Marcin Kolasa, Gurnain Kaur Pasricha, Mr. Suman S Basu, Ms. Emine Boz, and Dimitre Milkov
Insights from the IPF workstream can help guide the appropriate policy mix during an inflow surge, based on the shock and country characteristics. Inflow surges may be caused by a range of shocks and can take different forms in different countries. The IPF models suggest that warranted macroeconomic policy adjustments depend on the nature of the shock and country characteristics. The IPF models point to shocks and country characteristics that make it difficult to effectively respond to surges using only macroeconomic policy and exchange rate adjustment. The IPF models also suggest that, in the presence of overheating and overvaluation, the use of FXI and CFMs can enhance monetary autonomy in certain circumstances without generating other distortions. The relative costs and benefits of FXI and CFMs depend on country-specific factors. The IPF models also illustrate how surges can lead to a build-up of systemic financial risks. The IPF workstream connects the appropriate mix of MPMs and CFM/MPMs to the structure of the country's financial system.
The actions in this document aim at • Bringing the Fund’s framework for advice on capital flow policies up to date with recent research and lessons from experience. • Enhancing and coordinating a Fund-wide research • Ramping up the monitoring and analysis of capital flows. • Strengthening multilateral cooperation on policy issues affecting capital flows.
Policymakers often face difficult tradeoffs in pursuing domestic and external stabilization objectives. The paper reflects staff’s work to advance the understanding of the policy options and tradeoffs available to policymakers in a systematic and analytical way. The paper recognizes that the optimal path of the IPF tools depends on structural characteristics and fiscal policies. The operational implications of IPF findings require careful consideration. Developing safeguards to minimize the risk of inappropriate use of IPF policies will be essential. Staff remains guided by the Fund’s Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.
1. Policymakers can face difficult tradeoffs in managing large and volatile capital flows when confronted with financial and real shocks while pursuing their stabilization objectives. The benefits of capital flows are broadly recognized, but their volatility presents significant challenges. Capital flows to emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) have exhibited large swings in the last two decades (Figure 1). Several periods of sustained inflows—in many cases driven at least in part by easy monetary conditions in major advanced economies (AEs)—have been interrupted by sharp reversals. Flows to commodity exporters have also been influenced by gyrations in commodity prices. Changes in global financial conditions—and attendant swings in capital flows—present particular challenges for many EMDEs, engendering difficult tradeoffs for monetary policy stemming from relatively shallow markets,1 external borrowing constraints, and other vulnerabilities. Advanced economies are not necessarily immune to these shocks either.
As noted in the report, the adoption of the IV represented a major advance in the IMF’s policy framework to provide advice on capital account liberalization and the management of capital flows. Before the adoption of the IV, there was no consistent framework to guide policy advice on these areas. The IV was a major step towards filling the gap existing at the time. It welcomed the economic benefits of capital flows while recognizing the risks associated with capital flow volatility, developed a playbook for safe capital account liberalization, and incorporated capital flow management measures (CFMs) into the policy toolkit. It also noted the importance of international cooperation on capital flow policies in allowing countries to harness the benefits of capital flows safely, while minimizing negative spillovers. It was a demonstration of the institution’s flexibility and willingness to embrace theoretical advances and lessons from experience.