinated Organizations).4

 However, the latter system provides

expatriate employees with premiums over base rates that elevate their

total pay to Bank and Fund levels. Bank and Fund officials identified other

European international organizations with comparatively high pay, such as

the European Investment Bank. If pay is adjusted to include U.S. taxes and

highest level management is excluded, Bank and Fund professionals earn

about $114,000 on average. Benefits for all employees are more generous

than those available in the United States but less generous than among

European comparator organizations.

Public and private sector organizations that employ expatriates generally

provide them with various additional benefits to prevent them from

experiencing a loss of real income and to compensate them for the costs

of living abroad. Among these are cost-of-living allowances and expatriate

premiums over normal pay. The system used by the Bank and the Fund

provides neither of these. However, cost-of-living allowances are

unnecessary because pay rates are based on the U.S. market, while the

maintenance of at least a 10-percent margin over surveyed European

markets functions as a proxy for an explicit expatriate premium. The Bank

4

The Co-Ordinated Organizations comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Western European Union, the Council of

Europe, the European Space Agency, and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

Nineteen additional European international organizations base their systems on the Co-Ordinated

Organizations.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

and Fund do provide two common expatriate benefits—home leave and

partial reimbursement for educating children back home or in a similar

environment.

Recruitment and

Retention

The Bank and Fund appear to recruit and retain staff with only modest

difficulty. About 21 percent of recent entry-level and 6 percent of

mid-career professional job offers were rejected in 1994.5

 Voluntary

separation rates are analogous to those experienced in the U.S.

government and the other international organizations we reviewed.

Problems center on certain scarce or highly paid professionals 

(e.g., investment bankers) and citizens of particular high-paying countries,

(e.g., Japan and Germany). Pay is a factor in these difficulties. However,

other factors also deter expatriates, including disruption of spouse careers

and cultural concerns.

Treasury Department officials noted that discussions of deficiencies in the

skills possessed by the staff have been prominent in the current dialogue

on reforming Bank operations. According to these officials, recruiting

highly sought-after expertise in such areas as financial market

development is an important element in the Bank’s efforts toward reform.

Agency Comments In commenting orally on a draft of this report, officials from the Bank, the

Fund, and the U.S. Treasury Department generally concurred with the

report. Their technical comments have been incorporated where

appropriate. Treasury Department officials also expressed concern about

providing a broader context for discussion about Bank and Fund

compensation, and they provided written comments that address this

concern. These comments, reproduced in their entirety in appendix II,

point out that it is the borrowing countries who pay the administrative

costs of the World Bank Group, and that the presence of the Bank and the

Fund in the United States results in substantial economic benefits for this

country.

5

These rates exclude information for one unit of the Bank Group—the International Finance

Corporation, which employs about 11 percent of Bank Group staff. Because the Corporation’s staff is

concentrated in the relatively high-paying investment and finance fields, it experiences greater

difficulty recruiting than other Bank Group members. For example, Corporation mid-career job offers

are rejected at nearly five times the rate experienced by other Bank Group members.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

Scope and

Methodology

As agreed with your staff, we did not conduct original research to identify

jobs in other organizations that are comparable to Bank and Fund jobs,

nor did we independently verify the compensation received by individuals

in such jobs. Rather, we assembled a database from several existing

sources, mentioned in this section. The database enabled us to analyze

Bank and Fund pay and benefits and comparable practices among the

international organizations we surveyed and public and private sector

comparator organizations in the United States, France, and Germany.

Comparator organizations from France and Germany are referred to

throughout the report as representing “European” markets.

We interviewed Bank and Fund officials at their headquarters in

Washington, D.C., including several member-country Executive Directors

and the two institutions’ staff associations. We received excellent

cooperation in all instances. In New York, we consulted with officials of

the International Civil Service Commission (an agency of the United

Nations). In Paris, we consulted with officials of the Bank and the Fund;

the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and the

Co-Ordinated Organizations’ Inter-Organizations Study Section on Salaries

and Prices. We also met with French government and private sector

representatives to discuss compensation practices in France and Europe.

We interviewed representatives of Hay Management Consultants and

Hewitt Associates (the pay and benefits consultants employed by the Bank

and the Fund). We employed Hay Management Consultants to conduct

additional analyses of the pay data used in analyses for the Bank and

Fund. We also consulted with several other private and U.S. government

compensation experts.

