We develop an open economy New Keynesian Model with foreign exchange intervention in the presence of a financial accelerator mechanism. We obtain closed-form solutions for the optimal interest rate policy and FX intervention under discretionary policy, in the face of shocks to risk appetite in international capital markets. The solution shows that FX intervention can help reduce the volatility of the economy and mitigate the welfare losses associated with such shocks. We also show that, when the financial accelerator is strong, the risk of multiple equilibria (self-fulfilling currency and inflation movements) is high. We determine the conditions under which indeterminacy can occur and highlight how the use of FX intervention reinforces the central bank’s credibility and limits the risk of multiple equilibria.

The paper documents the use of foreign exchange intervention (FXI) across countries and monetary regimes, with special attention to its use under inflation targeting (IT). We find significant differences between advanced and emerging market economies, with the former group conducting FXI limitedly and broadly symmetrically, while the use of this policy instrument in emerging market countries is pervasive and mostly asymmetric (biased towards purchasing foreign currency, even after taking into account precautionary motives). Within emerging markets, the use of FXI is common both under IT and non-IT regimes. We find no evidence of FXI being used in response to inflation developments, while there is strong evidence that FXI responds to exchange rates, indicating that IT central banks in EMDEs have dual inflation/exchange rate objectives. We also find a higher propensity to overshoot inflation targets in emerging market economies where FXI is more pervasive.

Policymakers often face difficult tradeoffs in pursuing domestic and external stabilization objectives. The paper reflects staff’s work to advance the understanding of the policy options and tradeoffs available to policymakers in a systematic and analytical way. The paper recognizes that the optimal path of the IPF tools depends on structural characteristics and fiscal policies. The operational implications of IPF findings require careful consideration. Developing safeguards to minimize the risk of inappropriate use of IPF policies will be essential. Staff remains guided by the Fund’s Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.

For about three decades until the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), Covered Interest Parity (CIP) appeared to hold quite closely—even as a broad macroeconomic relationship applying to daily or weekly data. Not only have CIP deviations significantly increased since the GFC, but potential macrofinancial drivers of the variation in CIP deviations have also become significant. The variation in CIP deviations seems to be associated with multiple factors, not only regulatory changes. Most of these do not display a uniform importance across currency pairs and time, and some are associated with possible temporary considerations (such as asynchronous monetary policy cycles).

Over the past two decades, many low- and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs) have improved control over fiscal policy, liberalized and deepened financial markets, and stabilized inflation at moderate levels. Monetary policy frameworks that have helped achieve these ends are being challenged by continued financial development and increased exposure to global capital markets. Many policymakers aspire to move beyond the basics of stability to implement monetary policy frameworks that better anchor inflation and promote macroeconomic stability and growth. Many of these LLMICs are thus considering and implementing improvements to their monetary policy frameworks. The recent successes of some LLMICs and the experiences of emerging and advanced economies, both early in their policy modernization process and following the global financial crisis, are valuable in identifying desirable features of such frameworks. This paper draws on those lessons to provide guidance on key elements of effective monetary policy frameworks for LLMICs.

Based on VAR analyses across 26 countries, we show that, although foreign exchange intervention (FXI) is effective in stabilizing the nominal exchange rate in the short run, its impacts on the real exchange rate are less significant: Limitations on nominal exchange rate flexibility may induce adjustments to the real exchange rate through domestic prices. We find that countries that intervene more heavily in response to external shocks experience greater general and asset price volatility, which is not conducive to countering the impact of external shocks. We show that China’s macroeconomic responses to external shocks are broadly consistent with international experiences among intervening countries. The simple methodological framework adopted in this paper is meant to examine a broad set of macroeconomic variables and bears limitations; our findings serve to motivate more structural analysis on FXI’s macroeconomic impacts going forward.

We study a wide range of hybrid inflation-targeting (IT) and managed exchange rate regimes, analyzing their implications for inflation, output and the exchange rate in the presence of various domestic and external shocks. To this end, we develop an open economy new-Keynesian model featuring sterilized interventions in the foreign exchange (FX) market as an additional central bank instrument operating alongside the Taylor rule, and affecting the economy through portfolio balance sheet effects in the financial sector. We find that there can be advantages to combining IT with some degree of exchange rate management via FX interventions. Unlike "pure" IT or exchange rate management via interest rates, FX interventions can help insulate the economy against certain shocks, especially shocks to international financial conditions. However, managing the exchange rate through FX interventions may also hinder necessary exchange rate adjustments, e.g., in the presence of terms of trade shocks.