I Overview
  • 1 0000000404811396https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396International Monetary Fund
  • | 2 0000000404811396https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396International Monetary Fund

Abstract

The work of IMF staff members on issues related to the use and liberalization of capital controls has focused on the experiences of emerging market economies and of a few advanced economies during the 1990s and, to a lesser extent, during the 1980s. This paper seeks to complement the IMF staff’s work by examining the experiences of advanced economies with the use and liberalization of capital controls since the middle of the twentieth century.

The work of IMF staff members on issues related to the use and liberalization of capital controls has focused on the experiences of emerging market economies and of a few advanced economies during the 1990s and, to a lesser extent, during the 1980s. This paper seeks to complement the IMF staff’s work by examining the experiences of advanced economies with the use and liberalization of capital controls since the middle of the twentieth century.

In the 1980s, many advanced countries made significant progress in liberalizing capital movements. Virtually all capital controls have now been abolished among industrial countries, and there are no formal barriers to cross-border flows of capital. This is in striking contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when most countries still maintained restrictive regimes. Over time, there has been a major shift in the assessment of the pros and cons of free capital flows. The focus of this study is on the economic and political forces behind this changing perception, as well as the implications it has had for policies. Policymakers’ assessments of the effectiveness of capital restrictions in achieving goals, such as the preservation of the exchange rate or domestic monetary stability, are of particular interest.

In the period immediately following World War II, trade liberalization generally took precedence over capital account liberalization. Capital controls have often been regarded as having negative allocation and growth effects that are substantially smaller than those of trade restrictions. In order to support trade, current account convertibility was achieved within a relatively short period after the war ended. In accordance with its mandate, the IMF has been instrumental in promoting such convertibility. Full current account convertibility had been achieved in most advanced countries by 1958. In that year, the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC). It provided for the eventual freedom of capital movements in Europe, but this objective was circumscribed by a clause specifying that such liberalization should be carried through only to the extent necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Common Market. The year 1958 is therefore a natural starting point for this study.

Although capital restrictions have been a major policy tool in most industrial countries, different traditions and country-specific institutional arrangements have resulted in restrictions taking many forms, varying in intensity, and often being camouflaged by complex administrative rules. Capital controls have been generally closely linked to regulation in other policy areas (particularly banking and financial markets) and have covered the whole spectrum of capital movements from long-term direct investment flows and foreign equity transactions to changes in the short-term external positions of commercial banks and foreign exchange transactions by residents. Capital controls have thus greatly restricted cross-border financial transactions, limited portfolio decisions of nonbank residents, and hindered the internationalization of companies. They also affected citizens’ freedom to travel abroad by limiting the amount of foreign currency they could obtain.

Capital controls have not been a generalized phenomenon across all industrial countries. In particular, the two major postwar reserve currency countries, the United States and Germany, have traditionally adopted liberal policies in this area. The United States, which has provided the dominant world reserve currency in the postwar period, generally did not impose outright restrictions on capital flows. Nevertheless, in the final years of the Bretton Woods system, the United States did take measures aimed at discouraging capital outflows. Germany, whose currency gradually started to play a major role in the international monetary system, likewise has not used capital restrictions to the same extent as the other industrial countries, apart from a brief, albeit intensive experiment in the immediate post–Bretton Woods period. Canada and Switzerland have also generally adhered to a liberal regime. By contrast, Belgium and Luxembourg (which had been tied together in a monetary union since 1922), while not operating an outright capital control system, maintained a dual exchange rate system until 1990. Current account transactions occurred at the managed exchange rate while the exchange rate for capital account transactions was allowed to float.

The liberalization of capital movements during the 1980s has been a global phenomenon in advanced countries, coinciding with a general shift toward market-oriented economic policies aimed at achieving noninflationary sustainable growth. This process has been advanced by cooperation within the framework of multilateral organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU). The OECD code on capital liberalization has provided a helpful instrument for exerting pressure on member countries to lift controls (Box 1.1). In Europe, the political willingness of countries to work toward European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) has encouraged the lifting of all capital controls (although the objective of capital account liberalization was established before moves to establish EMU were begun). The IMF has generally supported capital account liberalization in advanced countries in the context of its Article IV surveillance but has not played a major role in these countries’ progress in this area.

