A Theory of Financial Liberalisation: Why are Developing Countries so Reluctant (original) (raw)

Volatility of capital flows and financial liberalization: Do specific flows respond differently?

International Review of Economics & Finance, 2009

This paper examines the volatility of capital flows following the liberalization of financial markets. Utilizing a panel data set of overlapping data, the paper focuses on the response of foreign direct investment, portfolio flows, and other debt flows to financial liberalization. The financial liberalization variable comes from the chronology and index developed by Kaminsky and Schmukler [Kaminsky, G.L. and Schmukler, S.L., 2003, Short-run pain, long-run gain: The effects of financial liberalization, IMF Working Paper WP/03/34.]. Different types of capital flows are found to respond differently to financial liberalization. Surprisingly, portfolio flows appear to show little response to capital liberalization while foreign direct investment flows show significant increases in volatility, particularly for the emerging markets considered.

Financial liberalization and volatility in emerging market economies

1998

The recent East Asian crisis has highlighted the relationship between …nancial development and output volatility. In this essay we develop a simple model of a small open economy producing a tradeable good using a non-tradeable input and where …rms access to borrowings and investment depends on current cash ‡ows. We then show, …rst that macroeconomic volatility only occurs at intermediate levels of …nancial development; second, that whilst full …nancial liberalization, including an unrestricted opening to foreign lending, can destabilize an emerging market economy, in contrast output volatility can be avoided if the same economy opens up to foreign direct investment only. We also draw several policy conclusions regarding the adequate responses to …nancial crises.

Growth volatility and financial liberalization

Journal of International Money and Finance, 2006

We examine the effects of both equity market liberalization and capital account openness on real consumption growth variability. We show that financial liberalization is mostly associated with lower consumption growth volatility. Our results are robust, surviving controls for business-cycle effects, economic and financial development, the quality of institutions, and other variables. Countries that have more open capital accounts experience a greater reduction in consumption growth volatility after equity market openings. We also find that financial liberalizations are associated with declines in the ratio of consumption growth volatility to GDP growth volatility, suggesting improved risk sharing. Our results are weaker for liberalizing emerging markets but we never observe a significant increase in real volatility. Moreover, we demonstrate significant differences in the volatility response depending on the size of the banking and government sectors and certain institutional factors.

Rethinking the Effects of Financial Liberalization (IGC Working Paper)

2011

During the last few decades, many emerging markets have lifted restrictions on cross-border financial transactions. The conventional view was that this would allow these countries to: (i) receive capital inflows from advanced countries that would finance higher investment and growth; (ii) insure against aggregate shocks and reduce consumption volatility; and (iii) accelerate the development of domestic financial markets and achieve a more efficient domestic allocation of capital and better sharing of individual risks. However, the evidence suggests that this conventional view was wrong. In this paper, we present a simple model that can account for the observed effects of financial liberalization. The model emphasizes the role of imperfect enforcement of domestic debts and the interactions between domestic and international financial transactions. In the model, financial liberalization might lead to different outcomes: (i) domestic capital flight and ambiguous effects on net capital flows, investment, and growth; (ii) large capital inflows and higher investment and growth; or (iii) volatile capital flows and unstable domestic financial markets. The model shows how these outcomes depend on the level of development, the depth of domestic financial markets, and the quality of institutions

Financial Globalization, Growth and Volatility in Developing Countries

2004

This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of empirical evidence about the impact of financial globalization on growth and volatility in developing countries. The results suggest that it is difficult to establish a robust causal relationship between financial integration and economic growth.

Rethinking the Effects of Financial Liberalization (IGC Policy Brief)

2011

During the last few decades, many emerging markets have lifted restrictions on cross-border financial transactions. The conventional view was that this would allow these countries to: (i) receive capital inflows from advanced countries that would finance higher investment and growth; (ii) insure against aggregate shocks and reduce consumption volatility; and (iii) accelerate the development of domestic financial markets and achieve a more efficient domestic allocation of capital and better sharing of individual risks. However, the evidence suggests that this conventional view was wrong. In this paper, we present a simple model that can account for the observed effects of financial liberalization. The model emphasizes the role of imperfect enforcement of domestic debts and the interactions between domestic and international financial transactions. In the model, financial liberalization might lead to different outcomes: (i) domestic capital flight and ambiguous effects on net capital flows, investment, and growth; (ii) large capital inflows and higher investment and growth; or (iii) volatile capital flows and unstable domestic financial markets. The model shows how these outcomes depend on the level of development, the depth of domestic financial markets, and the quality of institutions

Financial GlobalizationA Reappraisal

The literature on the benefits and costs of financial globalization for developing countries has exploded in recent years, but along many disparate channels and with a variety of apparently conflicting results. For instance, there is still little robust evidence of the growth benefits of broad capital account liberalization, but a number of recent papers in the finance literature report that equity market liberalizations do significantly boost growth. Similarly, evidence based on microeconomic (firm- or industry-level) data shows some benefits of financial integration and the distortionary effects of capital controls, while the macroeconomic evidence remains inconclusive. We attempt to provide a unified conceptual framework for organizing this vast and growing literature. This framework allows us to provide a fresh synthetic perspective on the macroeconomic effects of financial globalization, in terms of both growth and volatility. Overall, our critical reading of the recent empiric...

Rethinking the Effects of Financial Liberalization

2010

During the last few decades, emerging markets have lifted most restrictions on international asset trade. The conventional view was that (i) capital would ‡ow into these countries raising investment and growth; (ii) these countries would use international capital markets to smooth productivity, terms-of-trade, and other shocks and achieve less volatile consumption; and (iii) …nancial integration would encourage the development of domestic …nancial markets, leading to a more e¢ cient domestic allocation of capital and better sharing of individual risks.

Financial liberalization and economic growth

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether countries benefit from capital account liberalization in more democratic contexts. Design/methodology/approach –The authors used the follow methodologies in this paper: Pooled OLS, panel data with fixed effects and generalized method of moments. The empirical exercises were conducted for both a large sample and a smaller group of developing countries. Given the characteristics of the variables used in the standard model, the main conclusions were obtained from an estimation that took into account the presence of fixed effects and endogeneity. Findings –Considering a sample of 77 countries, the authors were able to ascertain that capital account openness has a positive effect on economic growth only in highly democratic countries. When the same estimates are carried out with a more restricted sample, composed of 50 developing countries, the results are more pessimistic. In this case, capital account openness has a negative and significant effect, although being more democratic is not sufficient in itself to reap the benefits of financial integration. Research limitations/implications –The results obtained in this paper are limited to the number of observations and the period analysed. Furthermore, the conclusions need to be confirmed by a test of robustness, which should be conducted in future works; such works could make use of other democracy indicators and other instruments. Originality/value –The innovation of the work, in comparison to those the authors consulted, resides in its testing, through an interactive variable, whether the effect of capital openness on economic growth depends on level of democracy.