Tag Archives: capital flows

The Costs of the Defragmentation of the Global Economy

Leave a reply

The integration of markets across borders has slowed down, and in some cases, reversed. These changes come in the wake of the global financial crisis, Donald Trump’s embrace of trade restrictions, Great Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, the disruptions in global supply chains during the pandemic, and the invasion of Ukraine. President Biden has shown a willingness to use trade and financial restrictions in response to what he views as Chinese and Russian threats to U.S. strategic interests, and there are responses to the use of sanctions and other tools of disruption. The fallout from this rift will take years to play out.

A team of IMF economists have written a Discussion Note on Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism. They attribute the reversal of economic integration to national considerations, such as the desire of governments to increase their domestic production capabilities in particular areas. But the authors of the Note point out that while fragmentation may achieve some goals, it also imposes costs. These include: “higher import prices, segmented markets, diminished access to technology and to both skilled and unskilled labor, and ultimately reduced productivity which may result in lower living standards.” Moreover, fragmentation will slow down joint efforts to address global issues such as climate change.

The Discussion Note summarizes the results of several studies of the loss from geoeconomic fragmentation. In all the studies they cite, the costs are greater the larger the degree of fragmentation. Among the reasons for the losses in output are reduced knowledge diffusion due to technological decoupling. Not surprisingly, low income and emerging market countries are most at risk from a separation from the latest technological developments.

Pinelopi K. Goldberg of Yale and Tristan Reed of the World Bank Group (Goldberg is former chief economist of the World Bank) examine the prospects for global trade in their recent NBER Working Paper “Is the Global Economy Deglobalizing? And if so, why? And what is next?” They find that “slowbalization” is a better description of the recent trend in international trade than “deglobalization.” Foreign direct investment and migration have exhibited relatively less slowdowns. But the authors also document changes in U.S. policies and public attitudes that represent a marked shift away from the liberalization of trade. They attribute these reversals to various factors, including the impact of imports on U.S. labor, concerns over the resilience of global supply chains, and national security considerations.

Goldberg and Reed conclude their analysis with some projections of the consequences of deglobalization. They point out that the previous regime of the last three decades led to growth and technological progress They warn that global innovation will be particularly slowed by a decoupling of the U.S. and China  Reconfiguring production supply chains will slow growth as well. These reversals and changes raise the possibility that the recent decline in global inequality will halt, with low-income countries most at risk.

Trade, of course, is not the only component of international commerce that has undergone changes in how it is organized. Chapter 4 of the IMF’s most recent World Economic Outlook analyses the geoeconomic fragmentation of FDI. The authors point to an increase in the “reshoring” and “friend-shoring” of production facilities domestically or to countries with similar political alignments. They estimate a model of the impact of geopolitical alignment on FDI flows, and find that geopolitical factors account for part of the shift in bilateral FDI to countries with governments with similar views to the home country. This could presage a shift to more FDI among advanced economies, rather than emerging markets and developing economies that may differ on political issues.

The Fund’s economists also analyzed the output costs of FDI fragmentation. They utilized different scenarios of geopolitical alignment, such as a world divided into a U.S.-centered block and a China-centered block, with India and Indonesia and Latin America and the Caribbean as nonaligned. In this scenario, the impact of smaller capital stocks and less productivity cumulate with long-term output losses of 2%. Other scenarios allow for the diversion of investment flows to some areas that could offset a decline in global economic activity. However, the chapter’s authors also warn that nonaligned nations may face pressures to choose one side over the other. They conclude from their analysis: “…a fragmented global economy is likely to be a poorer one. While there may be relative—and possibly absolute—winners from diversion, such gains are subject to substantial uncertainty.”

Other forms of capital flows are also subject to fragmentation, and the IMF’s economists examine these trends is a chapter of the latest Global Stability Report. In their analysis, geopolitical tensions can lead to instability through two channels. The first is a financial channel that could respond to increased restrictions on capital flows, greater uncertainty or conflict. The second channel is a real channel, due to disruptions in trade and technology transfers or volatile commodity markets. These two channels can reinforce each other. Restrictions in trade, for example, could discourage cross-border investments.

Geopolitical affinities affect cross-border capital allocation, and the evidence reported in the chapter indicates that recent events have reinforced this impact. The empirical analysis based on a gravity model finds that a rise in geopolitical tensions can trigger sizable portfolio and bank outflows, particularly in developing and emerging market economies. Geopolitical fragmentation can also lead to a loss in international risk diversification, thus leaving countries more vulnerable to adverse shocks and a sizable welfare loss.

All these analyses from multilateral institutions warn of the negative economic consequences arising from the decoupling of trade and financial ties. But the most threatening effects may come from the deepening division of the world into different blocs. As the dividing lines become solidified, the chances of discord extending beyond economic interactions increase. All this friction arising when climate warming already poses a clear threat to our existence only intensifies the dangers we will face.

The 2022 Globie: Money and Empire

Leave a reply

Every year we name a book the “Globalization Book of the Year” (aka the “Globie”). The prize is (alas!) strictly honorific and does not come with a monetary award. But announcing the award gives me a chance to draw attention to a recent book—or books—that are particularly insightful about globalization. Previous winners are listed at the bottom of the column (also see here and here).

This year’s recipient is Money and Empire: Charles P. Kindleberger and the Dollar System by Perry Mehrling, Professor of International Political Economy at the Pardee School of Global Studies of Boston University. The book is an intellectual biography of Charles Kindleberger, who came to MIT in 1948 after having served at the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of International Settlements and the U.S. Department of State. He was the author of a number of articles and books on international macroeconomics and economic history that have retained their relevance long after their initial publication date. In his work he often focused on the policies needed to achieve international stability in a world of different national currencies and policies. He had a insightful perspective on the circumstances that led to the Great Depression, and what needed to be done to avoid a repeat of that catastrophic occurrence.

Among the topics that Mehrling covers is the evolution of Kindleberger’s views on the global economic role of the dollar. The dollar became the international reserve currency under the Bretton Woods regime, which was designed to avoid a repeat of the relative chaos of the 1930s. Foreign central banks held dollars to stabilize the value of their currencies, while the U.S. stood ready to exchange these dollars for gold. What had been a dollar shortage in the period after World War II became a dollar glut in the 1950s and 1960s, however, and the stability of the link to gold was questioned by Robert Triffin and others.

