This note describes the key principles for the design and implementation of preemptive CFM/MPMs. These measures should be designed to be effective—so they achieve their intended goal and are not easily circumvented—and efficient—so they minimize distortions and costs. Preemptive CFM/MPMs should be targeted, calibrated to risks, transparent, and as temporary as possible. The appropriate design depends on country circumstances, such as institutional and legal constraints, as well as the precise source of the vulnerability. Where measures that do not discriminate by residency are available and effective, they should be preferred.

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.

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.

This note provides guidance to facilitate the staff’s advice on macroprudential policy in Fund surveillance. It elaborates on the principles set out in the “Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy,” taking into account the work of international standard setters as well as the evolving country experience with macroprudential policy. The main note is accompanied by supplements offering Detailed Guidance on Instruments and Considerations for Low Income Countries

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.

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.