Pay information for public and private sector comparators in the United

States, France, and Germany was provided by Hay Management

Consultants. Information on private and public sector comparator

organizations in the United States, France, and Germany is gathered on a

nationwide basis. Information on comparator organization support staff

pay is gathered from the Washington, D.C., market. U.S. public sector pay

information represents average levels plus 10 percent, as this is the

manner in which the system used by the Bank and Fund incorporates

information on this sector. Data for France and Germany is converted into

U.S. dollars using the average of the nominal exchange rates and

purchasing power parities between the U.S. dollar and the French and

German currencies. Additional information on public sector pay was

provided by the governments of the United States and France. Benefits

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

comparisons are drawn from data assembled by Hewitt Associates,

supplemented by information from the Bank and the Fund, the other

international organizations we surveyed, the governments of the United

States and France, and private sector benefits experts.

We assembled pay information for the Bank and the Fund, the United

Nations, and the Co-Ordinated Organizations from information provided

by these organizations. This is the most recent applicable information

available on pay grade midpoints for employees stationed in Washington,

D.C.6

 Pay comparisons among these three systems are made on the basis

of conclusions about grade level equivalency drawn by officials of the

Inter-Organizations Study Section on Salaries and Prices.

All analyses compare Bank and Fund pay to total cash compensation

(including bonuses) received for comparable jobs among comparator

organizations. Unless otherwise indicated, professional pay rates are

calculated for married incumbents with two children, while support staff

calculations are made on the basis of single incumbents. This is the

approach used by the Bank and the Fund. Our primary concern was with

compensation for professional employees, so we provide only limited

information on support staff. We did not examine the separate pay system

that is used to determine compensation for Executive Directors and their

staffs, nor did we review the salaries paid to the heads of the two

institutions or their immediate deputies. For these reasons and because

information from all markets is not available for all Bank and Fund grades,

most graphs do not include pay grades occupied by support staff, and

none includes grades occupied by highest level management.

Information on recruitment and retention was obtained from sources in

the Bank, the Fund, the other international organizations we reviewed, the

governments of France and the United States, and various sources in the

private sector.

This review was conducted from December 1994 through May 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

6

The Bank and Fund pay scale was revised in May 1995. The Co-Ordinated Organizations last revised

their pay scale in January 1995. The United Nations professional pay scale was last revised in

March 1995 (August 1994 for support staff).

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
B-260170 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the

President of the World Bank, and the Managing Director of the

International Monetary Fund. Copies will be made available to others upon

request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-4128. Other contributors to this report include LeRoy

Richardson, Michael McAtee, Caroline Vernet Harper, and Joy Labez.

Benjamin F. Nelson

Associate Director

International Affairs Issues

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

12

Background: Fiscal Year 1994 Administrative Costs 12

Background: History of Controversy About Compensation

System

14

Compensation System Goal 16

Pay System Design 18

Benefits Systems Design 20

Compensation Trends 22

1995 Pay Compared With U.S. and European P75 24

1995 Pay Compared With Public and Private Sectors P75 26

1995 Pay Compared With U.S. and European Average 28

1995 Pay Compared With U.S. Public Sector Average 30

1995 Pay Compared With Select International Organizations 32

Pay Adjusted for Tax Allowances 34

Benefits Commensurate With Comparator Markets 36

Cost of Major Benefits and Allowances in Fiscal Year 1994 38

Recruitment and Retention 40

Comparison of Staff Nationality and Voting Power (Selected

Countries)

42

Appendix I 

Comparator

Organizations

44

Professional Staff Salaries 44

Support Staff Salaries 50

Benefits 52

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of the

Treasury

53

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Background: Fiscal Year 1994

Administrative Costs

In thousands of U.S. dollars

$622,194

$349,758

$59,710

$554,017

World Bank

$192,920

$104,022

$18,763

$132,590

IMF

Salaries Benefits/allowances Tax allowances Other admin. costs

39.2%

43.0%

29.6%

23.2%

22.1%

34.9%

3.8%

4.2%

Note: Total administrative costs were about $1.6 billion at the Bank and about $450 million at the

Fund. Salaries include fees for consultants and Bank temporaries.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Salaries, benefits, and allowances amount to about two-thirds of Bank and

Fund administrative costs, which are paid from returns on loans and

investments—not member country contributions. Benefits and allowances

(including retirement, health insurance, certain payments to expatriate

employees, and tax allowances for Americans) equal over 60 percent of

salaries. (The United States is one of few countries that requires citizens

employed at international organizations to pay taxes.)