An important caveat should be kept in mind when drawing lessons from the experiences of advanced countries. The financial environment in which countries now operate has changed drastically, partly because liberalization and deregulation have resulted in rapid changes in the way global financial markets function. Financial markets react more swiftly to changed circumstances; the range of financial instruments has increased; and, more generally, financial markets have become more complex and extensive (with closer links between the short-and long-term markets, as well as among countries). This implies that capital controls are likely to be less effective now than in the more financially repressed environment of the 1960s and 1970s. Second, the process of capital account liberalization in continental European countries has to be understood in the institutional context of the EU integration process, culminating in monetary unification.

The focus of this study is advanced countries’ experiences with capital account liberalization. Given that, the study does not seek to make a comprehensive assessment of the operation of capital controls or the effectiveness of different forms of controls. Such a comprehensive assessment would be difficult to make with any degree of precision, because the effectiveness of controls depends not only on the objectives sought and the exact specification and operation of controls but also on the extent to which they are complemented by regulations in other policy areas. Nevertheless, doubts about the effectiveness of capital controls in general, particularly in the face of the rapid evolution of financial markets, have often been a factor in the decision to liberalize. Finally, the case-study approach, focusing in particular on periods of macroeconomic instability, implies that less attention is paid to episodes during which controls may have played a discrete (but effective) stabilizing role, particularly in the early 1960s.

Capital Account Liberalization in a Multilateral Context: The OECD Process

Since its establishment in 1961, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has promoted the progressive liberalization of capital movements. Member countries voluntarily enter into obligations to liberalize capital movements. Once accepted, the obligations become binding and are regularly updated in the Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements. The code implicitly suggests that the process of liberalization be gradual and, by putting liberalization in the context of economic cooperation, makes capital account liberalization subject to multilateral negotiations. Regular examinations of capital controls are carried out by the Committee on Capital Movements and Invisible Transactions (CMIT), which requires countries to justify remaining restrictions.

Lacking enforcement mechanisms or sanctions, the OECD code has not been very powerful, particularly when capital controls were widely applied in member countries. Major liberalization moves often occurred primarily for domestic reasons rather than because of multilateral pressure. Despite this, once liberalization became more widespread, the OECD process may have provided a useful forum for discussion and for pressuring those countries that were lagging behind. In contrast, the code has been more influential for countries aspiring to OECD membership. Japan, for example, was requested to ease controls on foreign direct investment before it attained OECD membership in 1964.

A range of interrelated motives for capital controls—including exchange rate policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, or tax policy considerations—are often apparent. In practice, it can be difficult to distinguish between these various motives. By influencing capital flows—and therefore the demand for, and the supply of, currency—capital controls are, by definition, part of exchange rate policy.

Countries imposed controls on outflows for several reasons: to avoid downward pressure on the exchange rate, keep domestic savings at home, avoid tax evasion, and prevent depletion of foreign exchange reserves. When these controls are effective, they also reduce the need for domestic interest rates to respond to such pressures and preserve a degree of national monetary policy independence. Countries typically used controls on inflows to contain upward pressure on the exchange rate and avoid the inflationary consequences of capital inflows. Some countries explicitly sought to shield their domestic capital markets, favor domestic industrial sectors, or restrict the participation of foreign capital in sensitive sectors. Although the differences between motives cannot always be clearly identified, drawing distinctions between them is useful from an analytical viewpoint. Section II and Section III deal with the exchange rate policy and monetary policy motives, respectively, on the basis of experiences with capital controls in selected advanced economies. Other motives are discussed throughout the study where relevant.

Subsequent sections deal with the experiences selected countries have had with liberalizing capital movements. It has generally been accepted that liberalization should be a gradual process, and most countries have followed such an approach. Following trade liberalization, many advanced countries began to dismantle capital controls in the 1960s, but these attempts stalled when problems emerged in the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s. Only in the early 1980s did countries again develop strategies to dismantle their control systems. In Europe, this took place within the framework of the move toward EMU. Japan developed its own plan for gradually phasing out controls in the wake of bilateral yen-dollar discussions with the U.S. authorities. Major lessons of the gradual approach are drawn in Section IV. However, there are also important examples of countries that have attempted a more rapid approach to undoing capital controls, usually accompanied by a radical overhaul of macroeconomic and structural policies. The United Kingdom (1979), Australia (1983), and New Zealand (1984) opted for a shock-therapy approach by eliminating all capital restrictions in one stroke. Experiences with rapid liberalization and its possible effects on financial stability are dealt with in Section V.

