This note provides operational guidance to staff for how to use the Fund’s institutional view on the liberalization and management of capital flows. The institutional view is a consistent basis for providing policy advice on capital flows and policies related to them and assessments when required for surveillance. In the absence of an institutional view, country teams risk providing inconsistent advice to countries in similar circumstances (IEO, 2005). The view does not have mandatory implications for Fund-supported programs or technical assistance. It does not alter members’ rights and obligations under the Fund’s Articles of Agreement or under any other international agreements. The institutional view and guidance will evolve over time to reflect new experience, emerging views of authorities and staff, and research. Staff teams are encouraged to reflect useful lessons from authorities’ experiences with capital flow liberalization and management in Fund reports so that these experiences can continue to influence the Fund’s approach to these issues.

This note provides operational guidance to staff for how to use the Fund's institutional view on the liberalization and management of capital flows. The institutional view is a consistent basis for providing policy advice on capital flows and policies related to them and assessments when required for surveillance. In the absence of an institutional view, country teams risk providing inconsistent advice to countries in similar circumstances (IEO, 2005). The view does not have mandatory implications for Fund-supported programs or technical assistance. It does not alter members' rights and obligations under the Fund's Articles of Agreement or under any other international agreements. The institutional view and guidance will evolve over time to reflect new experience, emerging views of authorities and staff, and research. Staff teams are encouraged to reflect useful lessons from authorities' experiences with capital flow liberalization and management in Fund reports so that these experiences can continue to influence the Fund's approach to these issues.

Capital flows have increased significantly in recent years and are a key aspect of the global monetary system. They offer potential benefits to countries, but their size and volatility can also pose policy challenges. The Fund needs to be in a position to provide clear and consistent advice with respect to capital flows and policies related to them. In 2011, the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) called for ?further work on a comprehensive, flexible, and balanced approach for the management of capital flows.? This paper proposes an institutional view to underpin this approach, drawing on earlier Fund policy papers, analytical work, and Board discussions on capital flows.

The Guidance Note for the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows (IMF 2013a) provides operational guidance to staff on the use of the Fund’s institutional view on the liberalization and management of capital flows (Box 1). It discusses appropriate policies with respect to the liberalization of capital flows and the management of disruptive capital inflows and outflows. With respect to capital outflows, the institutional view considers that capital flow management measures (CFMs) may be appropriate in crisis-type circumstances or, in the context of capital flow liberalization, if countries find that they have liberalized prematurely and are unable to handle the resulting capital flows. In non-crisis-type circumstances, the guidance considers outflows as being appropriately handled by macroeconomic, financial, and structural policies. It is intended to mirror the policy advice with respect to capital inflows. The guidance is, however, relatively brief and would benefit from some elaboration to lay out the possible configurations of policies in the context of the institutional view. This note seeks to provide such an elaboration, which is particularly relevant as capital outflows are becoming a more relevant policy challenge.

The Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows, adopted in 2012, provides the basis for consistent advice, and where relevant, assessments on policies related to capital flows. This paper reviews the IV, informed by advances in research, notably the work on an Integrated Policy Framework (IPF), the findings of the 2020 evaluation by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) on IMF Advice on Capital Flows, and staff’s experience with the implementation of the IV. The core premises and objectives of the IV remain unchanged. The IV rests on the premises that capital flows are desirable as they can bring substantial benefits for countries, and that capital flow management measures (CFMs) can be useful in certain circumstances but should not substitute for warranted macroeconomic adjustment. With those premises in mind, the IV aims to help countries reap the benefits of capital flows, while managing the associated risks in a way that preserves macroeconomic and financial stability and does not generate significant negative outward spillovers.

The Fund’s Institutional View (IV) recognizes the benefits of and risks associated with capital flows. Since the IV was adopted, a growing literature has provided additional insights into the benefits and risks from capital flows. This note summarizes the insights from the recent literature and the experiences of staff since the adoption of the IV that have informed this review.

This note outlines the approach of the proposed revision to the Institutional View (IV) when assessing whether systemic financial stability risks are elevated due to foreign currency (FX) mismatches. The approach builds on the staff guidance regarding risk assessments in bilateral surveillance, while allowing for flexibility to draw on future advances in best practice. This note proposes a two-step approach to assess systemic risks from FX mismatches. This note is organized as follows. Section II outlines the sources of systemic risks stemming from FX debt and potential amplification channels. Section III outlines the risk assessment approach in practice and Section IV concludes.