Staffing levels and attendant costs have increased, but this upward trend

has stopped. During 1990-94, Bank staff increased by 24 percent (to about

9,400), and Fund staff increased by 20 percent (to about 2,500).1

Expansion of work in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union was

an important factor in staff growth. Both institutions have announced

plans to retrench and restructure. The Bank has begun eliminating

positions and plans to reduce the workforce by over 500 persons by 1997.

The Fund eliminated about 40 positions in 1995.

1

These figures include regular permanent and fixed-term employees (staff are usually offered

fixed-term appointments—often 2 years—before being offered permanent positions), long-term

consultants, and Bank temporaries. Bank temporaries constitute the pool from which the Bank hires

its permanent support staff. The compensation systems for long-term consultants and Bank

temporaries are different from that employed for regular and fixed-term staff.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Background: History of Controversy 

About Compensation System

Compromise system adopted in 1989 

after years of controversy

Key issues: 

comparator organizations

benchmark levels

United States, other countries continue 

to hold divergent views

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

The current compensation system was adopted in 1989 after more than a

decade of controversy, including two overhauls by Bank/Fund committees

of Executive Directors. It represents compromise among member

countries on several technically complex and politically contentious

issues. Among these are defining the universe of comparator organizations

and establishing a benchmark level for pay comparisons. The United

States and some other countries, like the United Kingdom, advocate

conservatism in setting pay and benefits levels. Other high-salary

countries, including Germany and France (with developing country

support), advocate more generous practices.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Compensation System Goal

Attract a workforce that is

the highest quality,

multinational in character (including 

personnel from highest paying 

countries), and

professionally diverse

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Bank and Fund officials stress the need for the highest quality staff. They

point out that employees are responsible for recommending policy

changes and financing projects that can have major impacts on particular

countries, and that employees must be prepared to negotiate with

high-ranking officials of member countries. The institutions are required

by their Articles of Agreement to pay “due regard to the importance of

recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.” This is

interpreted to apply to candidates from high- as well as low-paying

markets. While the Fund employs primarily economists, the Bank also

employs a broad range of specialists in other fields.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Pay System Design

Pay based on U.S. market, including 

private and public sectors

Methodology generates relatively high 

pay rates 

private sector emphasis

benchmarks at P75 level

10-percent margin over European pay

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

The salary structure is derived from Hay Management Consultants’ annual

surveys of U.S. financial and industrial concerns and government agencies.

Only large companies are included because their operations tend to be

national or international in scope. They are, therefore, regarded as more

appropriate points of comparison than smaller, locally focused firms.

Unrelated jobs are excluded. Related jobs are graded for comparability

across organizations and weighted by relevance to Bank and Fund

operations. Aggregate information by level of responsibility is used to

generate pay scales. Survey information covers only a portion of the

complete scale. Salaries for support staff and upper management are set

by extending the scale. Support staff salaries are checked against pay rates

in the Washington, D.C., market. Because staff pay no income taxes, all

comparisons are on a net-of-tax basis.

Several methodological elements combine to generate relatively high

rates. First, private sector comparator organizations are given controlling

influence through their two-thirds weighting, versus one-third for

relatively low public sector rates. Both Bank/Fund joint committees of

Executive Directors on compensation have agreed that the two

institutions are appropriately viewed as most similar to public sector

organizations like central banks and international development agencies.

However, the last joint committee concluded that a heavier private sector

emphasis was justified because of the declining competitiveness of U.S.

public sector pay and the fact that a substantial share of recruiting is done

in the private sector. Though several much larger agencies are included,

the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

which have relatively high pay, are assigned a 40-percent weight within the

public sector.

Second, benchmarking is against the 75th percentile (P75) level of

comparator pay, rather than, for example, average levels.2

 This means that

salaries are set at equal to or higher than 75 percent of the individuals at

particular levels in surveyed organizations.

Third, the system maintains an “international competitiveness margin”

over other high-paying markets to provide the ability to attract candidates

from those markets to work in the United States. France and Germany

have been selected as representative countries. P75 pay data is generated

for these markets in the same fashion as for the United States, and salaries

are set at least 10 percent above these levels.

