Are Capital Flows Fickle? Increasingly? And Does the Answer Still Depend on Type?
Author(s) -
Barry Eichengreen,
Poonam Gupta,
Oliver Masetti
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
asian economic papers
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.522
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 1536-0083
pISSN - 1535-3516
DOI - 10.1162/asep_a_00583
Subject(s) - emerging markets , foreign direct investment , monetary economics , warrant , portfolio , debt , equity (law) , volatility (finance) , capital flows , international economics , economics , portfolio investment , capital (architecture) , business , financial economics , macroeconomics , market economy , liberalization , history , archaeology , political science , law
According to conventional wisdom, capital flows are fickle. Focusing on emerging markets, we ask whether this conventional wisdom still holds in our contemporary world. Our results show that, despite recent structural and regulatory changes, much of it survives. Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows are more stable than non-FDI inflows. Within non-FDI inflows, portfolio debt and bank-intermediated flows remain the most volatile. Whereas FDI inflows are driven mainly by pull factors, portfolio debt and equity are driven mainly by push factors; bank-intermediated flows are driven a combination of push and pull factors. Capital outflows from emerging markets behave differently, however. FDI outflows from emerging markets have grown and become significantly more volatile. There is similarly an increase in the volatility of bank-intermediated capital outflows from emerging markets. Our findings underscore that outflows from emerging markets, both FDI and bank-related flows, have come to play a growing role and warrant greater attention from analysts and policymakers.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom