Europe > Iceland

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 28 items for :

  • Type: Journal Issue x
  • Capital movements x
Clear All Modify Search
Apoorv Bhargava
,
Romain Bouis
,
Annamaria Kokenyne
,
Manuel Perez-Archila
,
Umang Rawat
, and
Ms. Ratna Sahay
This paper provides an analysis of the use and effects of capital controls in 27 AEs and EMDEs which experienced at least one financial crisis between 1995 and 2017. Countries often turn to using capital controls in crisis: some ease inflow controls while others tighten controls on outflows. A key finding is that countries with pervasive controls before the start of the crisis are shielded compared to countries with more open capital accounts, which see a significant decline in capital flows during crises. In contrast, the effectiveness of capital controls introduced during crises appears to be weak and difficult to identify. There is also some evidence that the introduction of outflow controls during crises is negatively associated with sovereign debt ratings, but that investors may actually forgive with time.
Mr. Luis M. Cubeddu
,
Mrs. Swarnali A Hannan
, and
Mr. Pau Rabanal
Building on the vast literature, this paper focuses on the role of the structure of the international investment position (IIP) in affecting countries’ external vulnerabilities. Using a sample of 73 advanced and emerging economies and new database on the IIP’s currency composition, we find that the size and structure of external liabilities and assets, especially with regards to currency denomination, matter in understanding balance-of-payments pressures. Specifically, and beyond the standard macroeconomic factors highlighted in other studies, higher levels of gross external debt increase the likelihood of an external crisis, while higher levels of foreign-currency-denominated external debt increase the likelihood of sudden stops. Foreign reserve assets play a mitigating role, although with diminishing returns, and the combination of flow and stock imbalances amplifies external risks, especially during periods of heightened global risk aversion. The results are especially strong for emerging economies, where the impact of flow and stock imbalances and foreign currency mismatches are larger and more robust across specifications.
Mr. Eugenio M Cerutti
and
Mr. Gee Hee Hong
Superficial examination of aggregate gross cross-border capital inflow data suggests that there was no substitution between portfolio inflows and bank loans in recent years. However, our novel analysis of disaggregate inflows (both by types of instrument and borrower) shows interesting heterogeneity. There has been substitution of bank loans for portfolio debt securities not only in the case of corporate and sovereign borrowers in advanced countries, but also sovereign borrowers in emerging countries. In the case of corporate borrowers in emerging markets, the relationship corresponds to complementarity across types of gross capital inflows, especially during periods of positive capital gross inflows after the global financial crisis. A large part of these patterns does not seem to be driven by a common phenomenon across countries associated with the global financial cycle, but rather by country-specific factors.
International Monetary Fund
Capital flows can deliver substantial benefits for countries, but also have the potential to contribute to a buildup of systemic financial risk. Benefits, such as enhanced investment and consumption smoothing, tend to be greater for countries whose financial and institutional development enables them to intermediate capital flows safely. Post-crisis reforms, including the development of macroprudential policies (MPPs), are helping to strengthen the resilience of financial systems including to shocks from capital flows. The Basel III process has improved the quality and level of capital, reduced leverage, and increased liquid asset holdings in financial systems. Drawing on and complementing such international reforms at the national level, robust macroprudential policy frameworks focused on mitigating systemic risk can improve the capacity of a financial system to safely intermediate cross-border flows. Macroprudential frameworks can play an important role over the capital flow cycle, and help members harness the benefits of capital flows. Introducing macroprudential measures (MPMs) preemptively can increase the resilience of the financial system to aggregate shocks, including those arising from capital inflows, and can contain the build-up of systemic vulnerabilities over time, even when such measures are not designed to limit capital flows. While the risks from capital outflows should be handled primarily by macroeconomic policies, a relaxation of MPMs may assist, as long as buffers are in place, in countering financial stresses from outflows. Capital flow liberalization should be supported by broad efforts to strengthen prudential regulation and supervision, including macroprudential policy frameworks. The Fund has two frameworks to help ensure that its advice on MPPs and policies related to capital flows is consistent and tailored to country circumstances. The frameworks (the Macroprudential framework and the Institutional View on capital flows) are consistent in terms of key principles, including avoiding using MPMs and capital flow management measures (CFMs) as a substitute for necessary macroeconomic adjustment. The appropriate classification of measures is important to ensure targeted advice consistent with the two frameworks. The conceptual framework for the assessment of measures laid out in this paper will assist staff in properly identifying MPMs and measures that are designed to limit capital flows and to reduce systemic financial risk stemming from such flows (CFM/MPMs), and thereby ensure the appropriate application of the Fund’s frameworks, so that staff policy advice is consistent and well targeted. The Fund will continue to develop and share expertise in using MPMs, and integrate these findings into its surveillance and technical assistance, which should contribute to building international understanding and experience on these issues.