2

U.S. organizations that rely on similar market surveys to set their pay rates commonly refer to

comparator organizations’ P75 levels as their benchmark.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Benefits System Design

All staff benefits based on U.S., French, 

German markets

Benchmark at average levels

Expatriate benefits not surveyed

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Benefits are based on quadrennial surveys (conducted by Hewitt

Associates) of essentially the same U.S. and European comparator

organizations surveyed by Hay Management Consultants. The Bank and

the Fund seek to maintain overall benefits that are commensurate with

average levels among U.S. and European comparator organizations. The

surveys do not cover benefits that are not made available to all

employees—that is, expatriate benefits. However, Bank/Fund expatriate

benefits are based on those commonly provided by other organizations

with expatriate staff.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Compensation Trends

Annual pay increases since 1990 have 

averaged 4%

increases marginally above U.S. 

inflation (average 3.6%)

actual increases driven by surveyed 

European markets, except in 1995

Benefits largely unchanged

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

After an initial 15.8-percent pay increase in 1989 due to systemic changes

and failure to keep pace with the market in prior years, the current system

has provided small but steady increases in real pay. Since 1990, annual pay

increases have averaged about 4 percent in nominal terms, compared with

3.6 percent average annual U.S. inflation. In every year except 1995,

increases have been greater than indicated by the U.S. market due to the

need to maintain the desired margin over surveyed European markets.3

Though some economy measures have been adopted, employee benefits at

the Bank and the Fund have remained basically unchanged since 1989.

3

In 1995, pay rates based on the U.S. market provided the desired margin over the combined public and

private surveyed European markets, so no adjustment was necessary.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Even including dependent allowances (not considered in pay-setting),4 the

system provides an overall pay structure that is approximately equal to the

U.S. P75 pay line. However, the Bank and Fund position with respect to

the U.S. market varies—pay is equivalent to market rates for support staff,

slightly above the market in the low- to mid-level professional grades

where recruiting is concentrated, and below the market at higher levels.

The Bank and the Fund’s pay is consistently higher than among European

comparator organizations in the grades for which data is available.

4

Employees with dependents receive an additional 5 percent of salary up to a maximum of $3,500,

depending on spousal income, plus $600 per dependent child. Such allowances, common in

international organizations, are the functional equivalent of dependent tax exemptions.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Private sector pay in both the United States and surveyed European

markets has an upward influence on Bank and Fund pay, while relatively

low public sector pay rates exert a downward influence. Disaggregated

data shows that pay rates at the Bank and the Fund are about equal to

those found among European private sector comparator organizations,

and so do not provide the desired competitiveness margin for recruiting

purposes. The data may also overstate the margin that is provided over

European public sector pay because of incomplete information on civil

service bonuses in France.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO 1995 Pay Compared With 

U.S. and European Average

19/A09 20/A10 21/A11 22/A12 23/A13 24/A14 25/B01 26/B02

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

World Bank/IMF Grades

Dollars

World Bank/

IMF Salary

Dependent

Allowance

U.S.

Average

European

Average

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Since the Bank and the Fund benchmark their pay system to the P75 level

among comparator organizations, their pay is generally higher than

average levels among the surveyed organizations. P75 levels are about

12 percent higher than average levels among the European comparator

organizations. The difference between P75 and average levels among U.S.

comparator organizations is about 8 percent.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO 1995 Pay Compared With 

U.S. Public Sector Average

19/A09 20/A10 21/A11 22/A12 23/A13 24/A14 25/B01 26/B02

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

World Bank/IMF Grades

Dollars

World Bank/

IMF Salary

Dependent

Allowance

U.S.

Public Sector

U.S. Public Sector

w/o Federal Reserve

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Bank and Fund pay is higher than U.S. public sector average pay,

particularly when the relatively high pay rates at the Federal Reserve

Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are excluded from the

analysis. Consistent with other tables provided in this report, this graph

displays average public sector salary information plus 10 percent. A

display of actual averages would show an even greater disparity between

Bank and Fund pay rates and U.S. public sector pay.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Bank and Fund pay is higher than base pay in the international

organizations that we reviewed (the Co-Ordinated Organizations and the

United Nations).5

 However, the Co-Ordinated Organizations pay expatriate

premiums (20 percent for employees with dependents) that elevate pay to

Bank and Fund levels. Officials at the Bank and the Fund also pointed to

other European institutions with higher pay (e.g., the European

Investment Bank) as valid comparator organizations. U.N. pay rates are

substantially lower because they are derived by adding a premium of at

least 10 percent to U.S. government rates. The U.N. system does not take

private sector practices into consideration.

