View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing Countries |

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF SAN FRANCISCO
HOME

RESEARCH

BANKING SUPERVISION

EDUCATION

Search SF Fed
COMMUNITY

CASH

OUR DISTRICT

Home > Economic Research > Publications > Economic Letter > Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing
Countries

Economic Research

Our Economists | Publications | About Us

FRBSF ECONOMIC LeTTer
2001-21

July 20, 2001

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Share

« More Economic Letters

Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing
Countries
Reuven Glick and Michael Hutchison
In the wake of the East Asian, Russian, and Brazilian currency crises of the 1990s, a growing chorus of
observers and economists (for example, Radelet and Sachs 1998, and Stiglitz 2000) has argued that an
underlying cause of – or at least a contributing factor to – such disruptions is the liberalization of
international capital flows, especially when combined with fixed exchange rates. A common policy
prescription that follows from this argument is to impose restrictions on capital flows and other
international payments with the hope of insulating economies from speculative attacks and thereby
creating greater currency stability.
Surprisingly little systematic work, however, has been done on how well capital controls help stabilize
currencies in developing countries. This Economic Letter reports on our study, which investigates the
link between capital flow restrictions and exchange rate stability for a broad sample of developing
economies (Glick and Hutchison 2000). We employ an empirical model of the determinants of currency
crises as a benchmark from which to analyze the effects of capital account restrictions. In particular, we
investigate the extent to which capital controls effectively insulate countries from – that is, lower the
probability of – a currency attack.
Pros and cons of capital controls
Restricting the international flow of capital essentially means limiting and restricting the purchases and
sales of foreign assets by domestic residents and/or domestic assets by foreign residents. Restrictions
on capital inflows and/or outflows have a long history as a means of reducing macroeconomic and
financial instability. In fact, they were the norm during the Bretton Woods era (1944-1971), and over
much of the immediate post-war period they were officially sanctioned by most governments in the
large industrial countries and by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). A large literature on the
appropriate sequencing of financial liberalization in developing countries suggests that lifting controls on
the capital account too soon may destabilize the economy. More recently, with the turbulence in
exchange markets following the introduction of generalized floating in the early 1970s, James Tobin

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2001/july/capital-controls-and-exchange-rate-stability-in-developing-countries/[2/11/2015 2:17:48 PM]

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing Countries |

argued that a global tax (“Tobin tax”) on foreign exchange transactions would reduce destabilizing
speculation in international financial markets. In the aftermath of the European (1992-1993) and Asian
(1997-1998) currency crises, some have renewed calls for some form of capital controls.
However, capital controls themselves may have a destabilizing effect on exchange rates for several
reasons. First, restrictions on the international capital account may in fact lead to a net capital outflow
and precipitate increased financial instability. The reason is that controls preventing investors from
withdrawing capital from a country act like a form of investment irreversibility: by making it more
difficult to get capital out in the future, controls may make investors less willing to invest in a country.
Second, the imposition of controls is typically correlated with other restrictions on economic activity or
with government macroeconomic policies that investors regard as inimical to the economic environment.
Thus, imposing capital controls may send a signal of inconsistent and poorly designed government
policies that render a country more vulnerable to currency crises. Finally, capital controls may be
ineffective and distortionary, leading to economic misallocation and corruption that, in turn, contribute
to economic instability.
Defining currency crises and capital account restrictions
In our empirical analysis, we investigate whether legal restrictions on international capital flows are
associated with greater currency stability. We employ a comprehensive panel data set of 69 developing
economies over the 1975-1997 period. It should be noted that this sample includes both countries that
did and did not experience currency crises. Using such a broad control group allows us to draw
inferences about the conditions and characteristics distinguishing countries encountering crises and
others managing to avoid crises.
For each year in our sample, a country is classified as in one of two states: either undergoing a currency
crisis or not undergoing a currency crisis. Our indicator of currency crises is constructed from “large”
changes in an index of currency pressure, defined as a (weighted) average of real exchange rate
changes and reserve losses. “Large” changes are defined as those where the monthly rate of increase
(a) exceeds 5% for any month in the year, as well as (b) exceeds the mean plus two times the countryspecific standard deviation. The first criterion ensures that any large depreciation is counted as a
currency crisis, and the second criterion attempts to screen out changes that are not large enough in an
economic sense relative to the country-specific monthly change of the exchange rate. For each year, we
also classify a country as either “restricted” or “liberalized,” reflecting the existence of legal and explicit
controls on capital account transactions, as indicated by the IMF’s Annual Report on Exchange Rate
Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions.
The 69 developing countries in our data set experienced a total of 160 currency crises during the 19751997 period, implying a frequency of 12% of the total country-year observations in the sample.
Considering successive five-year subperiods of the sample, we find that the frequency of currency crises
has not risen over time; in fact, the frequency actually was higher in the late 1980s than in the 1990s,
suggesting that the spate of currency crises in the 1990s was not atypical.
We also find that the presence of capital controls is very common; indeed, it is the norm for most
developing economies, occurring in approximately 80% of the country-year observations. Furthermore,
we found that the incidence of capital controls – while high throughout the sample period – rose
noticeably from 1975 through 1989 and then declined in the 1990s, as many countries pushed for
greater liberalization in the movement of financial capital.
Benchmark results
To explore the relation between capital controls and currency crises, we begin by establishing a relatively
simple benchmark. The first step in developing this benchmark is to measure the frequency of a
currency crisis for a given country and year, and to note whether capital controls were in place at the

