But the IMF doesn't control those things. What the Federal Reserve in the USA does has more impact on interest rates in Australia where I live than IMF policy.
They mostly exist to ensure Wall Street and London banking firms get their investments back when fast-growing third-world economies have bubble collapses. So some rich bankers make the wrong investment, then the IMF steps in as a creditor to make sure that investor is paid back. It's basically no-risk investing: win big, or get your money back, thanks to the taxpayer. Basically that's where much of the IMF "loan" money seems to end up going in previous cases I've read details for - paying back your wealthy wall street creditors, then they take over your shattered economy and gouge it to death until you've paid back the "loan". The loan money isn't about rebuilding your economy, because it goes straight to pay down your creditors, and the austerity measures / tax hikes are about extracting fast cash to refill the IMF coffers, not sustainable economic development. They leave countries as a husk of their former selves.
These sorts of criticism aren't from outsiders, they have been publish in books by e.g. a nobel prize winning economist who was chief economisyt of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jul/06/globalisationThat's from 2002, and says they wrecked asian economies by forcing them to privatize their entire financial sectors at the behest of Wall Street. When things got a bit rocky, the Wall Street guys wanted out, and capital flight in the expose financial markets caused the economic meltdown in asia in 1997. Asian countries which did not follow the IMF financial rules survived fine however. The IMF then made more loans to the countries they had screwed over, to pay back more wall street investors. Most of the money went straight out of the country paying creditors. These loans came with strict austerity measures, which massively increased the recessions. They admitted most of that was a mistake, yet it's the same one-size-fits-all solution they're selling now. Clearly, they got the result they were supposed to get. And it was nothing to do with propping up developing economies.