Kindleberger, on the other hand, believed that the dollar was serving an important international function as a key currency, as the pound had done in the pre-WWI ear. The responsibility of the U.S. was to set monetary policies that took account of the state of the world economy. In 1966, he joined with Walter Salant and Emile Despres in writing an article for The Economist, “The Dollar and World Liquidity: A Minority View,”  which advanced the view that the U.S. served as the “world’s banker,” i.e., as a financial intermediary with respect to Europe that issued short-term deposits and invested long-term capital around the world. The result was an unplanned but functional international monetary system. In that perspective, gold was an unnecessary distraction.

The debate over the architecture of the international monetary system seemed to end when Richard Nixon terminated the exchange of gold for dollars in 1971. The U.S. and the European nations also began the transition away from fixed exchange rate regimes, although the Europeans would move to their own “fixed currency” with the euro. But the dollar did not recede into the mix of the international monies. The end of Bretton Woods also meant the end of the acceptance of capital controls, and capital began to flow more freely, first among the advanced economies and then to the emerging market nations. Private capital flows rose in importance in financing corporate and government debt, and in the cases of external finance these debt instruments (particularly of emerging market economies) were denominated in dollars.

By the 2000s the existence of a “global financial cycle”, based on U.S. monetary policy, became widely accepted. The dollar was indeed the international currency, although this was decided by private markets as much as governmental decrees. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas of UC-Berkeley and Hélène Rey  of the London Business School, in explaining the central role of the U.S., updated the 1966 title given to the dollar by Kindleberger and his associates to the world’s “venture capitalist.”

One of Kindleberger’s most well known contributions came from his analysis of the Great Depression. Previous work usually placed the blame on the outbreak and/or duration of the crisis to misguided national policies. Kindleberger realized that there was an international dimension: the lack of a country that acted as a leader in providing the international public goods needed for stability. These included maintaining an open market for distress goods, providing long-term lending and overseeing a stable system of exchange rates, ensuring the coordination of macro policies among nations and acting as a lender of last resort. In the 1930s Britain was no longer able to act as the global leader, while the U.S. was not willing to accept that roel. Kindleberger’s insight became the basis of a body of work known as “hegemonic stability,” one of the tenets of international political economy.

Kindleberger offered yet another perspective on financial instability in his Manias, Panics and Crashes. As the title implies, the book is an account of financial crises dating back over time and their common elements. The book was first published in 1978. Robert Aliber took over the job of updating the book after Kindleberger’s death, and the latest edition (the eighth) has Robert N. McCauley as the newest co-author.

 In the book Kindleberger extended Hyman Minsky’s model of financial instability, which was a domestic model, to include an international dimension. Minsky had proposed that credit expansion and contraction followed a cycle of initial displacement, boom, euphoria, profit taking, and panic. In a global context, this cycle can be amplified by short-term international capital flows, that increase the amount of credit that is available during the early stages of the cycle. But the money is rapidly withdrawn by foreign investors when doubts arise about the solvency of the projects they have financed. The withdrawal of foreign capital exacerbates the instability of the last stages of the cycle. Kindleberger’s adaptation of Minsky’s work proved to be remarkably prescient during the emerging market economies’ crises of the 1990s, such as the Asian crisis, as well as the global financial crisis.

Mehrling, therefore, has done a valuable service in explaining Kindleberger’s contributions to our understanding of the global economy. Because his analyses were not based on mathematical models or econometric testing, Kindleberger did not receive the same degree of respect as did his colleagues at MIT and elsewhere who used these tools. But the passing of time demonstrates that Kindleberger possessed a keen understanding of how capital and credit flows functioned, and the need for some form of governmental oversight. Any lack of attention to this work at the time when Kindleberger was active tells us more about the blindfolds of economics than it does about Charles Kindlberger.

“Globies”

2016    Branko Milanovic        Global Inequality

2017    Stephen D. King          Grave New World: The End of Globalization, The Return of History

2018    Adam Tooze                Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

2019    Branko Milanovic        Capitalism, Alone

2020    Tim Lee, Jamie Lee      The Rise of Carry

             and Kevin Coldiron

2021    Anthony Elson             The Global Currency Power of the Dollar

             Jeff Garten                  Three Days at Camp David

The IMF’s Proposed Policies on the Management of Capital Flows

Leave a reply

The IMF’s views on the advantages and drawbacks of capital flows have substantially evolved over time. The Fund reversed its opposition to capital controls in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007-09, when it adopted the “Institutional View on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.” That framework included capital flows measures (CFMs) as one of the policy measures available to a government facing surges of capital inflows, i.e., large inflows that could destabilize an economy. The Fund has now moved further in the direction of using CFMs, proposing that they can be used in a preemptive manner to avoid future instability.

The IMF had advocated the removal of capital controls before the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, so that developing economies could benefit from capital flows. That crisis demonstrated the volatility of capital flows and the catastrophic impact of “sudden stops” on economic activity. Subsequently, the Fund refined its position on deregulation, advising governments to implement adequate supervisory and regulatory regimes before liberalizing their capital accounts, and to begin with opening to foreign direct investment before allowing short-term capital. The IMF moved further during the global financial crisis when it allowed Iceland to implement controls. The Institutional View was adopted in 2012, when countries such as Brazil used CFMs to manage the inflows of foreign capital seeking higher yields than those available in the U.S. The CFMs were part of a toolkit that also includes Macroprudential Prudential Measures (MPMs), which are designed to limit systemic risks. CFM/MPMs are measures designed to limit such risk by controlling capital flows.

The IMF’s new proposals are presented in an IMF Policy Paper, “Review of the Institutional View on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.”  The first proposal extends the Institutional View by allowing the preemptive use of CFM/MPMs on foreign currency debt inflows in order to address the systemic risk that could result from foreign exchange mismatches on balance sheets. Such mismatches can occur slowly, and not just following surges. They increase the probability of capital flow reversals and exchange rate depreciations that disrupt economic activity and could not be adequately addressed with conventional policy tools.

The proposal would also allow CFM/MPMs in the case of high foreign investor participation in local-currency debt markets. In these cases, the danger is a “sudden stop” by foreign investors, which would have particularly adverse consequences if there were illiquid capital markets. Other domestic measures may be unavailable, and the CFM is a second-best solution.

The second proposed policy change exempts certain types of capital control measures that are enacted by governments for specific purposes from review. These include: first, measures adopted for national or international security; second, measures based on international prudential standards, such as those related to the Basel Framework on banking; third, measures designed to deal with money laundering and the combating of financial terrorism; and fourth, measures related to international cooperation standards related to the avoidance or evasion of taxes.

