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.

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.

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.

Liberalization of capital flows can benefit both source and recipient countries by improving resource allocation, reducing financing costs, increasing competition and accelerating the development of domestic financial systems. The empirical evidence, however, is mixed on the benefits, and it suggests that countries benefit most when they meet certain thresholds related to institutional and financial development. The principal cost of capital flow liberalization stems from the economic instability brought on by volatile capital flows. In extreme cases, sudden stops or reversals in capital inflows can trigger financial crises followed by prolonged periods of weak growth.

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.

Liberalization of capital flows can benefit both source and recipient countries by improving resource allocation, reducing financing costs, increasing competition and accelerating the development of domestic financial systems. The empirical evidence, however, is mixed on the benefits, and it suggests that countries benefit most when they meet certain thresholds related to institutional and financial development. The principal cost of capital flow liberalization stems from the economic instability brought on by volatile capital flows. In extreme cases, sudden stops or reversals in capital inflows can trigger financial crises followed by prolonged periods of weak growth.

This paper reviews the experience with capital controls in industrial and developing countries, considers the policy issues raised when the effectiveness of capital controls diminishes, examines the medium-term benefits and costs of an open capital account, and analyzes the policy measures that could help sustain capital account convertibility. As the effectiveness of capital controls eroded more rapidly in the 1980s than in earlier periods, new constraints were placed on the formulation of stabilization and structural reform programs. However, experience suggests that certain macroeconomic, financial, and risk management policies would allow countries to attain the benefits of capital account convertibility and reduce the financial risks created by an open capital account.