We reassess the connection between capital account openness and capital flows in an empirical framework that is grounded in theory and makes use of previously unexplored variation in the data. We demonstrate how our theory-consistent regressions may overcome some ubiquitous measurement problems in the literature by relying on interaction terms between financial openness and traditional push-pull factors. Within our proposed framework, we ask: what can be said robustly about the effect of capital account restrictions on capital flows? Our results warrant against over-interpreting the existing cross-country evidence as we find very few robust relationships between capital account restrictiveness and various types of capital inflows. Countries with a higher degree of financial openness are more susceptible to some, but by no means all, push and pull factors. Overall, the results are still consistent with a complex set of tradeoffs faced by policymakers, where the ability to shield the domestic economy from volatile capital flow cycles must be weighed against the sources of exogenous risks and potential long run growth effects.

Using a sample of 34 emerging markets and developing economies over the period 2009Q3-2015Q4, the paper employs a panel framework to study the determinants of capital flows, both net and gross, across a wide range of instruments. The baseline regressions are then extended to focus on high and low episodes – quarters with flows one standard deviation above/below mean. Overall, the results suggest that the capital flow slowdown witnessed in recent years is due to a combination of lower growth prospects of recipient countries and worse global risk sentiment. However, the determinants of flows can be considerably different across instruments and across the type of flows considered, net or gross. The sensitivity of certain types of flows, towards push and pull factors, increases during periods of high and low capital flows. Moreover, some variables may not necessarily be significant during normal times, but can be important drivers during such episodes, and vice versa. Indicators like the gap between the U.S. long- and short-term maturity bond yields – not significant during normal times – can be an important driver during high episodes.

The volatility of capital flows to emerging markets continues to pose challenges to policymakers. In this paper, we propose a new framework to answer critical policy questions: What policies and policy frameworks are most effective in dampening sharp capital flow movements in response to global shocks? What are the near- versus medium-term trade-offs of different policies? We tackle these questions using a quantile regression framework to predict the entire future probability distribution of capital flows to emerging markets, based on current domestic structural characteristics, policies, and global financial conditions. This new approach allows policymakers to quantify capital flows risks and evaluate policy tools to mitigate them, thus building the foundation of a risk management framework for capital flows.

Does capital flow from rich to poor countries? We revisit the Lucas paradox and explore the role of capital account restrictions in shaping capital flows at various stages of economic development. We find that, when accounting for the degree of capital account openness, the prediction of the neoclassical theory is confirmed: less developed countries tend to experience net capital inflows and more developed countries tend to experience net capital outflows, conditional of various countries’ characteristics. The findings are driven by foreign direct investment, portfolio equity investment, and to some extent by loans to the private sector.

This paper analyzes the experiences of emerging market economies (EMEs) that have liberalized capital flows over the past 15 years with respect to macroeconomic performance and risks to financial stability. The results of the panel data regressions indicate that greater openness to capital flows is associated with higher growth, gross capital flows, and equity returns and with lower inflation and bank capital adequacy ratios. The effects vary depending on thresholds. As a potential application of these findings, the paper explores the possible effects of liberalization on China by applying the coefficients of explanatory variables to the corresponding variables of China in 2012–16.

This paper assesses empirically the key drivers of private capital flows to a large sample of emerging market economies in the last decade. It analyzes the effect of the global financial cycle, measured by the VIX, on capital flows and investigates the role of fundamentals and country characteristics in mitigating or amplifying its effect. Using interaction models, we find the effect of the VIX to be non-linear. For low levels of the VIX, capital flows are driven by fundamental factors. During periods of stress, the VIX becomes the dominant driver of capital flows while other determinants, with the exception of interest rate differentials, lose statistical significance. Our results also suggest that the effect of global financial conditions on gross private capital flows increases with the host country’s level of financial sector development. Finally, our results imply that countries cannot fully insulate themselves from global financial shocks, unless creating a fragmented global financial system.

This paper examines why surges in capital flows to emerging market economies (EMEs) occur, and what determines the allocation of capital across countries during such surge episodes. We use two different methodologies to identify surges in EMEs over 1980-2009, differentiating between those mainly caused by changes in the country's external liabilities (reflecting the investment decisions of foreigners), and those caused by changes in its assets (reflecting the decisions of residents). Global factors-including US interest rates and risk aversion¡-are key to determining whether a surge will occur, but domestic factors such as the country's external financing needs (as implied by an intertemporal optimizing model of the current account) and structural characteristics also matter, which explains why not all EMEs experience surges. Conditional on a surge occurring, moreover, the magnitude of the capital inflow depends largely on domestic factors including the country's external financing needs, and the exchange rate regime. Finally, while similar factors explain asset- and liability-driven surges, the latter are more sensitive to global factors and contagion.