In Section VI, lessons are drawn from these diverse experiences for the relationship of liberalization to other policies. It also briefly discusses how liberalization measures can be sequenced in order to minimize destabilizing effects on exchange rate and monetary policies.

Cited By

  • Alesina, Alberto, Vittorio Grilli, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 1993, “The Political Economy of Capital Controls,” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 793 (London: Center for Economic Policy Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Alworth, J.S., 1993, “The Globalization of Financial Markets and the Implications for Tax Policy” (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Argy, Victor, 1987, “International Financial Liberalization—The Australian and Japanese Experiences Compared,” Bank of Japan Monetary and Economic Studies, Vol. 5 (May), pp. 10567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Argy, Victor, and Leslie Stein, 1997, The Japanese Economy (New York: New York University Press).

  • Ariyoshi, Akira, and others, 2000, Capital Controls: Country Experiences with Their Use and Liberalization, IMF Occasional Paper No. 190 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Artis, Michael J., and Mark P. Taylor, 1989, “Abolishing Exchange Control: the U.K. Experience,” Greek Economic Review, Vol. 11 (June), pp. 1948.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Australian Financial System Committee of Inquiry, 1981, “Australian Financial System: Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry,” Parliamentary Paper 1981/208 (Canberra: Australian Government Publications Service).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bacchetta, Philippe, 1996, “Capital Controls and the Political Discount: The Spanish Experience in the Late 1980s,” Open Economies Review, Vol. 7 (October), pp. 34969.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bakker, Age F. P., 1994, “The Dutch Attitude Toward Capital Liberalization,” in Monetary Stability through International Cooperation, ed. by Age F.P. Bakker and others (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bakker, Age F. P., 1996, The Liberalization of Capital Movements in Europe, The Monetary Committee and Financial Integration, 1958-1994 (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements, 1997, “Monetary Policy in the Nordic Countries: Experiences Since 1992,” BIS Policy Papers, No. 2 (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank of England, 1967, “The U.K. Exchange Control: A Short History,” Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 24560.

  • Bank of England, 1976, “The Investment Currency Market,” Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 31422.

  • Bank of England, 1977, A Guide to United Kingdom Exchange Control (London).

  • Bank of England, 1981, “The Effects of Exchange Control Abolition on Capital Flows,” Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 36973.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barker, Kate, Andrew Britton, and Robin Major, 1984, “Macroeconomic Policy in France and Britain,” National Institute Economic Review, No. 110 (November), pp. 6884.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bartolini, Leonardo, and Gordon M. Bodnar, 1992, “An Analysis of the Process of Capital Liberalization in Italy,” IMF Working Paper 92/27 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bhagwati, Jagdish, 1978, Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger).

  • Bishop, Graham, and Ann O’Kelly, 1992, Capital Liberalization: The End of the ERM and the Beginning of EMU (London: Salomon Brothers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bordo, Michael D., Dominique Simaro, and Eugene White, 1994, “France and the Bretton Woods International Monetary System: 1960-1968,” NBER Working Paper No. 4642 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carey, D. A., and K.G. Duggan, 1986, “The Abolition of Exchange Controls,” in Financial Policy Reform (Wellington: Reserve Bank of New Zealand).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Claassen, Emil-Maria, and Charles Wyplosz, 1982, “Capital Controls: Some Principles and the French Experience,” Annales de l’INSEE, Vols. 47-48 (July/December), pp. 23777.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities, 1985, Completing the Internal Market: White Paper from the Commission to the European Council (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Commission of the European Communities, 1988, “Creation of a European Financial Area,” European Economy, No. 36 (May) pp. 3209.

