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.

This paper presents a rule for foreign exchange interventions (FXI), designed to preserve financial stability in floating exchange rate arrangements. The FXI rule addresses a market failure: the absence of hedging solution for tail exchange rate risk in the market (i.e. high volatility). Market impairment or overshoot of exchange rate between two equilibria could generate high volatility and threaten financial stability due to unhedged exposure to exchange rate risk in the economy. The rule uses the concept of Value at Risk (VaR) to define FXI triggers. While it provides to the market a hedge against tail risk, the rule allows the exchange rate to smoothly adjust to new equilibria. In addition, the rule is budget neutral over the medium term, encourages a prudent risk management in the market, and is more resilient to speculative attacks than other rules, such as fixed-volatility rules. The empirical methodology is backtested on Banco Mexico’s FXIs data between 2008 and 2016.

We study the effect of foreign exchange intervention on the exchange rate relying on an instrumental-variables panel approach. We find robust evidence that intervention affects the level of the exchange rate in an economically meaningful way. A purchase of foreign currency of 1 percentage point of GDP causes a depreciation of the nominal and real exchange rates in the ranges of [1.7-2.0] percent and [1.4-1.7] percent respectively. The effects are found to be quite persistent. The paper also explores possible asymmetric effects, and whether effectiveness depends on the depth of domestic financial markets.

Given the large size of aggregate remittance flows (billions of dollars annually), they should be expected to have significant macroeconomic effects on the economies that receive them. This paper directly addresses the two main issues of interest to policymakers with regard to remittances--how to manage their macroeconomic effects, and how to harness their development potential--by reporting the results of the first global study of the comprehensive macroeconomic effects of remittances on recipient economies. In broad terms, the findings of this paper tend to confirm the main benefit cited in the microeconomic literature: remittances improve households' welfare by lifting families out of poverty and insuring them against income shocks. The findings also yield a number of important caveats and policy considerations, however, that have largely been overlooked. The main challenge for policymakers in countries that receive significant flows of remittances is to design policies that promote remittances and increase their benefits while mitigating adverse side effects. Getting these policy prescriptions correct early on is imperative. Globalization and the aging of developed economy populations will ensure that demand for migrant workers remains robust for years to come. Hence, the volume of remittances likely will continue to grow, and with it, the challenge of unlocking the maximum societal benefit from these transfers.

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.

This article analyzes the theory of equilibrium real exchange rates and defines misalignment as a deviation of the real exchange rate (RER) from its equilibrium level. The role of macroeconomic policies is then analyzed under three alternative nominal exchange rate regimes: predetermined nominal exchange rates; floating nominal rates; and dual or black market nominal exchange rates. This discussion points out how inconsistent macroeconomic policies often lead to real exchange rate misalignment. Corrective measures, including nominal devaluation and several alternative approaches, are then evaluated.