5

At each displayed level, except upper management, the Bank and Fund’s system divides employees

between two grades that are contained in single grades in the U.N. and Co-Ordinated Organizations

systems.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Pay Adjusted for Tax Allowances

11/A01 12/A02 13/A03 14/A04 15/A05 16/A06 17/A07 18/A08 19/A09 20/A10 21/A11 22/A12 23/A13 24/A14 25/B01 26/B02 27/B03 28/B04

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

World Bank Group/IMF Grades

Dollars

May 1995

Salary

Dependent

Allowance

Tax

Allowance

Note: Dependent and tax allowances are based on a non-working spouse plus two children.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Adjusting pay rates to represent the income that U.S. taxpayers would

have to earn to realize equivalent net earnings provides a clearer point of

reference. Excluding highest level management, the average tax-free salary

among professional employees at the Bank and the Fund is about $86,000,

which provides a before-tax equivalent income of about $114,000. The

midpoint of the pay scale for grade 21/A11, the normal entry level for

professional employees,6

 provides a before-tax equivalent of nearly

$84,000. The equivalent figures for all grades above this level are higher

than $95,000—e.g., $121,500 for the most commonly held grade (24/A14).7

6

“Entry level” positions are normally filled by recent recipients of advanced degrees (often doctorates)

with some work experience.

7

Newly hired professional staff generally receive salaries about 6.2 percent below the midpoint for

their grade at the Bank and about 8.4 percent below the midpoint at the Fund.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Benefits Commensurate 

With Comparator Markets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Comparator Markets

As Percentage of Salary

World Bank/

IMF

U.S.

Market

U.S. Public

Sector

French

Market

German

Market

According to Hewitt Associates, benefits received by Bank and Fund

employees are more valuable than among U.S. comparator organizations

but less valuable than among European comparator organizations. Bank

and Fund employees earning $80,000 obtain benefits worth about

45 percent of pay, compared with 39 percent in the United States,

50 percent in France, and 57 percent in Germany. At this level,

employer-provided benefits in the U.S. public sector are about

1 percentage point higher than in the overall U.S. market. Because public

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

sector employees generally contribute more toward their own benefits, the

difference is about 4 percentage points if employee contributions are

included. These comparisons include employer- and government-provided

benefits. When provided, retirement, health care, death and disability

benefits, workers’ compensation, separation grants, time off with pay, loan

subsidies, and miscellaneous benefits like company cars are included. Not

included are benefits paid by the employees themselves and others that

are difficult to quantify. Day care, for example, may be fully paid by

employees themselves. On-site parking, among others, is difficult to value.

Employer-provided pensions at the Bank and the Fund are 1- to

8.5-percent lower than those in the three comparator markets.8

 However,

employees make higher-than-average contributions to their pension

fund—7 percent of pensionable gross salary. As in other international

organizations, pensions are based on a calculated gross salary because

pension income is taxed. A Bank or Fund net salary of $80,000 is assumed

to be equivalent to a pensionable gross salary of $126,000. Retirement at

this level after the maximum credited service of 35 years may result in a

(taxable) pension of $92,000. Departing employees are also provided

separation grants—provided in some countries but not in the United

States. Some Bank and Fund officials regard this as equivalent to the

employer-funded portion of a 401(k) plan. Health care is more generous

than among U.S. and French organizations but less so than in Germany.

Leave policies are more generous than in the United States and less so

than in Europe. As in other public and private international organizations,

moving expenses are paid upon appointment and separation, and

additional assistance is provided to cover other relocation costs for new

employees. Employees may also avail themselves of low- or no-interest

loans.9

 Such loans are rare in this country, but common in the French and

German financial sectors.

8

This does not include Bank and Fund payment of the employer portion of U.S. Social Security taxes

on behalf of American employees. The institutions do not pay into national systems on behalf of

expatriate employees.

9

Low-interest loans are made available for specific purposes like tuition assistance and the initial

purchase of a home at the duty station. Short-term emergency loans are available with no interest.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Cost of Major Benefits and 

Allowances in Fiscal Year 1994

Employee

eligibility

Average cost per

recipient employee

Employees

receiving benefit

Dependent allowance

Medical insurance

Retirement plan

Separation grant

Resettlement travel

Resettlement grant

Tax allowance

Home leave

Education grant

Education travel

3,152

4,263

16,271

28,469

11,312

4,956

29,273

9,186

9,713

3,832

7,553

11,016

9,319

249

627

580

2,574

3,156

2,439

789

Benefit/allowance

All $

Expatriate

U.S. 

