Global Capital Flows And Financing Constraints

Firms often cite financing constraints as one of their primary obstacles to investment. Global capital flows, by bringing in scarce capital, may ease host-country firms' financing constraints. However, if incoming foreign investors borrow heavily from domestic basnks, direct foreign investment (DFI) may exacerbate financing constraints by crowding host country firms out of domestic capital markets. Combininb a unique cross-country firm-level panel with time-series data on restrictions on international transactions and capital flows, we find that different measures of global flows are associated with a reduction in firm-level financing constraints. First, we show that one type of capital inflow--DFI--is associated with a reduction in financing constraints. Second, we test whether restrictions on international transactions affect firms' financing constraints. Our results suggest that only one type of restriction--those on capital account transactions--negatively affect firms' financing constraints. We also show that multinational firms are not financially constrained and do not appear to be sensitive to the level of DFI. This implies that DFI eases financing constraints for non-multinational firms. Finally, we show that DFI only eases financing constraints in the non-G7 countries.

Firms often cite financing constraints as one of their primary obstacles to investment. Global capital flows, by bringing in scarce capital, may ease the financing constraints of host country firms. But if incoming foreign investors borrow heavily from domestic banks, foreign direct investment may exacerbate financing constraints by crowding host country firms out of domestic capital markets. Combining a unique cross-country firm-level panel with time-series data on restrictions on international transactions and capital flows, Harrison, Love, and McMillan find that different measures of global flows are associated with a reduction in firm-level financing constraints. First, the authors show that one type of capital inflow-foreign direct investment-is associated with a reduction in financing constraints. Second, they test whether restrictions on international transactions affects the financing constraints of firms. The results suggest that only one type of restriction-those on capital account transactions-negatively affects firms' financing constraints. The authors also show that multinational firms are not financially constrained and do not appear to be sensitive to the level of foreign direct investment. This implies that foreign direct investment eases financing constraints for non-multinational firms. Finally, the authors show that (1) foreign direct investment only eases financing constraints in the non-G7 countries, and (2) other kinds of flows, such as portfolio investment, have no impact on financing constraints.

Emerging economies have been the beneficiaries of sharply increased volumes of international capital inflows in the past decade. These inflows have eased foreign financing constraints and offered the potential for higher investment and growth. At the same time, they have posed challenges for policy makers by threatening to fuel inflation, adversely affect international competitiveness, and undermine domestic banking stability. The essays in this volume provide a timely and useful comparison of the experiences of emerging Pacific Basin countries in both Asia and Latin America.

Does capital flow from rich to poor countries? We revisit the Lucas paradox and explore the role of capital account restrictions in shaping capital flows at various stages of economic development. We find that, when accounting for the degree of capital account openness, the prediction of the neoclassical theory is confirmed: less developed countries tend to experience net capital inflows and more developed countries tend to experience net capital outflows, conditional of various countries’ characteristics. The findings are driven by foreign direct investment, portfolio equity investment, and to some extent by loans to the private sector.

The Guidance Note for the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows (IMF 2013a) provides operational guidance to staff on the use of the Fund’s institutional view on the liberalization and management of capital flows (Box 1). It discusses appropriate policies with respect to the liberalization of capital flows and the management of disruptive capital inflows and outflows. With respect to capital outflows, the institutional view considers that capital flow management measures (CFMs) may be appropriate in crisis-type circumstances or, in the context of capital flow liberalization, if countries find that they have liberalized prematurely and are unable to handle the resulting capital flows. In non-crisis-type circumstances, the guidance considers outflows as being appropriately handled by macroeconomic, financial, and structural policies. It is intended to mirror the policy advice with respect to capital inflows. The guidance is, however, relatively brief and would benefit from some elaboration to lay out the possible configurations of policies in the context of the institutional view. This note seeks to provide such an elaboration, which is particularly relevant as capital outflows are becoming a more relevant policy challenge.

Using a sample of 34 emerging markets and developing economies over the period 2009Q3-2015Q4, the paper employs a panel framework to study the determinants of capital flows, both net and gross, across a wide range of instruments. The baseline regressions are then extended to focus on high and low episodes – quarters with flows one standard deviation above/below mean. Overall, the results suggest that the capital flow slowdown witnessed in recent years is due to a combination of lower growth prospects of recipient countries and worse global risk sentiment. However, the determinants of flows can be considerably different across instruments and across the type of flows considered, net or gross. The sensitivity of certain types of flows, towards push and pull factors, increases during periods of high and low capital flows. Moreover, some variables may not necessarily be significant during normal times, but can be important drivers during such episodes, and vice versa. Indicators like the gap between the U.S. long- and short-term maturity bond yields – not significant during normal times – can be an important driver during high episodes.

Gaining a better understanding of the behavior of international investors is key for informing the debate about the optimal response to capital flows and about reforms to the international financial architecture. In this context, recent research on the behavior of international mutual funds at the micro level has expanded our knowledge about the drivers of portfolio flows and the mechanisms behind the transmission of financial shocks across countries. This paper provides a brief survey of this literature, with a focus on the empirical evidence for emerging markets. Overall, the behavior of international mutual funds is complex and overly simplistic characterizations are misleading. However, there is broad-based evidence for momentum trading among funds. Moreover, funds tend to avoid opaque markets and assets, and this behavior becomes more pronounced during volatile times. Portfolio rebalancing mechanisms are clearly important in explaining contagion patterns, even in the absence of common macroeconomic fundamentals. From a surveillance point of view, this implies that monitoring the exposures of large investors at a micro level is crucial to assess vulnerabilities.

The Open Economy and its Financial Constraints explores the role of money and finance in an open economy. The existence of money and global financial flows compound the likelihood of financial constraints, in particular, financial vulnerability, financial exclusion and financial fragility, and create the possibility of unemployment. Penelope Hawkins focuses on financial openness and contends that while vulnerable economies can benefit from long-term international capital, greater financial exposure makes them increasingly susceptible to the crises associated with financial withdrawals. The author explores in detail the experiences of South Africa, Brazil and Thailand and finds that the consequences of financial liberalisation remain uncertain. She examines the rationale behind the distribution of credit within and between countries, and goes on to construct a financial vulnerability index as an empirical mechanism to rank nations according to their vulnerability to the withdrawal of international financial flows. This book offers an innovative conceptual approach to constraints in economic theory which will appeal to students and scholars of financial economics, particularly those who embrace non-orthodox monetary theory. It will also prove an enlightening read for development economists who can draw important lessons from the book's examination of the consequences of financial liberalisation.