Treasury Undersecretary Beryl Sprinkel yesterday left open for the first time the possibility that the United States might end its contributions of subsidized aid through the World Bank's concessional loan arm, the International Development Association, when its present commitments run out.

That would mean, in practical terms, that after the so-called 6th Replenishment (round of contributions) of the IDA winds up in fiscal l983, there would not be a seventh as urgently desired by the Third World countries. This possibility is certain to touch off anguished debate at next week's joint annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Asked about the IDA's future at a press conference yesterday, Sprinkel responded briskly: "We have made no decision at this point on financing the next IDA replenishment. We haven't said we won't, we haven't said we will. This has not been resolved. We're making massive efforts to try to live up to the promises of the last administration on the IDA-6 replenishment."

Sprinkel -- who is undersecretary for monetary affairs -- made his comment after Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan said again that the United States wants the IMF to be stricter in lending money to poor nations and is pressing the World Bank to put more stress on the private sector. At a time when the U.S. is being forced to cut back its domestic spending, Regan said, "I think it would be incongruous of us to be developing a rather liberal attitude in foreign aid or our contributions to some of the international institutions. The two have to go in parallel."

Regan appeared anxious to soften the impact of his statement Monday to several reporters that the IMF "should be a little more strict" in its lending policy. He said yesterday that the IMF in fact had strengthened lending conditions in recent months, reversing a pattern of laxity, "and we want them to stay on that course."

Regan said that "what I am suggesting is that, obviously, there's a plentiful supply of money in the world. And if you ask, 'Do we need more money now in the IMF?,' my answer to that currently is 'No.' That isn't to say that forever there will be no need for additional borrowings by the IMF, or indeed, for additional SDRs" special drawing rights, a paper credit issued by the IMF .

Later, briefing foreign reporters, Sprinkel said that the IMF should revert "to its historical role as a provider of short-term" aid, and therefore would have less need for borrowed or contributed funds. He said flatly that the United States opposes a new issue of SDRs as "counterproductive."

IDA monies are loaned for 50 years at no interest, but with a 2 percent service charge. They are the principal source of subsidized aid for the poorest nations. The contributions by the rich nations, known as replenishments, have been made for three-year periods. There has been a bitter fight within the Reagan administration on the current $3.24 billion, three-year commitment by the United States for IDA-6, originally made by the Carter administration.

President Reagan decided to honor the IDA-6 commitment, but it has been stretched out for four years, with only $500 million advanced so far in the current fiscal year, and a bitter congressional fight in prospect to get in appropriation form the balance of the $3.24 billion authorized.

Sprinkel said that the World Bank should be concerned with stimulating real economic growth in the less-developed nations. He said that anyone who looks around the world finds that "where growth did exceed expectations, it occurred in those nations with relatively free markets, and which promoted savings, investment, and work."

Asked if that means that there would be "backtracking" on the World Bank's policy to stress the "basic needs" of the poor countries, Sprinkel said there might be less emphasis on the basic-needs approach than U.S. May End Aid to IDA, --Sprinkel Hints Hobart Rowen Washington Post Staff Writer

Treasury Undersecretary Beryl Sprinkel yesterday left open for the first time the possibility that the United States might end its contributions of subsidized aid through the World Bank's concessional loan arm, the International Development Association, when its present commitments run out.

That would mean, in practical terms, that after the so-called 6th Replenishment (round of contributions) of the IDA winds up in fiscal l983, there would not be a seventh as urgently desired by the Third World countries. This possibility is certain to touch off anguished debate at next week's joint annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Asked about the IDA's future at a press conference yesterday, Sprinkel responded briskly: "We have made no decision at this point on financing the next IDA replenishment. We haven't said we won't, we haven't said we will. This has not been resolved. We're making massive efforts to try to live up to the promises of the last administration on the IDA-6 replenishment."

Sprinkel -- who is undersecretary for monetary affairs -- made his comment after Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan said again that the United States wants the IMF to be stricter in lending money to poor nations and is pressing the World Bank to put more stress on the private sector. At a time when the U.S. is being forced to cut back its domestic spending, Regan said, "I think it would be incongruous of us to be developing a rather liberal attitude in foreign aid or our contributions to some of the international institutions. The two have to go in parallel."

Regan appeared anxious to soften the impact of his statement Monday to several reporters that the IMF "should be a little more strict" in its lending policy. He said yesterday that the IMF in fact had strengthened lending conditions in recent months, reversing a pattern of laxity, "and we want them to stay on that course."

Regan said that "what I am suggesting is that, obviously, there's a plentiful supply of money in the world. And if you ask, 'Do we need more money now in the IMF?,' my answer to that currently is 'No.' That isn't to say that forever there will be no need for additional borrowings by the IMF, or indeed, for additional SDRs" special drawing rights, a paper credit issued by the IMF .

Later, briefing foreign reporters, Sprinkel said that the IMF should revert "to its historical role as a provider of short-term" aid, and therefore would have less need for borrowed or contributed funds. He said flatly that the United States opposes a new issue of SDRs as "counterproductive."

IDA monies are loaned for 50 years at no interest, but with a 2 percent service charge. They are the principal source of subsidized aid for the poorest nations. The contributions by the rich nations, known as replenishments, have been made for three-year periods. There has been a bitter fight within the Reagan administration on the current $3.24 billion, three-year commitment by the United States for IDA-6, originally made by the Carter administration.

President Reagan decided to honor the IDA-6 commitment, but it has been stretched out for four years, with only $500 million advanced so far in the current fiscal year, and a bitter congressional fight in prospect to get in appropriation form the balance of the $3.24 billion authorized.

Sprinkel said that the World Bank should be concerned with stimulating real economic growth in the less-developed nations. He said that anyone who looks around the world finds that "where growth did exceed expectations, it occurred in those nations with relatively free markets, and which promoted savings, investment, and work."

Asked if that means that there would be "backtracking" on the World Bank's policy to stress the "basic needs" of the poor countries, Sprinkel said there might be less emphasis on the basic-needs approach than occurred in the last administration because poor countries, like rich countries, "are served best by higher economic growth and higher standards of living." occurred in the last administration because poor countries, like rich countries, "are served best by higher economic growth and higher standards of living."