The usefulness of preemptive policies has been demonstrated in a new NBER working paper, “Preemptive Policies and Risk-Off Shocks in Emerging Markets” by Mitali Das and Gita Gopinath of the IMF and Sebnem Kalemli-Özcan of the University of Maryland. The authors investigate the impact of preemptive CFMs on the external finance premia in 56 emerging markets and developing economies during the Taper Tantrum and the COVID-19 shocks. The premia are measured by deviations from uncovered interest rate parity. They consider the impact of CFMs on inflows and outflows, as well as the effect of domestic MPMs.

The paper’s authors report that countries with preemptive CFMs on inflows in place during the five-year period preceding the shocks experienced lower premia and exchange rate volatility. They infer that use of the CFMs provide enhanced access to international capital markets during volatile periods. CFMs on outflows, on the other hand, had a positive effect on the UIP premiums, which may reflect the demand by foreign investors for higher returns to compensate for the CFMs in outflows.

The IMF’s capital flow policies under the Institutional View had been reviewed by the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) in its 2020 report , “IMF Advice on Capital Flows.” The report praised the IMF for the changes in its policy stance, and called the adoption of the Institutional View “a major step forward.” The IEO’s report, however, also called for further changes, including revisiting the Institutional View to take into account recent experience with capital flows, building up the monitoring, analysis and research of capital acccount issues, and strengthening multilateral cooperation on policy issues.

Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia, who wrote a briefing paper for the IEO report, Prakash Loungani, assistant director of the IEO and co-leader of the 2020 report, and Jonathan Ostry of Georgetown University, who was at the IMF when it issued the Institutional View, have written a review of the IMF’s latest policy proposals, “The IMF’s Updated View on Capital Controls: Welcome Fixes but Major Rethinking Is Still Needed.” While welcoming the new measures, they bring up several additional issues that should be addressed. These include the use of capital controls for domestic objectives, such as the impact of capital flows on income inequality and also real estate prices. Such a move would in many ways be consistent with the original aims of the Bretton Woods agreements.

The authors point out that the targets for the IMF’s capital policies are the host countries that receive capital inflows. But challenges associated with capital flows should also involve the countries that are the source of the capital flows. Since these are usually the advanced economies which have a major role in the IMF’s governance, such a move would require the cooperation of the IMF’s most influential members.

Korinek, Loungani and Ostry also urge the IMF to investigate the use of controls on capital outflows. The Fund’s current policy stance only approves the use of such measures during crises. Given the current economic and financial situation (see, for example, here), governments of developing countries are concerned about a repeat of the outflows of March and April 2020. The IMF should be working with these policymakers now to minimize the turbulence that large capital outflows would bring.

The Global Impact of the Fed’s Pivot on Asset Purchases

Leave a reply

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced last month that the Fed would slow its purchases of bonds, most likely by the end of this year. The timing of the cutback will depend on several factors related to the economy, and last week’s disappointing employment report if repeated could push back the date. The financial markets will now begin anticipating the impact of the reduction in the Fed’s asset holdings.

The origins of the increase in the Fed’s holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securites can be traced back to the global financial crisis. The Fed’s assets grew from $870 billion in August 2007 to $2 trillion in early 2009. When the Fed introduced its quantitative easing program, it claimed that the purchases of bonds would lead to lower long-term interest rates more quickly than if it relied only on lowering the Federal Funds rate. In addition, the purchases showed the Fed’s commitment to keeping interest rates low in order to boost the economic recovery. This latter form of signaling was called “forward guidance.”

Subsequent quantitative easing programs eventually raised its holdings to $4.5 trillion by 2015. The Fed maintained that level until 2018, when it allowed its holdings to fall as bonds matured. But it reversed course in 2019, and the Fed responded to the pandemic in the spring of 2020 by ramping up its purchases of assets in order to support the financial markets. Its asset holdings now total about $8.3 trillion.

The Fed has not been alone in using asset purchases as a tool of policy. The European Central Bank increased its holdings of bonds during the period preceding the pandemic from 2 trillion Euros at the end of 2014 to 4.6 trillion Euros. It accelerated its purchases last year and now holds about 8.2 trillion Euros in assets. The Bank of Japan and the Bank of England have their own versions of asset purchase programs. Many of these central banks have also announced changes in the pace of their asset purchases.

When then Fed chair Ben Bernanke noted in 2013 that continued strengthening of the economy could lead to a cutback in asset purchases, this was interpreted as a sign that the Fed would also allow interest rates to rise. This led to the infamous “taper tantrum,” as financial markets overreacted to the prospects of higher interest rates. The response included capital outflows from emerging market countries such as India as their exchange rates depreciated and their own asset markets fell in value. Stability was eventually reestablished once the Fed clarified that it had no plans to enact a contractionary policy, but the incident demonstrated the volatility of financial markets, particularly in the emerging market countries.

Powell has sought to avoid such an outcome by explicitly delinking asset purchases from interest rates. He pledged to keep the Federal Funds rate at its current setting until “maximum employment and sustained 2% inflation” area achieved. The (lack of a)  response in the financial markets to Powell’s speech seemed to indicate that this promise was seen as credible, despite concerns about inflation.

But there will be consequences when the Fed cuts back on its asset purchases. The increases in the Fed’s balance sheet, as well as those of the other central banks, released a wave of liquidity with wide-ranging consequences. In the U.S. it has kept stock price valuations at elevated levels, which contributes to widening wealth inequality. For example, in 2019 families in the top 10% of the income distribution owned 70% of total stock values. Similarly, the provision of easy credit has contributed to rising housing prices that also reflects demand and supply conditions.

The increase in liquidity also benefited emerging markets and developing economies. In the period immediately before the pandemic the World Bank warned that the world had experienced a rise in debt, both private and government. Total debt in the emerging markets and developing economies had risen from 114% of their GDP in 2010 to 170% at the end of 2018. Part of this increase reflected accommodative monetary policies in the advanced economies and a search for higher yield by investors in those countries. A rising global demand for the bonds of the emerging market and developing economies countries was met by an increase in their issuance.

These countries suffered massive reversals of foreign capital in the spring of 2020. The “sudden stops” confirmed the existence of a global financial cycle that can overwhelm vulnerable economies. But the withdrawals were soon reversed, in part because investors were reassured by the rapid responses of central banks in the advanced economies to the financial meltdown.

