Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/88770
Authors: 
Forbes, Kristin
Fratzschner, Marcel
Straub, Roland
Year of Publication: 
2013
Series/Report no.: 
DIW Discussion Papers 1343
Abstract: 
Are capital controls and macroprudential measures successful in achieving their objectives? Assessing their effectiveness is complicated by selection bias and endogeneity; countries which change their capital-flow management measures (CFMs) often share specific characteristics and are responding to changes in variables that the CFMs are intended to influence. This paper addresses these challenges by using a propensity-score matching methodology. We also create a new database with detailed information on weekly changes in controls on capital inflows, capital outflows, and macroprudential measures from 2009 to 2011 for 60 countries. Results show that macroprudential measures can significantly reduce some measures of financial fragility. Most CFMs do not significantly affect other key targets, however, such as exchange rates, capital flows, interest-rate differentials, inflation, equity indices, and different volatilities. One exception is that removing controls on capital outflows may reduce real exchange rate appreciation. Therefore, certain CFMs can be effective in accomplishing specific goals-but most popular measures are not good for accomplishing their stated aims.
Subjects: 
capital controls
macroprudential measures
propensity-score matching
selection bias
capital flows
emerging markets
JEL: 
F3
F4
F5
G0
G1
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
958.16 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.