Fundamental questions 极其重要的问题

Capital controls 资本控制

Fundamental questions 极其重要的问题

The IMF changes its mind on controls on capital inflows 国际货币基金组织在控制资本流入的问题上改变想法。

Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

LEFTOVER piles of slushy snow from the heaviest snowfall in over a century make it hard to take sharp turns on the roads of Washington, DC, these days. But the past couple of weeks have seen plenty of ideological swerves at the IMF’s downtown headquarters.
百年不遇的特大暴雪袭击华府过后，现在的街道上残留着成堆的雪泥，如此路况驾车，要是来个急转弯，可不够呛？但是过去几周，在华府商业区的IMF总部中，却发生了许多观念的转变。

Earlier this month the fund’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, questioned the focus of modern macroeconomic policy on keeping inflation low, arguing that central banks should aim at an inflation rate of 4%, rather than the conventional goal of 2%. Now a paper* by a group of IMF economists suggests that the fund has substantially rethought its position on the use of restrictions by emerging markets on capital inflows. It concludes that controls are sometimes “justified as part of the policy toolkit” for an economy seeking to deal with surging inflows.
这个月的早些时候，国际货币基金组织的首席经济学家Olivier Blanchard对现代宏观经济政策的重心——将通胀维持于低水平——提出了质疑，并认为中央银行应该将目标定在4%的通货膨胀率，而非作为传统目标的2%。如今，一篇报告——由IMF的一群经济学家撰写——这样认为，国际货币基金组织在关于新兴市场国家对资本入境的限制措施如何使用的问题上已经切实再三思考其立场。文章结论道，资本控制有时是一经济体政策工具组合中的合理一部分，它使该经济体摸索出如何去处理海量外资入境的方法。

This is surprising. The fund has historically opposed capital controls, even trying in 1997 to amend its articles of agreement to allow it explicitly to promote capital- account liberalisation. Its economists have argued both that capital controls are costly because they induce distortions to resource allocation and that they are not effective because they are easily evaded. But there is a contradiction between these arguments: if controls have no effect, how can they be distortionary?
这令人吃惊。从历史的角度来看，国际货币基金组织一贯反对资本控制，在1997年亚洲金融危机时，它甚至尝试修改该组织协议中的一些条款，好使其公开倡导资本性账户自由化。该组织中的许多经济学家一直认为资本控制代价高昂（因为这样做会导致资源分配扭曲）并且毫无效果可言（又因为可以轻易地避开资本控制）。但是上述观点中确有一矛盾之处，即：如果资本控制没有效果，那它们是怎样造成资源分配扭曲的呢？

The new paper provides some welcome clarity on the effectiveness of inflow controls. Its authors find that GDP fell less sharply during the financial crisis in countries that already had such policies in place. Prior research has shown that the maturity structure of a country’s external liabilities gets longer as a result of capital controls. The composition of inflows also seems to matter. Countries with a larger overall stock of debt had bigger credit booms and suffered bigger growth collapses during the crisis. So too did countries with more foreign direct investment (FDI) in the financial sector. Unlike other types of FDI, these flows contribute to debt growth because they include lending from parent banks to local subsidiaries. “The use of capital controls,” the fund’s economists write, “was associated with avoiding some of the worst growth outcomes.”
刚出炉的报告在外资控制是否有效的问题上提供了一些可喜的澄清。报告的作者们发现，资本控制政策到位的许多国家在金融危机期间，其GDP的缩减并不严重。先前的研究一直表明，由于资本控制，一国的外债到期结构可以延续较长的时间。外资的构成也显得十分重要。承担着更为庞大债务的国家会出现更大规模的信贷激增并且在经济危机期间蒙受更为巨大的增长崩溃。同样，金融领域中出现更多境外直接投资的一些国家也会产生类似的结果。与其他类型的境外投资不同，这种资金流入会助推债务的增长，因为这种资金流动包括总行（指外国银行的总行——Y版主注）向国外地方银行注资。“使用资本控制，”国际货币基金组织的经济学家们写道，“与避免一些最为严重的经济衰退后果有关”

The economists are also candid about situations in which capital controls may be needed. In the past the fund has urged countries facing surging capital inflows to allow their exchange rates to appreciate or to accumulate reserves. But exchange rates can overshoot, with consequences for the competitiveness of a country’s exports. And if reserves are adequate, then further accumulation is not optimal.
关于怎样的局面下需要采取资本控制，经济学家们也有清楚的交待。在过去，IMF常常敦促面临海量境外资金流入的国家要么升值本国货币，要么积累（本国货币）准备金。但是汇率工具用得过头，其结果是伤害本国的出口竞争力。接着，如果准备金充足，那么进一步增加（准备金）就不是最优选择。

If allowing exchange rates to adjust is not a viable option, the fund has typically advocated cutting interest rates to make the country less attractive to foreign funds. One reason for the resurgence in capital flows to emerging markets—which the Institute of International Finance, a financial-industry association, thinks will rise to $721.6 billion in 2010 from $435.2 billion last year—is the difference between their interest rates and the very low rates of the rich world. But some countries would risk overheating if they cut any further.
如果调整汇率政策不是一个可行的选择，那么IMF一般就会建议削减利率来使该国避免成为境外资金的垂涎之地。资金再次流入到新兴市场的原因之一——国际金融研究所，一家金融产业协会，认为流入（新兴市场的）资金额将会从去年的4352亿美元上升至2010年的7216亿美元——是富裕国家的利率呈超低之势而新兴市场则并非如此。但是，如果削减利率过了度，那么一些国家可能会出现经济过热。

The fund’s reconsideration of capital controls suggests that it is trying to adapt its advice to global economic realities. That is welcome. But the paper has little to say about what an effective and non-distortionary system would look like. Now that the IMF views controls on inflows more kindly, perhaps it could help countries to design them more cleverly.
国际货币基金组织对资本控制的再思考表明它正在力图使其建言同全球经济现状相适应。那值得称赞。但是这篇报告却对有效并且未被扭曲的（或“公正有效的”——译者注）系统是何等模样只字不提。既然IMF以更为赞许的态度看待“境外资金流入控制”，那么这或许有助于世界各国更为灵活地去规划它们的经济政策（控制资金流入政策——译者注）。

* “Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls” by Jonathan Ostry, Atish Ghosh, Karl Habermeier, Marcos Chamon, Mahvash Qureshi and Dennis Reinhart.

译者：intel英杰
如想与译者本人对该文进行切磋，请到如下链接：http://www.ecocn.org/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=31204