There are many who voice concerns about the ending of the current financial cycle. Mohammed El-Erian, president of Queens’ College of Cambridge University, is worried about the excessive risk-taking that the financial sector has undertaken in response to its “unhealthy codependency” with central banks.  Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business is alarmed about the impact that future interest rate hikes could have on government finances. Jeremy Grantham of asset management firm GMO believes that the stock market will experience a massive crash. And IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva is concerned about a diveregence in the prospects of advanced economies and a few emerging markets versus those of most developing economies that could lead to a debt crisis.

Much of the impact of the policy changes at the Federal Reserve depends on how the financial markets respond to the slowdown in purchases, and whether the Fed is successful in delinking a cutback in asset purchases from its interest rate policy. The lack of a strong response in the bond markets suggests that there has not been a change in expectations of future interest rates. But ouside the U.S. there is always the prospect that a slowdown in economic growth and the continuation of the pandemic imperil the solvency of corporate and government borrowers. These developments would be enough to fuel a debt crisis despite the Fed’s careful footwork.

China’s Outward FDI

Leave a reply

Chinese firms that want to list their stock in U.S. equity markets face a series of hurdles. The Securities and Exchange Commission is implementing a new rule that requires the firms to provide information regarding their ties to the Chinese government, while the Biden administration is banning Americans from investing in 59 Chinese firms. Moreover, Chinese authorities have their own concerns about the foreign listing of Chinese firms. Chinese multinationals also face impediments to their foreign expansion through direct investment, but they have been successful in expanding their foreign operations, and this is slowly transforming China’s external balance sheet.

China, of course, is a creditor country, with a net international investment position (NIIP) in 2020 of $2,150 billion. Historically its balance sheet has been characterized as “long debt, short equity,” i.e., China held the debt issued by borrowers in the advanced economies (such as U.S. Treasury bonds) and issued equity liabilities, usually in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI). This strategy allowed China to benefit from the expertise of multinational firms and foreign technology, while avoiding the need to depend on its own undeveloped financial markets to arrange financing. But Chinese firms are at the stage where they can compete in foreign markets, and have been acquiring foreign affiliates.

In 2010, Chinese FDI assets were worth $317 billion, while Chinese FDI liabilities were valued at $1,570 billion, for a net FDI position of -$1,252 billion, or -20.6% of Chinese GDP. Chinese  outward FDI flows have grown since then, and the stock of assets reached $2,237 billion in 2019. (These changes also reflect the effects of currency value fluctuations.)  While the stock of liabilities was still larger at $2,796 billion, the gap between them had shrunk to $560 billion, only about 4% of GDP.

Dongkun Li and Yang Zhang provide an occount of the evolution of Chinese outward FDI in their article, “Compressed Development of Outward Foreign Direct Investment: New Challenges to the Chinese Government,” which appeared in the Journal of African and Asian Studes in 2020.  In the 1990s Chinese FDI was usually undertaken by state owned enterprises and focused on the acquisition of natural resources, particularly in developing economies. The government endorsed FDI as part of its growth strategy, however, and FDI outflows grew rapidly after 2001 as private enterprises increased their share of China’s outward expansion. There was a slowdown in 2017 when the Chinese government, concerned about capital outflows, imposed restrictions on outward FDI. Foreign expansion has continued, albeit at a slower pace, and has been given a new focus under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The increase in Chinese firms’ foreign activities has also affected China’s net investment income. Despite its NIIP creditor position, China has recorded deficits on net investment income, as payments on its FDI liabilities traditionally have exceeded the returns China received on its largely debt-dominated assets. But China’s net investment income deficit, which reached $85.3 billion in 2011, had fallen to $43.4 billion in 2019.

There was a reversal in these trends last year. China was the largest recipient of FDI in 2020, bypassing the U.S. Chinese FDI liabilities jumped to $3,179 billion, and the net FDI position fell to -$765 billion, about -5.2% of GDP. The deficit on net investment income rose to $107 billion. FDI inflows continued to be strong in the first quarter of this year. However, outward FDI increased from its depressed 2020 amount.

The future development of FDI both inside and outside China depends a great deal on government policies, as well as the uncertain course of the pandemic. In the U.S., the Committee on Foreign Investment examines proposed acquisitions of U.S. firms,  and blocks access to U.S. technology that could affect U.S. security. European governments are also scrutinizing Chinese investment, and that screening combined with the effect of the pandemic resulted in a large drop in Chinese FDI flows to Europe last year. The Chinese government also seeks to controls foreign ties as part of its overall move to assert more government control of the economy. But Chinese firms are eager to expand, and over time their search for new markets should lead to further shifts in China’s net FDI position and foreign investment earnings.

Financial Globalization and Inequality

Leave a reply

The global financial crisis slowed the pace of financial globalization, while the impact of the pandemic on its future course is unclear. But enough time has elapsed to assess the record of integrated financial markets that greatly expanded in the 1990s and early 2000s. The evidence on one issue—financial openness and inequality—is clear: financial globalization has increased inequality.

Enrico D’Elia of the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) and Roberta De Santiss, also of ISTAT, analyzed this issue in their 2019 working paper, “Growth Divergence and Income Inequality in OECD Countries: The Role of Trade and Financial Openness.” They used an error-correction model to differentiate between short- and long-run effects on the Gini index, and divided the OECD countries into low-, middle- and high income over the period of 1995-2016. Increases in financial integration, as measured by foreign assts and liabilities scaled by GDP, increased income disparities in both the short- and long-run in the total sample. In the long-run there is a negative effect on the Gini index within the low-income countries, but there is a much larger positive impact within the high-income group. They attribute this finding to the advantage that the financial sector derives from financial innovation in those countries. In their results relating to growth, they reported that financial openness had a positive impact on the economic growth of the middle-income group alone, and it only occurred in the short-run.

Xiang Li of the Halle Institute for Economic Research and Dan Su of the University of Minnesota investigated the impact of capital account liberalization in their 2020 article, “Does Capital Account Liberalization Affect Income Inequality?” in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. They used several measures of capital account openness, and both Gini coefficients and the income shares of different groups as their measures of inequality in samples of OECD and non-OECD countries. In their panel data analysis, they found that capital account liberalization had positive impacts on the Gini coefficients in the non-OECD countries, but not the OECD sample. They also found that capital account liberalization increased the income share of the top 10% of households. They reported similar results from a difference-in-differences analysis.

