Macroprudential Frameworks Implementation And Relationship With Other Policies

Emerging market central banks have a long history of using macroprudential instruments. But while most central banks carry a heavy responsibility for financial stability, legal objectives are generally vague, do not define success or failure, and say nothing about competing objectives. This complicates both accountability and the communication of macroprudential decisions. Participants drew several lessons from their experience with implementing macroprudential instruments. First, macroprudential authorities need to act early if they want to address systemic risk effectively. Second, building buffers or shifting the composition of credit is easier than managing the cycle. Third, macroprudential measures tend to be better at constraining booms than at dampening busts. Fourth, although macroprudential tools could, in principle, be targeted very precisely, circumvention by lenders and borrowers require more broad-based approaches. Fifth, macroprudential measures and monetary policy can reinforce each other when used in the same direction. Sixth, the jury is still out whether macroprudential instruments could be used effectively to address regional disparities within economies. This volume collects the background papers of a meeting of Deputy Governors of central banks from emerging market economies to exchange their experience with designing macroprudential frameworks and implementing macroprudential instruments.

The countercyclical capital buffer (CCB) was proposed by the Basel committee to increase the resilience of the banking sector to negative shocks. The interactions between banking sector losses and the real economy highlight the importance of building a capital buffer in periods when systemic risks are rising. Basel III introduces a framework for a time-varying capital buffer on top of the minimum capital requirement and another time-invariant buffer (the conservation buffer). The CCB aims to make banks more resilient against imbalances in credit markets and thereby enhance medium-term prospects of the economy—in good times when system-wide risks are growing, the regulators could impose the CCB which would help the banks to withstand losses in bad times.

MCM conducted a survey in December 2010 to take stock of international experiences with financial stability and the evolving macroprudential policy framework. The survey was designed to seek information in three broad areas: the institutional setup for macroprudential policy, the analytical approach to systemic risk monitoring, and the macroprudential policy toolkit. The survey was sent to 63 countries and the European Central Bank (ECB), including all countries in the G-20 and those subject to mandatory Financial Sector Assessment Programs (FSAPs). The target list is designed to cover a broad range of jurisdictions in all regions, but more weight is given to economies that are systemically important (see Annex for details). The response rate is 80 percent. This note provides a summary of the survey’s main findings.

The crisis has underscored the costs of systemic instability at both the national and the global levels and highlighted the need for dedicated macroprudential policies to achieve financial stability. Building on recent advances, this paper provides a framework to inform the IMF’s country-specific advice on macroprudential policy. It recognizes that developing macroprudential policy is a work in progress, and addresses key issues to help ensure its effectiveness.

Macroprudential policy is a complement to microprudential policy and it interacts with other types of public policy that have an impact on systemic financial stability. Indeed, prudential regulation, as carried out in the past, also had some macroprudential aspects, and the recent crisis has reinforced this focus; hence, a clear separation between “micro” and “macro” prudential, if useful conceptually, is difficult to delineate in practice. Moreover, no matter how different policy mandates are structured, financial stability tends to be a common responsibility, reflecting the far reaching consequences of financial crises. This calls for coordination across policies, to ensure that systemic risk is comprehensively addressed. Equally important, macroprudential policy is no substitute for sound policies more broadly, including, in particular, strong prudential regulation and supervision, and sound macroeconomic policies. Operational independence in other policy areas, including monetary and microprudential policy, should not be undermined in the name of macroprudential policy. Finally, given the global nature of the financial system, the multilateral aspects of macroprudential policy will need to be fully considered—an important aspect that is only touched upon in this paper.

This publication aims to provide policy makers in emerging market and developing economies with inputs to better understand, envision, and implement a macroprudential policy framework. It presents the basic concepts, issues, and challenges, and encourages them to ask the right questions to design an optimal institutional framework,

As countries design and implement macroprudential policies, they face the challenge of determining what—if any—changes need to be made to their legal and institutional framework to ensure that these policies are effective. Based on a review of experience, it is clear that there are a variety of approaches that can be taken by members, in light of the legal constraints and institutional preferences of each country. Whichever approach is followed, a number of issues need to be addressed when designing legislation in this area, both with respect to the substantive legal provisions and the allocation of institutional responsibilities. As background to ”Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy“, this paper provides an overview of these legal and institutional issues, while recognizing that macroprudential policy is an area that is still evolving.

A number of countries are reviewing their institutional arrangements for financial stability to support the development of a macroprudential policy function. In some cases, this involves a rethink of the appropriate institutional boundaries between central banks and financial regulatory agencies, or the setting up of dedicated policymaking committees. In others, efforts are underway to enhance cooperation within the existing institutional structure. Against this background, this paper provides basic guidance for the design of effective arrangements, in a manner that can provide a framework for country-specific advice. After reviewing briefly the main institutional elements of existing and emerging macroprudential policy frameworks across countries, the paper identifies stylized institutional models based on key features that distinguish institutional arrangements. It develops criteria to assess the effectiveness of models, examines the strengths and weaknesses of models against these criteria, and explores ways to improve existing setups. The paper finally distills lessons and sets out desired principles for effective macroprudential policy arrangements.