All

All

Expatriate

Expatriate

All

All

All

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Of the benefits provided to all employees, the retirement plan represents

the single greatest expense. In fiscal year 1994, retirement costs were

valued at over $16,000 per employee, with participation mandatory for

regular employees. Separation grants averaged about $28,500 for each

departing employee. Costs associated with relocating new and departing

staff averaged about $16,300 per employee. Tax allowances, provided to

U.S. employees, averaged over $29,000 per employee in fiscal year 1994. 10

Participating expatriate employees received an average of about $9,000 for

home leave and about $13,500 for their children’s education.

International organizations, public or private, generally provide extra

expatriate benefits to (1) prevent a loss of real income or living standards

and (2) compensate for the monetary and psychological costs of living

abroad. Cost-of-living and housing allowances are common in the first

category. The second includes payments for moving expenses, home leave,

and continuing children’s education at home or in a similar system (e.g.,

local private schools aimed at expatriates). The U.S. State Department

provides all of these benefits to its staff stationed overseas. Many private

and some public organizations also provide expatriate

premiums—typically 15 percent of base salary.

The Bank and the Fund do not provide explicit cost-of-living and housing

allowances. They are not necessary because pay is based on the U.S.

market, where employers have already taken these factors into

consideration in setting pay. Expatriate premiums are not provided in the

interest of internal equity. The international competitiveness margin

maintained by the Bank and the Fund accomplishes the same purpose.

The Bank and the Fund provide two benefits specifically for expatriates.

These are payments for (1) expenses incurred in home leave and (2) a

portion of the cost of educating employees’ children through university.

These two benefits are common among other organizations. The Bank and

Fund believe that these benefits help to maintain employee cultural links

with their home countries and that this contributes to maintaining the

international character of the workforce.11

10U.S. staff are required by law to pay federal and state income taxes and social security taxes in the

same manner as self-employed taxpayers. Bank and Fund tax allowances compensate U.S. employees

for these costs, so that U.S. staff receive about the same net pay as expatriates.

11Many staff are U.S. permanent resident aliens. Since 1985, new staff in this status have not been

eligible for expatriate benefits, but those on board at that time were permitted to maintain their

eligibility.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Recruitment and Retention

Overall, staff recruited and retained with 

only modest difficulty

Problems in recruiting

some specialties

some nationalities

Pay a factor, but other considerations 

also important for expatriates

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

Although we found no accepted standards in this area, the organizations

appear to recruit and retain staff with only modest difficulty. Professional

job offer rejection rates in 1994 were about 21 percent at entry level and

about 6 percent at mid-career levels.12 Bank and Fund officials point out

that rejections for mid-career hires understate recruiting difficulties,

however, because those who are not interested often withdraw before

receiving offers. Excluding retirements, voluntary separations average just

over 2 percent, which is in line with experience in the U.S. government

and the international organizations we reviewed.

Recruitment and retention difficulties center on certain scarce or highly

paid professionals (e.g., investment bankers and environmental

economists) and candidates from some other countries (e.g., Germany and

Japan). Bank and Fund officials commented that recruitment is

complicated by the institutions’ attempting to find individuals who possess

specific educational backgrounds and skills, developing country

experience, and English language ability while also addressing national

diversity and gender recruitment goals.

Pay is a factor in recruiting difficulties. About 13 percent of Bank offers in

recent months were increased above normal levels to convince candidates

to accept positions. Offers at the International Finance Corporation

(mainly investment officers) were rejected at three times the overall Bank

rate. European, Japanese, and private sector candidates often view pay as

inadequate.

The following factors, among others, are also cited as deterrents,

particularly for expatriate candidates: disrupted spouse careers, removal

from established career tracks,13 inferior benefits compared with those

available at home, removing children from the home culture, and the

perceived danger of living in Washington. The joint committee that

conducted the last overall systemic review recommended that

consideration be given to a system of additional incentives to attract staff

with critical skills, but no action has been taken due to concern that such a

system would be difficult to administer fairly.

12These rates exclude information for one unit of the Bank Group—the International Finance

Corporation. The Corporation experiences much higher rejection rates than other Bank Group

members because its staff is concentrated in the relatively high-paying investment and finance fields.