Philipp Heimberger of the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies offered a summary of the empirical analyses of economic globalization and inequality in his paper, Does Economic Globalisation Affect Income Inequality? A Meta-analysis, which was published in The World Economy in 2020. He undertook a meta-analysis of 123 peer-reviewed papers and a meta-regression empirical analysis. In his results he found that financial globalization has had a sizeable and significant inequality-increasing impact, which is not true of trade globalization. Moreover, this result holds for advanced countries as well as developing nations.

The evidence, therefore, seems clear: increased capital flows do lead to more income inequality. But what are the channels of transmission? Barry Eichengreen of UC-Berkeley, Balazs Csonto and Asmaa A. El-Ganainy of the IMF, and Zsoka Koczan of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development investigate this issue in their IMF working paper, “Financial Globalization and Inequality: Capital Flows as a Two-Edged Sword.” They point out that the various types of capital flows will have different effects and review the separate impacts to explain why inequality increased in both advanced and developing economies.

In the case of inward FDI in developing economies, the inflow of foreign capital could increase the return to labor. But, the authors point out, if capital substitutes for labor or works with skilled labor, then wage inequality will increase amongst laborers. This effect will be magnified when foreign capital flows to sectors that are dependent on external capital and are also complementary with skilled labor. Similarly, outward FDI reduces the demand for less skilled labor in the home countries of the multinationals responsible for the FDI. The outflows can also lower the bargaining power of labor in those countries.

The authors also examine portfolio capital, which can have many of the same distributional consequences as FDI in the host countries. Moreover, inflows of portfolio capital can lead to increased macroeconomic and financial volatility, and culminate in crises. Aggregate volatility heightens inequality because the poor suffer more the effects of economic downturns. In addition, portfolio flows can lead to increased demand for assets and higher prices. A rise in housing prices helps their owners, and the distributional impact depends on the pattern of ownership. In the case of higher stock prices, the benefits flow to stockholders who almost always are located in high-income households.

FDI, portfolio capital and bank flows also affect tax payments. Multinationals can use financial centers with low tax rates to minimize their tax liabilities across nations. Portfolio and bank flows can be used by the rich to shelter their asset holdings to avoid taxes. The loss of tax revenues decreases the ability of governments to deliver services that may benefit poorer households.

What can be done in the face of these impacts on income inequality? The authors of the IMF paper point out that adverse consequences are lessened when there are higher levels of educational achievement in the population. More educated workers benefit from the increased skill premium paid by multinationals. Capital flow measures can be used to control short-run inflows that can lead to “sudden stops” that overwhelm domestic financial markets.

A multilateral initiative seeks to reform the tax treatment of multinationals to avoid base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) that result in lower tax revenues for governments. The OECD has organized negotiations amongst governments to coordinate the tax treatments of multinational firms. The OECD proposals have two sections: the first deals with the allocation of the right to levy taxes on corporations by nations and the second would establish a minimum global tax. These issues are particularly relevant for digital companies that have minimum physical presence in many countries where they do business. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has announced that the U.S. would reverse its position under the Trump administration and engage in these talks.

Finance, if designed properly, need not be exclusionary. Indeed, in some countries financial inclusion has helped low-income households to increase their living standards. International financial flows are not the only cause of increased inequality, but they have played a role. International finance in all its forms can have adverse consequences and governments need to acknowledge these and plan to offset them if/when financial globalization resumes.

The IMF and the Coronavirus

Leave a reply

A global threat such as the coronavirus should be met with a global response. National governments, however, have generally not coordinated their efforts, with the exception of those that belong to the European Union, and even there the distribution of vaccines has not gone smoothly. International agencies, on the other hand, such as the International Monetary Fund have responded more quickly. Moreover, the IMF has shown a willingness to play an active role in preparing for the post-pandemic world and to take on issues outside its usual remit.

The IMF’s past attempts to resolve financial crises have not always been successful (for an account see here). The IMF’s policy prescriptions at the outset of the East Asian crisis of 1997-98 included contractionary fiscal policy conditions for the governments that adopted IMF programs, as well as higher interest rates. There were  also structural conditions that dealt with the privatization of government-owned enterprises. While such policies may have been appropriate for a crisis that was due to expansionary macroeconomic policies, fiscal and monetary measures did not precipitate the East Asian crisis. Capital inflows had fueled bank lending and asset prices had soared, while central banks were committed to fixed exchange rates. Once foreign investors became alarmed about the exposure of private borrowers to currency and maturity mismatches, they began to exit, provoking a “sudden stop” of capital and currency devaluations.

The IMF faced criticism not only from the East Asian governments but from economists outside Asia. The macroeconomic policy conditions were inappropriate for a crisis that originated in private capital flows, and were based on overly optimistic projections of growth. Structural conditions were viewed as unnecessary and diverted attention from the measures that need to be undertaken. The IMF was also blamed for indirectly provoking the crisis through its advocacy of the removal of capital controls before the crisis. The IMF subsequently relaxed many of its program conditions as the nature of the crisis became more clear, but the damage to its reputation was enormous.

A decade later the IMF again faced a widespread financial crisis, and this time its response was very different. The global financial crisis of 2008-09 showed some similarities in its background with the Asian crisis. Inflows of capital to the U.S. and several European countries had fueled increases in asset prices and distorted expenditures. Once the bubbles in housing prices burst, financial institutions sought to unload mortgage-backed securities, forcing their prices down further. The rapid nature of the collapse in asset values and the lack of liquidity in financial markets exposed the fragility of the financial sector.

While the central banks of the advanced economies coordinated their responses, the IMF assisted emerging market economies that were caught up in the economic downturn precipitated by the financial collapse. The Fund lent to 17 countries, with the largest amounts of credit going to Hungary, Pakistan, Romania, and the Ukraine. Moreover, the policy conditions attached to the programs reflected an awareness of the origin and severity of the global contraction. Fiscal policy in the program countries was utilized to respond to falling private demand, although their governments avoided the large deficits that occurred in the advanced economies. Interest rate increases designed to prevent runs on currencies were limited and exchange rates did stabilize. Moreover, the IMF allowed the use of capital controls. Overall, the IMF received high marks for its initiatives during the global financial crisis.