  • Conti, Vittorio, and Rony Hamaui, eds., 1993, Financial Markets Liberalization and the Role of Banks (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davanne, Olivier, and Helene Ewenczyk, 1989, “Mouvements de Capitaux et Crises de Change au debut des Années Quatre-vingt,” Economie et Prevision, No. 90 (July/August), pp. 13140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Boissieu, Christian, 1988, “Financial Liberalization and the Evolution of the EMS,” European Economy, No. 36 (May), pp. 5370.

  • Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, and Enrica Detragiache, 1998, “Financial Liberalization and Financial Fragility,” IMF Working Paper 98/83 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deutsche Bundesbank, 1979, “Die D-Mark als Internationale Anlagewahrung,” Monatsberichte, Vol. 31 (November), pp. 2634.

  • Deutsche Bundesbank, 1985, “Zur Freizugigkeit im Kapitalverkehr der Bundesrepublik mit dem Ausland,” Monatsberichte, Vol. 37 (July), pp. 1324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dooley, Michael P., and Peter Isard, 1980, “Capital Controls, Political Risk, and Deviations from Interest-Rate Parity,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 37084.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Drees, Burkhard, and Ceyla Pazarbasioǧlu, 1998, The Nordic Banking Crises: Pitfalls in Financial Liberalization?, IMF Occasional Paper No. 161 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edey, Malcolm, and Ketil Hviding, 1995, “An Assessment of Financial Reform in OECD Countries,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 154 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eichengreen, Barry, and Charles Wyplosz, 1993, “The Unstable EMS,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 1, Brookings Institution, pp. 51143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Economic Community, Monetary Committee, 1958-87, Annual Activity Report (Brussels/Luxembourg).

  • Evans, Lewis, and others, 1996, “Economic Reform in New Zealand, 1985-95: The Pursuit of Efficiency,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34 (December), pp. 1856902.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fair, Donald E., and Christian de Boissieu, eds., 1988, International Monetary and Financial Integration: The European Dimension (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fieleke, Norman S., 1994, “International Capital Transactions: Should They Be Restricted?,” New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (March/April), pp. 2739.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fischer, Bernhard, and Helmut Reisen, 1992, “Toward Capital Account Convertibility,” OECD Development Center Policy Brief No. 4 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frankel, Jeffrey A., 1984, “The Yen/Dollar Agreement: Liberalizing Japanese Capital Markets,” Policy Analyses in International Economics No. 9 (Washington: Institute for International Economics).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fukao, Mitsuhiro, 1990, “Liberalization of Japan’s Foreign Exchange Controls and Structural Changes in the Balance of Payments,” Bank of Japan Monetary and Economic Studies, Vol. 8 (September), pp. 10165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Galy, Michel, 1988, “La Place du Contrôle des Mouvements de Capitaux dans la Politique Economique Francaise et les Perspectives Lieés à son Allégement,” in International Monetary and Financial Integration: The European Dimension, ed. by Donald E. Fair and Christian de Boissieu (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Galy, Michel, Gonzalo Pastor, and Thierry Pujol, 1993, Spain: Converging with the European Community, IMF Occasional Paper No. 101 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gold, Joseph, 1977, International Capital Movements under the Law of the International Monetary Fund, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 21 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gros, Daniel, and Niels Thygesen, 1992, “Capital Controls and Foreign Exchange Market Crises in the EMS,” European Economic Review, No. 36 (December), pp. 153344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gupta, Kanhaya L., 1997, Experiences with Financial Liberalization (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

  • Hald, Jens, and Carsten Freiberg-Jensen, 1986, “Foreign Exchange Liberalization and Capital Movements,” Monetary Review, Danmarks Nationalbank, Vol. 24 (February), pp. 918.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hewson, John, and Eisuke Sakakibara, 1977, “The Effectiveness of German Controls on Capital Inflows,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Band 113, Heft 4, pp. 64566.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoshi, Takeo, 2000, “What Happened to Japanese Banks?,” IMES Discussion Paper No. 2000-E-7 (Tokyo: Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (Washington), various issues.

