Policy Responses To Capital Flows In Emerging Markets

Staff Discussion Notes showcase the latest policy-related analysis and research being developed by individual IMF staff and are published to elicit comment and to further debate. These papers are generally brief and written in nontechnical language, and so are aimed at a broad audience interested in economic policy issues. This Web-only series replaced Staff Position Notes in January 2011.

Although capital inflows are generally beneficial to recipient countries, they also pose a challenge for the conduct of economic policy. This paper proposes a conceptual taxonomy to guide the design of policy responses in the face of capital flows. We explore how responses to capital surges should be differentiated based on the source of balance of payments pressures. We also examine whether the policy choices in emerging market countries conform to the taxonomy's predictions and find some correspondence, especially during periods of high global liquidity.

This paper examines whether—and how—emerging market economies (EMEs) respond to capital flows to mitigate their untoward consequences. Based on a sample of about 50 EMEs over 2005Q1–2013Q4, we find that EME policy makers respond proactively to capital inflows by using a combination of policy tools: central banks raise the policy interest rate to address economic overheating concerns; intervene in the foreign exchange market to resist currency appreciation pressures; tighten macroprudential measures to dampen credit growth; and deploy capital inflow controls in the face of competitiveness and financial-stability concerns. Contrary to conventional policy advice to EMEs, we find no evidence of counter-cyclical fiscal policy in the face of capital inflows. Overall, policies are more likely to respond, and used in combination, during inflow surges than in more normal times.

This paper reviews the causes, consequences, and policy responses to large capital flows in several emerging markets. It opens by studying recent patterns of capital flows, and then discusses the causes of capital flows. Emphasis is given to the reasons behind the capital inflow episode in the 1990s, the major reversals, and the volatility observed in these flows. The paper goes on to examine the consequences of capital inflows and the pros and cons of alternative policy responses. It concludes with policy lessons derived from country experiences.

Policymakers have relied on a wide range of policy tools to cope with capital flow shocks. And yet, the effects and interaction of these policies remain under debate, as does the motivation for using them. In this paper, quantile local projections are used to estimate the entire distribution of future policy responses to portfolio flow shocks for 20 emerging markets and understand the variety of policy choices across the sample. To assuage endogeneity concerns, estimates rely on the fact that global capital flows are exogenous from the viewpoint of any one of these countries. The paper finds that: (i) policy responses to capital flow shocks are heterogeneous across countries, fat-tailed—“extreme” responses tend to be more elastic than “typical” responses—and asymmetric—“extreme” responses tend to be more elastic with respect to outflows than to inflows; (ii) country characteristics are linked to policy choices—with cross-country differences in forex intervention relating to the size of balance sheet vulnerabilities and the depth of the forex market; (iii) the use of targeted macroprudential policy and capital flows management measures can help “free the hands” of monetary policy by allowing it to focus more squarely on domestic cyclical developments.

The volatility of capital flows to emerging markets continues to pose challenges to policymakers. In this paper, we propose a new framework to answer critical policy questions: What policies and policy frameworks are most effective in dampening sharp capital flow movements in response to global shocks? What are the near- versus medium-term trade-offs of different policies? We tackle these questions using a quantile regression framework to predict the entire future probability distribution of capital flows to emerging markets, based on current domestic structural characteristics, policies, and global financial conditions. This new approach allows policymakers to quantify capital flows risks and evaluate policy tools to mitigate them, thus building the foundation of a risk management framework for capital flows.

Capital flow volatility is a concern for macroeconomic and financial stability. Nonetheless, literature is scarce in this topic. Our paper sheds light on this issue in two dimensions. First, using quarterly data for 65 countries over the period 1970Q1-2016Q1, we construct three measures of volatility, for total capital flows and key instruments. Second, we perform panel regressions to understand the determinants of volatility. The measures show that the volatility of all instruments is prone to bouts, rising sharply during global shocks like the taper tantrum episode. Capital flow volatility thus remains a challenge for policy makers. The regression results suggest that push factors can be more important than pull factors in explaining volatility, illustrating that the characteristics of volatility can be different from those of the flows levels.