In retrospect, the post-crisis recovery did not go as smoothly as it should have. Many countries felt compelled to reverse the expansionary policies of the crisis period because of fears of excessive debt. This contractionary trend was exacerbated by a sovereign debt crisis in Greece. Other European governments sought the inclusion of the IMF in addressing the crisis, and for the first time the Fund had partners: the European Central Bank and the European Commission. The initial macro policy changes imposed by this “troika” sought to restore fiscal balance, but their contractionary effects kept tax revenues below their anticipated levels, which led to further cutbacks. The IMF differed with the European governments over the sustainability of Greece’s debt burden and the need for debt forgiveness. Eventually the Greek economy began a recovery, but in retrospect the austerity policies there and elsewhere led to a slower recovery that there could have been.

The IMF has drawn upon these past experiences in formulating its response to the pandemic. The Fund has again responded quickly to assist its members, approving emergency financing  through its Rapid Credit Facility and its Rapid Financing Instrument to 80 countries and assistance under other arrangements to another five nations. It has extended debt service relief to 29 of its poorest members that have obligations to the IMF. The Fund and the World Bank have called on bilateral lenders to suspend debt service payments from the poorest countries, and the governments of the Group of 20  agreed to do so for official debt. The agencies have called for private lenders to implement similar measures.

The IMF has also sought to prepare countries for the post-pandemic world. Kristalina Georgieva, the current Managing Director of the IMF and the first from a East European country (Bulgaria), has supported policy initiatives in areas that traditionally do not fall under the IMF’s purview. She has supported national policies that seek to address different forms of inequality, including income and wealth inequality as well as gender and generational inequality. She has also called for including climate related risk in the IMF’s economic and financial assessments , and using fiscal expenditures to target “…climate-resilient infrastructure and expanding green public transportation, renewable energy, and smart electricity grids.”

Will the IMF be able to engineer such broad changes? The IMF is an agent responsible to 190 principals, the sovereign governments that are the IMF’s members and oversee its activities. Some of these may feel that Georgieva’s policy agenda is too ambitious and/or expensive. There are also disagreements over how to finance the IMF’s assistance to its poorest members. Proposals to issue more Special Drawing Rights (SDRS) have faced opposition from the U.S. On the other hand, differences amongst its principals may allow the IMF more freedom to expand the scope of its mandate. There is also the danger that a wave of debt crises following the wave of public borrowing by emerging maket governments may force the IMF to focus on debt restructuring.

The IMF, and Georgieva in particular, deserve credit for bringing forward issues that traditionally have not been addressed in discussions of international macroeconomic concerns. Monetary and fiscal policies, for example, have impacts on racial and gender inequality that have been overlooked. Climate change will constrain the actions of the governments of the most vulnerable countries. Whether the IMF is successful in actually steering governmental actions towards these areas will depend on the willingness of its members to adopt wider and inclusive approaches in their responses to the coronavirus

[I had the opportunity of interviewing Ms. Georgieva for the Madeleine Korbel Albright Institute of Wellesley College. The transcript of the interview can be found here.]

Portfolio Capital Flows to Emerging Markets amid the Pandemic

Leave a reply

Among the most notable economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the turnaround in capital flows to emerging markets. A sudden reversal in portfolio flows of over $100 billion to these countries in March has been offset by a surge of capital this fall. But many of these countries have accumulated debt burdens that will affect their ability to recover from the pandemic.

The IMF examined portfolio flows to these economies in last April’s issue of the Global Financial Stability Report (see also here). The report showed that prior to the pandemic, bond portfolio inflows had been larger than equity portfolio flows, with cumulative flows since 2005 of approximately $2.5 trillion for bonds vs. about $1 trillion for equity. The bonds included both bonds denominated in foreign currency as well as local currency debt. These flows had constituted significant amounts of finance in the emerging and frontier markets’ debt and equity markets.

The authors of the report analyzed the determinants of the different types of portfolio flows. They reported that changes in global conditions (or “push factors”) are largely responsible for debt inflows. Among these factors are the VIX index, a measure of global risk appetite, the U.S. Treasury bond yield, and the foreign exchange value of the dollar. Equity flows are also influenced by foreign conditions, but domestic economic growth (a “pull” factor) is a larger factor in raising the likelihood of capital inflows. This reflects the dependency of the returns on portfolio equity on profitable business operations.

These results explain a large part of the retreat from portfolio securities last March. When the extent of the pandemic became clear, the VIX measure rose while the dollar initially appreciated as investors sought a “safe harbor.” These developments contributed to the reversal of foreign holdings of debt securities. The rapid deterioration in the prospects for economic growth in the emerging markets influenced the turnaround of portfolio equity flows.

But capital inflows were flowing back to the emerging markets by the summer and continued to rise this fall. The Institute for International Finance (IIF) reported inflows of $76.5 billion in November alone, with $39.8 billion for emerging market equities and $37.7 billion for bonds and other debt. For the fourth quarter the IIF expected the strongest level of inflows since the first quarter of 2013.

The turnaround reflects several factors. First, the Federal Reserve’s strong response to stabilize financial markets has been successful, and market volatility has dropped. At the same time, the Fed’s lowering of the Federal Funds rate caused investors to look elsewhere for yields. Finally, the announcements of successful vaccines offers the prospect of an economic recovery in 2021.

However, there are concerns that the desire for the higher yield on riskier debt is fostering the issuance of bonds by borrowers who may not be able to fulfill their obligations. The ability of many of the governments and firms in the emerging market economies to meet their debt obligations is very much open to question. In December, S&P Global Ratings noted that “short-term risks still loom large” in the emerging markets.  Moreover, the agency stated that  “Debt overhang among governments and pressure on corporate earnings would constrain an economic recovery.” Five of the 16 key emerging market sovereign bonds that S&P rates carry negative outlooks: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The dangers of government spending in emerging markets financed by debt have been noted by Michael Spence of Stanford and Danny Leipziger in “The Pandemic Public-Debt Dilemma.” While the current cost of debt financing is relatively cheap, Spence and Leipziger pointed out that “a country’s citizens are not well-served when their government becomes more indebted in order to spend imprudently.” They warn that “borrowing in hard currencies when exports are depressed and their own exchange rates are under duress simply makes future debt re-scheduling more likely…”

Similarly, Raghuram G. Rajan of the University of Chicago and former governor of the Reserve Bank of India also questions how much debt a government can issue in “How Much Debt Is Too Much?” While some governments can roll over existing debt, Rajan claims that ”… investors will buy that new debt only if they are confident that the government can repay all its debt from its prospective revenues.” He warns that “Many an emerging market has faced a debt “sudden stop” well before it reached full employment, triggered by evaporating market confidence in its ability to roll over debt.”

