It is, in fact, counterproductive if the borrowing country is not sufficiently involved, if its priorities are not taken into account and if programmes are so detailed that the country in question no longer has any freedom of action. In that respect, the IMF was on the wrong path. Things are changing at present, however.
I fully support the strategy of focusing in future more on the objectives of securing the borrowing country's ownership and of dispensing with detailed requirements for implementation (technical assistance should continue however). But let us not deceive ourselves: The freedom of a patient is limited in any case. It may become even smaller, if the IMF keeps out completely.