International Monetary Fund. European Dept.
This paper examines Iceland’s expenditure policy, especially five expenditure pressure points, as well as capital flows and monetary policy effectiveness in small open economies. The postcrisis fiscal adjustment demanded painful choices, with spending on healthcare, education, and investment suffering cuts in real terms. While expenditures in these areas have rebounded more recently, there is a room for further decompression. Using quarterly panel data for 18 advanced and emerging small open economies during 2002–15, it finds that monetary policy is focused on inflation developments, but also that domestic interest rates affect capital flows, raising concerns about a reinforcing loop between monetary policy and capital flows.
International Monetary Fund. European Dept.
This paper provides an assessment of the economic conditions, outlook, and crises in Iceland. There is a mounting sense that capital controls hurt growth prospects, repressing local financial markets, scaring foreign investors, and impeding savings diversification, and that it is time for them to go. Recent settlements with the bank estates are a huge step forward, improving already favorable macroeconomic conditions. At 4 percent in 2015 and gaining pace, real GDP expansion is among the fastest growing in Europe, opening up a positive output gap. However, the biggest risk for Iceland is overheating. Large wage awards on top of already hot economic readings speak to Iceland’s boom-bust history.
Mr. Anton Korinek
and
Mr. Damiano Sandri
International capital flows can create significant financial instability in emerging economies because of pecuniary externalities associated with exchange rate movements. Does this make it optimal to impose capital controls or should policymakers rely on domestic macroprudential regulation? This paper presents a tractable model to show that it is desirable to employ both types of instruments: Macroprudential regulation reduces overborrowing, while capital controls increase the aggregate net worth of the economy as a whole by also stimulating savings. The two policy measures should be set higher the greater an economy's debt burden and the higher domestic inequality. In our baseline calibration based on the East Asian crisis countries, we find optimal capital controls and macroprudential regulation in the magnitude of 2 percent. In advanced countries where the risk of sharp exchange rate depreciations is more limited, the role for capital controls subsides. However, macroprudential regulation remains essential to mitigate booms and busts in asset prices.
International Monetary Fund. European Dept.
This paper discusses Iceland’s Fourth Post-Program Monitoring Discussions. Iceland’s economy has grown strongly on the back of booming tourism. Real GDP grew 3.3 percent in 2013, despite a drop in investment spending. Net exports were the primary driver. High frequency indicators suggest strong net exports—including steady growth in off-season tourism—have continued in Q1 2014, along with rising private consumption. Inflation has fallen below the Central Bank of Iceland’s 2.5 percent target but long-term inflation expectations remain noticeably above this level. The government’s medium-term fiscal objectives deserve support, but further effort is needed to achieve them.
Christian Saborowski
,
Sarah Sanya
,
Hans Weisfeld
, and
Juan Yepez
This paper examines the effectiveness of capital outflow restrictions in a sample of 37 emerging market economies during the period 1995-2010, using a panel vector autoregression approach with interaction terms. Specifically, it examines whether a tightening of outflow restrictions helps reduce net capital outflows. We find that such tightening is effective if it is supported by strong macroeconomic fundamentals or good institutions, or if existing restrictions are already fairly comprehensive. When none of these three conditions is fulfilled, a tightening of restrictions fails to reduce net outflows as it provokes a sizeable decline in gross inflows, mainly driven by foreign investors.