Jeremy Bulow of Stanford, Carmen M. Reinhart, currently chief economist of the World Bank Group, Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard and Christoph Trebesch of the Kiel Institute for the World economy foresee a need to plan measures to deal with debt problems in “The Debt Pandemic.” They warn of debt restructurings on a scale not seen since the debt crisis of the 1980s. They view the pandemic as “…a once-in-a-century shock that merits a generous response from official and private creditors toward emerging market and developing economies.” Among the measures they suggest is new legislation to support orderly restructurings.

The need for policy measures to deal with debt restructuring is also expressed by Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the IMF, Ceyla Pazarbasioglu,  Director of the IMF’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department, and Rhoda Weeks-Brown,  General Counsel and Director of the IMF’s Legal Department. They specifically call for strengthening provisions that minimize economic disruption when debtors are in distress. These could include lower debt payments or the automatic suspension of  debt service. They also ask for increased debt transparency and agreement by creditor governments that are part of the Paris Club on a common approach to restructuring.  The latter two steps are aimed in part at China, which has become the largest bilateral creditor for many developing countries. There is considerable uncertainty over the size and conditions of debt owed to China, and how China will respond to the inability of debtor governments to make payments on the debt.

The IMF itself has pledged to provide debt service relief to its poorest members, while working with the Group of 20 on its Debt Service Suspension Initiative. Under this program, the governments of the G20 have offered to suspend the payments of government-to-government debt for 73 developing economies. The G20 also called on private lenders to offer similar relief, but there has been little response.

The onset of a debt crisis among the emerging market countries has been foreseen.  The widespread borrowing to deal with pandemic, however, has exacerbated the debt overhang. The pandemic will continue to affect financial stability and economic performance even as medical measures are implemented to deal with the virus .

The Coming Debt Crisis

Leave a reply

After the 2008-09 global financial crisis, economists were criticized for not predicting its coming. This charge was not totally justified, as there were some who were concerned about the run-up in asset prices. Robert Schiller of Yale, for example, had warned that housing prices had escalated to unsustainable levels. But the looming debt crisis in the emerging market economies has been foreseen by many, although the particular trigger—a pandemic—was not.

Last year the World Bank released Global Waves of Debt: Causes and Consequences, written by M. Ayhan Kose, Peter Nagle, Franziska Ohnsorge and Naotaka Sugawara. The authors examined a wave of debt buildup that began in 2010. By 2018 total debt in the emerging markets and developing economies (EMDE) had risen by 54 percentage points to 168% of GDP. Much of this increase reflected a rise in corporate debt in China, but even excluding China debt reached a near-record level of 107% of GDP in the remaining countries.

The book’s authors compare the recent rise in the EMDE’s debt to other waves of debt accumulation during the last fifty years. These include the debt issued by governments in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in Latin America; a second wave from 1990 until the early 2000s that reflected borrowing by banks and firms in East Asia and governments in Europe and Central Asia; and a third run-up in private borrowing via bank loans in Europe and Central Asia in the early 2000s. All these previous waves ended in some form of crisis that adversely affected economic growth.

While the most recent increase in debt shares some features with the previous waves such as low global interest rates, the report’s authors state that it has been “…larger, faster, and more broad-based than in the three previous waves…” The sources of credit shifted away from global banks to the capital markets and regional banks. The buildup included a rise in government debt, particularly among commodity-exporting countries, as well as private debt. China’s private debt rise accounted for about four-fifths of the increase in private EMDE debt during this period. External debt rose, particularly in the EMDEs excluding China, and much of these liabilities were denominated in foreign currency.

The World Bank’s economists report that about half of all episodes of rapid debt accumulation in the EMDEs have been associated with financial crises. They (with Wee Chian Koh) further explore this subject in a recent World Bank Policy Research Paper, “Debt and Financial Crises.” They identify 256 episodes of rapid government debt accumulation and 263 episodes of rapid private debt accumulation in 100 EMDEs over the period of 1970-2018. They test their effect upon the occurrence of bank, sovereign debt and currency crises in an econometric model, and find that such accumulations do increase the likelihood of such crises. An increase of government debt of 30 percentage points of GDP raised the probability of a debt crisis to 2% from 1.4% in the absence of such a build-up, and of a currency crisis to 6.6% from 4.1%. Similarly, a 15% of GDP rise in private debt doubled the probability of a bank crisis to 4.8% if there were no accumulation, and of a currency crisis to 7.5% from 3.9%. (For earlier analyses of the impact of external debt on the occurrence of bank crises see here and here.)

Kristin J. Forbes of MIT and Francis E. Warnock of the University of Virginia’s Darden Business School looked at episodes of extreme capital flows in the period since the global financial crisis (GFC) in a recent NBER Working Paper, “Capital Flows Waves—or Ripples? Extreme Capital Flow Movements Since the Crisis.”  They update the results reported in their 2012 Journal of International Economics paper, in which they distinguished between surges, stops, flights and retrenchments. They reported that before the GFC global risk, global growth and regional contagion were associated with extreme capital flow episodes, while domestic factors were less important.

Forbes and Warnock update their data base in the new paper. They report that has been a lower incidence of extreme capital flow episodes since 2009 in their sample of 58 advanced and emerging market economies, and such episodes occur more as “ripples” than “waves.” They also find that as in the past the majority of episodes of extreme capital flows were debt-led. When they distinguish between bank versus portfolio debt, their results suggest a substantially larger role for bank flows in driving extreme capital flows.

Forbes and Warnock also repeat their earlier analysis of the determinants of extreme capital flows using data from the post-crisis period. They find less evidence of significant relationships of the global variables with the extreme capital flows. Global risk is significant only in the stop and retrenchment episodes, and contagion is significantly associated only with surges. They suggest that these results may reflect changes in the post-crisis global financial system, such as greater use of unconventional tools of monetary policy, as well as increased volatility in commodity prices.