  • Ito, Takatoshi, 1986, “Capital Controls and Covered Interest Parity Between the Yen and the Dollar,” Economic Studies Quarterly, Japan Association of Economics and Econometrics, Vol. 37 (September), pp. 22341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ito, Takatoshi, 1992, The Japanese Economy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

  • Ito, Takatoshi, and Anne O. Krueger, eds., 2000, The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in East Asian Economic Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jonassen, Morten, and Audun Gleinsvik, 1992, “The Crisis in the Norwegian Financial Industry: Action Taken in 1991,” Norges Bank Economic Bulletin, Vol. 63 (March), pp. 4453.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jonung, Lars, 1986, “Financial Deregulation in Sweden,” Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Quarterly Review, No. 4, pp. 10919.

  • Kanaya, Akihiro, and David Woo, 2000, “The Japanese Banking Crisis of the 1990s: Sources and Lessons,” IMF Working Paper 00/7 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mathieson, Donald J., and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, 1993, Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues, IMF Occasional Paper No. 103 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McKinnon, Ronald I., 1973, Money and Capital in Economic Development (Washington: Brookings Institution).

  • McKinnon, Ronald I., 1993, The Order of Economic Liberalization: Financial Control in the Transition to a Market Economy, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Bank of Belgium, 1992, “The Operation of the Two-Tier Foreign Exchange Market: The Experience and Its Lessons” (unpublished; Brussels: National Bank of Belgium).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neely, Christopher J., 1999, “An Introduction to Capital Controls,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Vol. 81 (November/December), pp. 1330.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1982, “Controls on International Capital Movements: The Experience with Controls on International Financial Credits, Loans and Deposits,” Financial Market Trends, No. 113 (November).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1990, “Liberalization of Capital Movements and Financial Services in the OECD Area” (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Center for Cooperation with European Economies in Transition, 1993, Exchange Control Policy (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osugi, K., 1990, “Japan’s Experience of Financial Deregulation Since 1984 in an International Perspective,” BIS Economic Papers, No. 26 (Basel: Bank for International Settlements).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quintyn, Marc, 1993, “Managing Monetary Policy Reforms: Lessons from the French Experience,” BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, No. 186 (September), pp. 27598.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quirk, Peter J., and Owen Evans, 1995, Capital Account Convertibility: Review of Experience and Implications for IMF Policies, IMF Occasional Paper No. 131 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reserve Bank of New Zealand, 1985, “Annual Report and Statement of Accounts” (Wellington).

  • Silverstone, Brian, Alan Bollard, and Ralph Lattimore, eds., 1996, A Study of Economic Reform: The Case of New Zealand (Amsterdam: Elsevier).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spencer, Grant, 1992, “Monetary Policy: The New Zealand Experience, 1985-1990,” in Monetary Policy and the New Zealand Financial System, 3rd ed. (Wellington: Reserve Bank of New Zealand).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steinherr, Alfred, and Geoffrey de Schrevel, 1988, “Liberalization of Financial Transactions in the Community with Particular Reference to Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands,” European Economy, No. 36 (May), pp. 11747.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Swoboda, Alexander, 1976, Capital Movements and Their Control: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Takeda, Masahiko, and Philip Turner, 1992, “The Liberalization of Japan’s Financial Markets: Some Major Themes,” BIS Economic Papers, No. 34 (November) (Basel: Bank for International Settlements).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomson, Graeme, 1991, “Prudential Lessons,” in The Deregulation of Financial Intermediaries: Proceedings of a Conference, ed. by Ian Macfarlane (Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • von Furstenberg, George M., 1998, “From Worldwide Capital Mobility to International Financial Integration: A Review Essay,” Open Economies Review, Vol. 9 (January), pp. 5384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White, William R., 2000, “Recent Initiatives to Improve the Regulation and Supervision of Private Capital Flows,” BIS Working Papers, No. 92 (Basel: Bank for International Settlements).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williamson, John, and Molly Mahar, 1998, A Survey of Financial Liberalization, Essays in International Finance, No. 211 (Princeton, New Jersey: International Finance Section, Princeton University).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wyplosz, Charles, 1986, “Capital Controls and Balance of Payments Crises,” Journal of International Money and Finance, No. 5 (June), pp. 16779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wyplosz, Charles, 1988, “Capital Flow Liberalization and the EMS: A French Perspective,” European Economy, No. 36 (May), pp. 87103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation