CEPR Capital Controls and Monetary Policy in Developing Countries
3
Executive
Summary
Short-term capital flows may be very volatile; they react quickly to sudden changes in investors’moods, external events, and to perceptions of governments’ macroeconomic policy decisions. In2007 net debt flows to the developing world were more than 6.5 times as big as they were in 2003;yet, in 2008 these flows were at less than half their 2007 level. Short-term debt flows, which almostquadrupled between 2003 and 2007, turned negative in 2008.Given the negative impact of these large reversals on many countries in the recent world recession,the possibilities of using capital controls has received more attention in the last two years. This paper looks at the potential for using capital controls as a means of reducing this volatility, as well as the economic damage that it can cause. It also examines some case studies in which capitalcontrols were implemented in various countries in recent decades.One of the main problems caused by uncontrolled capital movements is their effect on the realexchange rate. A surge of capital inflows, especially short-term and/or speculative inflows, can causethe domestic currency to appreciate. This can reduce competitiveness in the country’s tradablegoods sector, slow economic growth, and harm economic development by increasing the volatility and hence uncertainty of international prices.Uncontrolled capital flows can also make it more difficult for governments to control inflation. If acentral bank raises interest rates in order to reduce inflation, the resulting interest rate differentialbetween domestic and international interest rates can stimulate capital inflows, which thencounteract monetary policy by creating downward pressure on interest rates. Many governmentshave dealt with this problem by adopting inflation-targeting regimes, where the central bank focuseson maintaining a target inflation rate; if this increases capital inflows, they then allow the domesticcurrency to appreciate. However this can make it difficult or impossible to maintain a stable andcompetitive exchange rate, with negative consequences for growth and development. Furthermore,capital flows can cause enormous damage when they are reversed, with large capital outflows leading to a financial crisis. One of the most extreme examples of this problem was the Asian financial crisisof 1997-1999, which was set off by a huge reversal of short-term capital flows in 1997.Capital controls can provide an alternative to the inflation-targeting with floating exchange rateregime, or a “hard peg” fixed exchange rate regime (which has been shown to have other severedisadvantages, as in Argentina, Brazil, and Russia in the 1990s). With capital controls, it may bepossible for the government to maintain a more stable and competitive exchange a rate whilekeeping inflation in check. These were some of the reasons for the implementation of controls on capital inflows in Malaysia(1989-1995); Colombia (1993-1998); Chile (1989-1998); and Brazil (1992-1998). In Malaysia, privatenet short-term flows, which consisted mostly of external borrowing by commercial banks and ringgitdeposits by foreigners in domestic banks, had increased from 1.2 percent of GDP in 1990 to 8.9percent in 1993.
This sharp increase was partly due to investor expectations that the domesticcurrency would appreciate. In order to control this appreciation as well as maintain control over
1
IMF (2000)
Add a Comment