Menu

Bretton Woods Project

Critical voices on the world bank and IMF

Advanced search »
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Accountability
    • Conditionality
    • Environment
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • IFI governance
    • Infrastructure
    • Knowledge
    • Land
    • Private Sector
    • Rights
    • Social services
    • Trade
    • WB/IMF roles
  • Institutions
    • International Monetary Fund (IMF)
    • Other
    • Other International Financial Institutions
    • UK Government
    • UN
    • World Bank Group
  • Countries
    • East Asia & Pacific
    • Eastern Europe & Central Asia
    • International
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
    • South Asia
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
    • Western Europe
  • Publications
    • Observer
    • Dispatch
    • News Lens
    • Briefings
    • Analysis
    • Commentary
    • Background
    • Reports
    • Other
      • Bulletin
      • Update
      • CIFs Monitor
    • en
    • es
  • Finance
  • Finance

From issue 78 of The Bretton Woods Update

Related resources

G20 coherent conclusions for the management of capital flows

15 October 2011
G20

Griffiths-Jones et al: Capital account regulations for stability and development

6 November 2011
IPD

The effectiveness of capital controls and prudential policies in managing large inflows

5 August 2011
IMF

Related articles

Brazil, India spurn IMF capital controls framework

13 June 2011

Capital controls: IMF gradual change of heart continues?

18 November 2011

Capital flows: IMF guidelines criticised

5 April 2012

Controles de capital: ¿Continúa el cambio gradual de actitud del FMI?

6 December 2011

How to manage capital flows?

12 October 2010

IMF and capital flows: all talk, no solution

7 February 2012

IMF nostalgia: debate on capital account liberalisation all over again?

17 February 2011

Rethinking the IMF's capital account mandate

28 September 2010

Finance

News

Capital controls: IMF gradual change of heart continues?

18 November 2011

The G20 released conclusions on how countries should manage capital flows, while papers suggest the IMF’s slow move to acceptance of national regulations on international capital flows continues.

In October, G20 finance ministers issued a paper on Coherent conclusions for the management of capital flows. This confirmed the step-back from the IMF’s attempt to develop a ‘code of conduct’ for capital controls (see Update 76). Instead, they emphasised that “there is no one-size-fits-all approach or rigid definition of conditions for the use of capital flow management measures.” While saying that measures should be “targeted to specific risks”, “regularly reviewed”, and “adapted or reversed as destabilising pressures abate”, they cautiously support the increasing use of capital controls and other capital account management policies by G20 and other countries.

The IMF’s previous position that such controls should be used as a last resort (see Update 75) appears to be losing traction. The Fund recognised as much in its September Multilateral surveillance report, which says that “capital flow management tools are useful for changing the composition of capital inflows.” This follows the line of an August IMF staff discussion note, The effectiveness of capital controls and prudential policies in managing large inflows, which argues that “for reasons that are not yet fully understood, capital controls and related prudential measures achieve their stated objectives in some cases but not in others.”

However, the discussion note focuses on “countries that have already liberalised many types of international capital flows”, not countries such as China and India, which have “comprehensive systems” that “allow for close monitoring of flows and a calibrated tightening of controls when needed.” Even so, the discussion note finds that “controls are more effective in countries [such as China and India] that more heavily control capital flows”, but does not reflect on the implications of this, or whether such controls have contributed to the marked economic success of these countries in recent decades. 

Instead, the paper concludes that: “capital controls lose their effectiveness over time, as markets find ways to circumvent them”; that while controls can “change the composition of inflows” to encourage longer term flows, they “have little effect on overall flows” and “in most cases, controls also have little effect on currency appreciation.”  The paper finishes by calling for more research, and better understanding of the impacts of different types of controls.

Roberto Frenkel, director of Argentinian NGO CEDES, speaking at a May conference on managing capital flows co-organised by the IMF and the Brazilian government gave an alternative perspective: “The main reason why I think [capital control] policies should be implemented is because of the effects that capital inflows have on the real exchange rate, which represent a threat [to] economic activity, employment and more generally on the economic development of these countries.”

Alternative approach

Meanwhile, in November, Stephany Griffith-Jones and José Antonio Ocampo, both of Columbia University and Kevin Gallagher of Boston University, released an issues paper calling for an alternative approach. It summarises the discussions of an independent task force on capital flows management that also included former Reserve Bank of India deputy governor Rakesh Mohan. They argue that IMF “prescriptions fall short of being sound advice for many developing countries” and instead capital account regulations “should be seen as an essential part of the macroeconomic policy toolkit and not as mere measures of last resort.”  They propose a set of guidelines for the use of such regulations, and call for the IMF and other global bodies to “make a stronger effort to reduce the stigma attached to capital account regulations and protect the ability of nations to deploy capital account regulations to prevent and mitigate crises.”

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related resources

G20 coherent conclusions for the management of capital flows

15 October 2011
G20

Griffiths-Jones et al: Capital account regulations for stability and development

6 November 2011
IPD

The effectiveness of capital controls and prudential policies in managing large inflows

5 August 2011
IMF

Related articles

Brazil, India spurn IMF capital controls framework

13 June 2011

Capital controls: IMF gradual change of heart continues?

18 November 2011

Capital flows: IMF guidelines criticised

5 April 2012

Controles de capital: ¿Continúa el cambio gradual de actitud del FMI?

6 December 2011

How to manage capital flows?

12 October 2010

IMF and capital flows: all talk, no solution

7 February 2012

IMF nostalgia: debate on capital account liberalisation all over again?

17 February 2011

Rethinking the IMF's capital account mandate

28 September 2010

Subscribe

observer | newslens

Share

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

World Bank & IMF in the news

Finance

Analysis

16 May 2022

IMF projects no losses if surcharges are removed

CEPR

Finance

News

13 May 2022

Open letter to G20 Finance Ministers, Central Bank Governors and the IMF: CSOs call for issuance of more SDRs and fairer distribution

ISER Uganda

Finance

Analysis

12 May 2022

Sri Lanka: Debt crisis, neocolonialism and geopolitical rivalry

Daily News

Finance

Analysis

10 May 2022

UN Financing for Development Forum 2022

Global Policy Forum
More news

Featured briefings

14 April 2022

World Bank and IMF Spring Meetings 2022

6 April 2022

The Bretton Woods Observer: Spring 2022

6 April 2022

How IMF and World Bank support for financialisation undermines human rights

IMF and World Bank policies and programmes work in tandem to expand and deepen financialisation, exacerbating the inequality crisis and harming human rights, financial stability and democratic governance

More briefings

Donate

Donate to the Bretton Woods Project

About US

Established in 1995, the Bretton Woods Project (BWP) is a civil society watchdog of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. By monitoring the work of these institutions, supporting and connecting critical civil society communities, and advocating for transformational change, the Project challenges their power and fights for the development of policies that are gender transformative, equitable, environmentally sustainable and consistent with international human rights norms.

Twitter

My Tweets
This website uses cookies. By using this website you agree to their use. More information

ABOUT US

  • About the Bretton Woods Project
  • Staff profiles
  • Project Steering Group
  • GEM project
  • Environmental advocacy
  • Annual reports
  • Project news
  • Job opportunities

CONTENT

  • FAQ
  • Glossary
  • Resources
  • Open letters

SUBSCRIBE

  • Subscribe by email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS feeds

HELP

  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility policy
  • Credits
  • Help
  • Contact us