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2001/july/capital-controls-and-exchange-rate-stability-in-developing-countries/[2/11/2015 2:17:48 PM]

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing Countries |

end of the previous year. We find that countries with restricted capital flows had currency crises about
13% of the time, while those without capital restrictions had currency crises about 8% of the time. This
is suggestive prima facie evidence that controls may not be effective and, indeed, may increase the
likelihood of a currency crisis.
We next estimate (multivariate probit regression) models that allow us to focus on the contribution of
capital controls to currency crises while accounting for other macroeconomic and institutional factors
that vary across time and country. The factors we account for are common in the empirical currency
crisis literature: the ratio of broad money to foreign reserves, domestic credit growth, the ratio of the
current account to GDP, real GDP growth, and real exchange rate overvaluation.
Consistent with the findings above, our results indicate a statistically significant and economically
meaningful positive link between the presence of controls and the likelihood of a currency crisis. After
accounting for macroeconomic factors, the likelihood of a currency crisis in developing economies with
capital controls in the previous year appears to increase by 5% to10%.
Robustness of the results
We checked the robustness of the benchmark results in three ways. First, we used a number of
alternative measures of balance of payments and exchange rate restrictions to account for variations in
the intensity of controls and in their enforcement.
Second, we explored the effect of including additional variables that explain the occurrence of currency
crises. One set of variables included contemporaneous and lagged bank crises. Another set included
international factors, such as the U.S. long-term interest rate and a measure of regional currency crisis
contagion. We also looked at two political variables – the frequency of change in government and the
degree of political freedom – that may affect a country’s vulnerability to currency crises.
Third, we explored the possibility of causal linkages between currency crises and the decisions of
governments to maintain a system of capital controls. For example, countries with excessively
expansionary monetary policies are more likely to employ controls on outflows by investors seeking to
escape the resulting inflation tax. To account for the possibility that the same economic and political
factors that make countries more vulnerable to currency crises also predisposed them to employ capital
restrictions, we used a (bivariate probit) technique that controls for the determinants of capital
restrictions. The results from these sensitivity tests were uniform and consistent with the benchmark
results: The probability of currency crises is higher in the presence of capital controls.
Conclusions
We find that restrictions on international capital flows are associated with a higher probability of an
exchange rate crisis. This result holds even when taking account of macroeconomic factors that lead to
speculative attacks, as well as country-specific political and institutional factors that induce countries to
maintain a system of capital controls in the first place. Thus, countries without capital controls appear to
have greater exchange rate stability and fewer speculative attacks.
This evidence is supportive, of course, of previous work questioning the effectiveness of capital controls
in insulating countries from speculative attacks when their fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate policies
appear to be inconsistent. It also indicates that, in the context of the literature on the sequence of
economic reform, an environment where the capital account is liberalized does not appear to be more
vulnerable to exchange rate instability.
Reuven Glick
Vice President and Director
Center for Pacific Basin Monetary and Economic Studies, FRBSF

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2001/july/capital-controls-and-exchange-rate-stability-in-developing-countries/[2/11/2015 2:17:48 PM]

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Stability in Developing Countries |

Michael Hutchison
Professor, U.C. Santa Cruz,
and Visiting Scholar, FRBSF
References
Glick, Reuven, and Michael Hutchison. 2000. “Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Instability in
Developing Economies.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Center for Pacific Basin Studies Working
Paper No. PB00-05 (December).
Radelet, Steven, and Jeffrey Sachs. 1998. “The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Realities,
Prospects.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, pp. 111-174.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2000. “What I Learned at the World Economic Crisis.” The New Republic April 17.
Subscribe

RSS Feed

Share

More Economic Letters

Opinions expressed in FRBSF Economic Letter
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
management of the Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco or of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System. This publication is
edited by Sam Zuckerman and Anita Todd.
Permission to reprint must be obtained in
writing.

Site Policies

Please send editorial comments and requests for reprint permission
to

Research Library
Attn: Research publications, MS 1140
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
P.O. Box 7702
San Francisco, CA 94120

Privacy

Contact Us

Work for Us

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco © 2015

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2001/july/capital-controls-and-exchange-rate-stability-in-developing-countries/[2/11/2015 2:17:48 PM]