Liberty Street Economics

« | Main | »

May 13, 2013

Capital Controls, Currency Wars, and International Cooperation

Bianca De Paoli and Anna Lipinska

The debate over whether there’s a case for limiting capital flows has intensified recently—both in media and academic forums. The traditional view has generally been that the voluntary exchange of funds across borders makes everyone better off: Borrowers have access to cheaper credit while lenders enjoy higher returns on their investments. But, as a recent article in The Economist highlights, this view has been revisited. In this post, we review arguments on this issue and discuss how our recent research contributes to the debate.

In a recent staff discussion note and Vox article, International
Monetary Fund economists outline several arguments that could justify the use of capital controls by policymakers. One is that capital controls can be a valuable tool to avoid currency overvaluation and protect the export sector at times when the sector is crucial for economic growth. A similar line of thought has been put forward by Gianluca Benigno and Luca Fornaro in a recent research paper. The authors show how reserve accumulation may be justified in these circumstances—shedding light on the much-discussed Chinese-export-led growth strategy.

Capital controls may also be a useful form of macroprudential policy—or a policy designed to ameliorate the macroeconomic consequences of financial crises. The general argument is that limiting the flow of funds between countries can lower the probability of financial crises or, at least, reduce their costs (for formal arguments see, for example, Bianchi
[2011], Bianchi and Mendoza [2011], Korinek [2010], and Benigno et al.
[2011]). In a world of credit booms and busts, it might be beneficial to restrict borrowing (or the inflow of foreign capital) in good times to avoid a sudden loss in access to credit in bad times. The avoidance of bubbles that can result in uncompetitive economies has also been put forward as a justification for the use of capital flow restrictions (see Korinek

But capital flow restrictions can be harmful if they’re driven by unfounded vested interests of individual countries (or lobby groups within these countries). Fears that capital controls, as well as monetary policy and direct intervention in the currency market, could lead to damaging “currency wars” are now at the heart of the global policy debate (as
exemplified by media coverage of recent developments in Japan, Latin America, and Europe).


In a recent New York Fed staff report, we study the pros and cons of interventions in the international flow of capital. Using a theoretical framework, we highlight that such interventions can indeed help improve risk sharing across borders when international financial markets aren’t developed enough to ensure an efficient exchange of funds across countries. We find that, if the management of international capital
flows is coordinated among countries, it can help these countries better share the burden of adverse shocks. For example, after a fall in productivity in Country A, a subsidy to international borrowing from Country B could help households in Country A share the burden of the shock with households in Country B.

But our analysis finds that countries, when acting independently, tend to use capital controls with different aims. In particular, countries are inclined to impose restrictions on the flow of capital to strategically influence exchange rates. The theoretical analysis shows how countries in some circumstances benefit from having an appreciated exchange rate, as it improves domestic purchasing power vis-á-vis the rest of the world, while in others a depreciation may be a valuable way to promote domestic goods and enable domestic households to enjoy higher income and consumption.

Our findings suggest that if interventions in capital are set by individual countries in an uncoordinated fashion, then they would go in the opposite direction than those designed to enhance global risk sharing. Recall that risk sharing can be improved with a subsidy to international borrowing from countries that face adverse productivity shocks—that is, international borrowing can help support domestic consumption after a fall in domestic output. However, policymakers in these countries actually prefer to tax, rather than subsidize, international borrowing. Taxing capital inflows decreases the appreciation in the exchange rate and therefore protects demand for domestic goods. This policy of capital inflow taxation reduces the decline in domestic output at the expense of a larger divergence in consumption across countries.

Moreover, when countries simultaneously engage in such interventions in the international flow of capital, not only global but individual welfare is adversely affected. Our results thus suggest that uncoordinated policy actions could indeed lead to harmful capital control wars. The conclusion and policy recommendations that emerge from our work suggest that there’s a clear case for international coordination in the use of capital controls.

The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Depaoli_biancaBianca De Paoli is a senior economist in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Anna Lipinska is an economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Capital controls are nothing more than stealing; it is telling citizens that their property belongs not to them but to the politicians. Any group of politicians that impose it are nothing more than well dressed highway bandits. No degree of learned sounding research papers can negate the fact that the policy is one of confiscation. It is not only economically unsound because it is inefficient and turns otherwise law-abiding citizens into “criminals”, it is also morally unsound.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About the Blog

Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Image of NYFED Economic Research Tracker Icon Liberty Street Economics is available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Economic Inequality

image of inequality icons for the Economic Inequality: A Research Series

This ongoing Liberty Street Economics series analyzes disparities in economic and policy outcomes by race, gender, age, region, income, and other factors.

Most Read this Year

Comment Guidelines


We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:

Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1,500 characters.

Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.

Please be relevant: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post.

Please be respectful: We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will
not be posted.‎

Comments with links: Please do not include any links in your comment, even if you feel the links will contribute to the discussion. Comments with links will not be posted.

Send Us Feedback

Disclosure Policy

The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.