Corporations can respond to crises by changing how and where they raise funds. Juan J. Cortina, Tatiana Didier and Sergio L. Schmukler of the World Bank analyze these responses in another World Bank Policy Research Working paper, “Global Corporate Debt During Crises: Implications of Switching Borrowing across Markets.” They point out that firms can obtain funds either via bank syndicated lending or bonds, and they can borrow in international or domestic markets. They use data on 56,826 firms in advanced and emerging market economies with 183,732 issuances during the period 1991-2014, and focus on borrowing during the GFC and domestic banking crises. They point out that the total amounts of bonds and syndicated loans issued during this period increased almost 27-fold in the emerging market economies versus more than 7 times in the advanced economies.

Cortina, Didier and Schmukler found that the issuance of bonds relative to syndicated loans increased during the GFC by 9 percentage points from a baseline of 52% in the emerging markets, and by 6 percentage points in the advanced economies from a baseline probability of 28%. There was also an increase in the use of domestic debt markets relative to international ones during the GFC, particularly by emerging economy firms. During domestic banking crises, on the other hand, firms turned to the use of bonds in the international markets. When the authors used firm-level data, they found that this switching was done by larger firms.

The authors also report that the debt instruments have different characteristics. For example, the emerging market firms obtained smaller amounts of funds with bonds as compared to bank syndicated loans. Moreover, the debt of firms in emerging markets in international markets was more likely to be denominated in foreign currency, as opposed to the use of domestic currency in domestic markets.

Cortina, Didier and Schmukler also investigated how these characteristics changed during the GFC and domestic bank crises. While the volume of bond financing increased during the GFC relative to the pre-crisis years, syndicated bank loan financing fell, and these amounts in the emerging market economies fully compensated each other. In the advanced economies, on the other hand, total debt financing fell.

The global pandemic is disrupting all financial markets and institutions. The situation of banks in the advanced economies is stronger than it was during the GFC (but this could change), and the Federal Reserve is supporting the flow of credit. But the emerging markets corporations and governments that face falling exports, currency depreciations and enormous health expenditures will find it difficult to service their debt. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, has announced that the Fund will come to the assistance of these economies, and next week’s meeting of the IMF will address their needs. The fact that alarm bells about debt in emerging markets had been sounding will be of little comfort to those who have to deal with the collapse in financial flows.

Capital Controls in Theory and Practice

1 Reply

It has been a decade since the global financial crisis effectively ended opposition to the use of capital controls. The IMF’s drive towards capital account deregulation had been blunted by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, but there was still a belief in some quarters that complete capital mobility was an appropriate long-run goal for emerging markets once their financial markets sufficiently matured. The meltdown in financial markets in advanced economies in 2008-09 ended that aspiration. Several recent papers have summarized subsequent research on the justification for capital controls and the evidence on their effectiveness.

Bilge Erten of Northeastern University, Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia and José Antonio Ocampo of Columbia University have a paper, “Capital Controls: Theory and Evidence,” that was prepared for the Journal of Economic Literature and summarizes recent work on this topic. In this literature, the micro-foundations for the use of capital controls to improve welfare are based on externalities that private agents do not internalize. The first type of externality is pecuniary, which can lead to a change in the value of collateral and a redistribution between agents. In such cases, private agents may borrow more than is optimal for society, which suffers the consequences in the event of a financial shock. Policymakers can restrict capital flows to limit financial fragility.

The second justification of capital controls is due to aggregate demand externalities, which are associated with unemployment. Private agents may borrow in international markets and fuel a domestic boom that leaves the domestic economy vulnerable to a downturn. If there are domestic frictions and constraints on the use of monetary policy that limit the response to an economic contraction, then capital controls may be useful in mitigating the downturn.

Alessandro Rebucci of Johns Hopkins and Chang Ma of Fudan University also summarize this literature in “Capital Controls: A Survey of the New Literature,” prepared for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. They discuss the use capital controls in the case of both pecuniary and demand externalities, and capital controls in the context of the trilemma. In their review of the empirical literature on capital controls, they summarize two lines of research. The first deals with the actual use of capital controls, and the second their relative effectiveness.

Whether or not capital controls are used as a countercyclical instrument together with other macroprudential tools has been an issue of dispute.  Rebucci and Ma report there is recent evidence that indicates that such instruments have been utilized in this manner, as the recent theoretical literature proposes. There are also cross-country studies of capital control effectiveness that are consistent with the theoretical justification for the use of such measures. For example, capital controls can limit financial vulnerability by shifting the composition of a country’s external balance sheet away from debt.

Some recent papers from the IMF investigate the actual use of capital controls and other policy tools in emerging market economies. Atish R. Ghosh, Jonathan D. Ostry and Mahvash S. Qureshi of the IMF investigated the response of emerging markets to capital flows in a 2017 working paper, “Managing the Tide: How Do Emerging Markets Respond to Capital Flows?” They report that policymakers in a sample of 51 countries over the period of 2005-13 used a number of instruments to deal with capital flows. In addition to foreign exchange market intervention and central bank policy rates, capital controls were utilized, particularly when the inflows took the form of portfolio and other flows. Tightening of capital inflow controls was more likely during periods of credit growth and real exchange rate appreciation. The authors’ finding that several major emerging markets have used capital controls to deal with risks to financial and macroeconomic stability is consistent with the theoretical literature cited above. However, the authors caution that their results do not indicate whether managing capital flows actually prevents or dampens instability.

This subject has been addressed by Gaston Gelos, Lucyna Gornicka, Robin Koepke, Ratna Sahay and Silvia Sgherri  in their new IMF working paper, “Capital Flows at Risk: Taming the Ebbs and Flows.” They examine the policy responses to sharp portfolio flow movements in 35 emerging market and developing economies during the 1996-2018 period, using a rise in BBB-rated U.S. corporate bond yields as a global shock. The authors look at the structural characteristics and policy frameworks of the countries as well as their policy actions. Among their results they find that more open capital accounts at the time of the shock are associated with fewer large inflows after the shock. Moreover, a tightening of capital flow measures is linked to larger outflows in the short-run. They also find that monetary and macroprudential policies have limited effectiveness in shielding countries from the risks associated with global shocks.

Capital controls have become an important tool for many developing economies, and there are ample grounds to justify their implementation. Recent empirical literature seems to show that the actual implementation of such measures is undertaken in a manner that meets the criteria outlined in the theoretical literature. However, whether regulatory limits on capital mobility actually achieve their financial and macroeconomic goals is still not proven. The Federal Reserve has signaled its intention to maintain the Federal Funds Rate at its current level, but shocks can come from many sources. Policymakers may find themselves drawing upon all the tools available to them in the case of a new global disruption to capital flows.