13Concern about disrupting established careers is elevated by limited promotion potential for

mid-career employees and by the increasing use of term appointments. This is more of a concern at the

Bank than at the Fund because the Bank recruits a higher percentage of its employees at the

mid-career level.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

GAO Comparison of Staff Nationality 

and Voting Power (Selected Countries)

IMF

United States

United Kingdom

Part II

Japan

France/Germany

Other Part I

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ratio of Staff to Votes

Percent

Votes

Percent

Staff

World Bank

United States

United Kingdom

Part II

Japan

France/Germany

Other Part I

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ratio of Staff to Votes

Percent

Votes PercentStaff

Note: Part I countries are the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany,

Canada, Italy, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kuwait,

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South

Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates. Part II includes all other

member countries.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Briefing Section I 

Comparisons

There are no official staffing quotas by country at the Bank and the Fund.

However, voting power, which is allocated according to each member’s

financial support for the two institutions, is used as a rough indicator of

appropriate staffing levels by country. While the United States, the United

Kingdom, and developing countries in general are overrepresented in

relation to their voting power in the two institutions, Japan, Germany,

France and other relatively high-salary countries are underrepresented.

Some Bank and Fund officials commented that reductions in Bank and

Fund compensation would exacerbate existing difficulties in recruiting

from these countries.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Professional Staff

Salaries

The Bank and Fund 1995 professional salary scale is based on information

gathered by Hay Management Consultants from the following

organizations:

United States

Financial

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Nineteen commercial banks and diversified financial companies with assets over 

$5 billion:

American Express

Bank of America

Bank of Boston

Bankers Trust

Bay Banks

Boston Company

Chase Manhattan Bank

Chemical Bank

Citibank, NA

Comerica (Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit)

Continental Bank

Corestates

First Chicago

First Interstate Bank of California

National Bank of Detroit

NationsBank

Royal Bank of Canada

State Street Bank & Trust

Wells Fargo Bank

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Industrial

Sector

 Seventy-one industrial companies with annual revenues over $1 billion:

Company Primary Business

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Air Products

Alcoa

Amerada Hess

Amoco

ARMCO

Armstrong World Industries

Ashland Oil

BASF

Bell Helicopter

Bell South

BOC

Borg Warner

BP America

Cargill

Caterpillar

Central Soya

Chevron

Ciba Geigy

Consolidated Freightways

Cooper Industries

CSX

Diamond Shamrock

Dow

Eaton

Engelhard

Firestone

General Electric

General Signal

Goldkist

Goodrich

Goodyear

GTE

Heinz

Hoechst Celanese

Hormel

ICI Americas

International Paper

Johnson (S.C.) & Son

Kellogg

Kimberly Clark

McGraw Hill

Mead

Merck

Miles 

Murphy Oil

Norfolk Southern

Industrial chemicals

Metal production

Natural gas

Petroleum and chemical

Metal production

Building products

Oil production

Agricultural chemicals

Aircraft production

Telecommunications

Industrial gases

Industrial engineering

Oil/gas

Agricultural products

Construction machinery

Commodity operations

Petroleum and oil

Pharmaceutical

Transportation

Electronic products

Transportation

Oil refining

Chemical products

Electronics

Chemicals/metal

Tires

General engineering

Instrumentation manufacturing

Agricultural commodities

Tires

Tires

Telecommunications

Food production

Chemical production

Food production

Chemical production

Paper products

Personal care

Food production

Paper products

Publishing

Paper products

Pharmaceutical

Chemical production

Natural resources

Transportation

(continued)

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Industrial

Sector

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Occidental Chemical

Owens-Corning Fiberglass

Pacific Telesis

Peabody Holding

Pennsylvania Power & Light

Pepsico-Corporate

Philip Morris

Pitney Bowes

PPG Industries

Quaker Oats

Rockwell International

Scott Paper

Sea Land (CSX)

Sears

Southern New England Telephone

Staley

Tenneco

Texas Utilities

Timken

Union Pacific

USG

USX

Valero Energy

Whitman

Zenith

Chemical production

Fiberglass production

Telecommunications

Engineering

Power utility

Food production

Tobacco and food production

Business equipment

Glass/resins

Food products

Aerospace/electronics

Paper products

Shipping containers

Merchandising

Telecommunications

Food production

Oil/natural gas

Power utility

Roller bearings

Transportation

Building products

Petroleum and steel

Natural gas

Food production

Electronics

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Public

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

Federal Civil Service:

Six U.S. agencies covering General Schedule and Senior Executive Service

positions:

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Federal Reserve System:

Professional and senior management positions from:

The Federal Reserve Board (Washington, D.C.)

