2011年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Effectiveness_of_Capital_Controls_in_Selected_Emerging_Markets_in_the_200039s_45页_1mb

Summary of the Document: Effectiveness of Capital Controls in Selected Emerging Markets in the 2000s

Core Content

This working paper examines the effectiveness of capital controls in four emerging market economies (EMEs)—Brazil, Colombia, Korea, and Thailand—during the 2000s. It evaluates how these controls impacted capital inflows and outflows, and their ability to influence macroeconomic stability and monetary policy autonomy.

Main Viewpoints

• Capital controls are generally associated with a reduction in inflow volumes and a lengthening of capital inflow maturities, but these effects are not always statistically significant and tend to be temporary.
• The macroeconomic impact of capital controls depends on:
  • The extensiveness of the policy
  • The level of capital market development
  • Supporting policies
  • The persistence or temporary nature of capital flows
• Price-based controls (e.g., foreign exchange taxes, unremunerated reserve requirements (URR)) are more effective in lengthening maturities and allowing monetary policy flexibility, but less effective in dampening inflow volumes.
• Outflow liberalization can also play a role in reducing net capital inflows, as seen in Thailand and Korea.

Key Information

Capital Controls in Selected EMEs

• Brazil: Introduced a foreign exchange tax in 2008 (1.5% on fixed-income investments, later reduced to 0% during the global financial crisis). The tax aimed to curb short-term inflows, but its impact was limited.
• Colombia: Implemented a 40% URR on foreign borrowing in 2007, later increased to 50% in 2008. The URR was also extended to nonresident portfolio investments. The policy helped lengthen inflow maturities but did not prevent currency appreciation.
• Thailand: Introduced a 30% URR on foreign borrowing and portfolio investments in 2006, which was later lifted in 2008. Outflow liberalization measures were also introduced to relieve exchange rate pressures.
• Korea: Liberalized capital outflows significantly, especially from 2005 onwards, to reduce currency appreciation pressures. The policy also helped increase monetary policy autonomy.

Measuring Capital Controls

• The paper constructs three indices to measure the intensity of capital controls:
  • Price-based inflow control index: Combines the coverage index (number of asset types subject to controls) and the effective tax rate.
  • Other inflow control index: Tracks changes in regulations on nonresidents' investments, with +1 for tightening and -1 for relaxation.
  • Other outflow control index: Measures changes in regulations on residents' investments abroad.
• These indices are normalized at zero in 2000 and reflect cumulative regulatory changes over time.

Determinants of Capital Flows

• The paper uses GMM and VAR estimation to assess the determinants of capital flows, including:
  • Pull factors (investment opportunities in the host country)
  • Push factors (capital availability in the source country)
• It finds that capital controls can temporarily help achieve policy objectives, but not consistently across all cases.

Policy Implications

• Capital controls are less effective in countries with well-developed financial markets due to easier circumvention.
• Temporary controls are more suitable for short-term capital inflow surges.
• Expanding controls can lead to distortions and adverse long-term growth effects.
• Combined policies (e.g., inflow controls + outflow liberalization) may be more effective in managing capital flows and maintaining macroeconomic stability.

Structure of the Paper

1. Introduction: Highlights the motivation for capital controls due to currency appreciation pressures and economic stability concerns.
2. Capital Controls in the 2000s: Describes the types and timing of capital control measures in each country.
3. Measuring the Intensity of Capital Controls: Explains the indices used to quantify control intensity.
4. Determinants of Capital Flows: Analyzes pull and push factors using GMM estimation.
5. Vector Autoregressive Analysis: Assesses the effectiveness of capital controls on macroeconomic objectives using VAR models.
6. Discussion and Conclusions: Summarizes the mixed effectiveness of capital controls and their context-dependent outcomes.

Contributions to Literature

• Introduces a new capital control index based on de jure policy changes.
• Separates temporary and permanent capital controls for targeted analysis.
• Applies a common framework across all four countries, enabling general conclusions on capital control effectiveness.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of capital controls in the 2000s was mixed and temporary, with limited success in curbing inflow volumes and more success in lengthening maturities and providing monetary policy flexibility. The design and context of the policies played a crucial role in determining their impact. While capital controls can be useful in managing short-term inflows, their long-term effectiveness is questionable, especially in sophisticated financial markets.