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York

France

Financial

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Twelve financial institutions:

AXA

Caisse Centrale des Banques Populaires

Caisse Nationale Du Crédit Agricole

Compagnie Bancaire

Crédit Lyonnais

Crédit Mutuel

Fédération Nationale du Crédit Agricole

GAN

Groupe CIC

Réseau des Banques Populaires

Société Générale

UAP

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Industrial

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Thirty-three industrial companies:

Aérospatiale

Air Liquide

Airbus Industries

Arjomari Prioux

Bergerart Monnoyeur

B.P. Group

B.S.N. Group

Ciba Geigy

DMC

Elf

General Medical System

Hutchinson

IBM

ICI

Lafarge Copée

Merlin Gerin

Pechiney

Peugeot

Philips

Rhone Merieux

Rhone Poulenc

Roussel Uclaf

SAGEM

Saint Gobain

Sanofi Santé

SAT

Shell

Snecma

Sopad Nestlé

Spie Batignolles

Thomson

Total (Group)

Wagon Lits

Public Sector

1

2

3

Banque de France

Ministère de l’Economie

Caisse Française de Dévelopment

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Germany

Financial

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Twenty financial institutions:

Bank für Gemeinwirtschaft AG

Banque Paribas (Deutschland) OHG

Barclays Bank PLC

Barmer Ersatzkasse

Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale

Bayerische Vereinsbank AG

Berliner Handels - Frankfurter Bank KGaA

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Deutschland) AG

Commerzbank AG

Credit Lyonnais SA and Co (Deutschland) OHG

Deutscher Ring Lebensversicherungs AG

Dresdner Bank AG

Equity and Law Lebensversicherungs AG

Frankfurter Sparkasse

IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG

Kölnische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG

Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG

The Royal Bank of Canada AG

Société Générale - Elsässische Bank & Co.

Westdeutsche Landesbank AG

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Industrial

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Twenty-five industrial companies:

Akzo Unternehmensbereich Fasern und Polymere Enka AG

Appollinaris & Schweppes GmbH & Co.

Beiersdorf AG

Chemische Fabrieken Grünau GmbH

Continental AG

Datev e. G.

Deutsche BP AG

Eckes AG

Henkel

Hoogovens Alu Werk Koblenz

Hoogovens Aluminum Profiltechnik

ICI

Kraft Jacobs Suchard Deutschland

Lucas Automotive GmbH

Martin Brinkmann AG

Mathes & Weber GmbH

Pirelli Reifenwerke

Porsche AG

Quelle Schickedanz AG & Co.

Schmalbach Lubeca AG

Solvay Deutschland GmbH

Uniroyal Englebert Reifen

Veba Oel AG

Vorwerk & Co. Elektrowerke

Zeneca

Public Sector

1

2

3

Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Deutsche Bundesbank

Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

Support Staff Salaries The Bank and Fund 1995 support staff salary scale was created by

downward extension of the professional salary scale. However, Hay

Management Consultants gathered information on the following

organizations for comparative purposes:

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Washington, D.C.,

Metropolitan Area Private

Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Twenty-two private sector organizations:

The Acacia Group

American Bankers Association

American Chemical Society

American Gas Association

American Petroleum Institute

Arnold & Porter

Arthur Andersen & Company

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of the National Capital Area

Chamber of Commerce of the United States

Covington and Burling

Crestar Bank

DynCorp

GEICO

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

Marriott Corporation

MCI

Mobil

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

Potomac Electric Power Company

Price Waterhouse

Student Loan Marketing Association

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

Public Sector

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Federal Civil Service:

Six U.S. agencies:

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Federal Reserve System:

The Federal Reserve Board (Washington, D.C.)

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix I 

Comparator Organizations

Benefits For the quadrennial benefits survey issued in 1994, the Bank and Fund

furnished Hewitt Associates a list of the comparators included in the 1993

salary survey. To the extent possible, Hewitt analyzed data on benefits

available to the employees from the comparators used in that survey. Of

the 1993 salary survey comparators, the benefits survey covered the

following: (a) for the United States, 3 public sector organizations, 

15 financial institutions, and 56 industrial companies; (b) for France, 

3 public sector organizations, 6 financial institutions, and 10 industrial

companies; and (c) for Germany, 3 public sector organizations, 6 financial

institutions, and 7 industrial companies.

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of the

Treasury

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of the

Treasury

(711114) Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-177BR World Bank and IMF