Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • Latest Stories
  • Markets Map
  • Trends and Sentiments
  • Leading Topics
  • News Search
  • Comments and Analysis

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • About Us
  • Tesla Week: Model 3 To 6,000 Per Week -- Or 'Head...
  • VVP's Stratton Sclavos Says Esports Leagues Are...
  • This REIT Has An Attractive 8% Dividend Yield, But Wait...
  • Michael Bloomberg to write $4.5 million check for Paris...
  • Trump: US has not 'given up anything' in North...
  • Sulzer shows how to avoid Russian sanctions
  • EU to boost protection for corporate whistleblowers
  • G7 meeting to discuss Iran, North Korea and Syria - U.S....
  • Libya examines Total-Marathon purchase, casting doubt on...
  • These are all the fighter jets in the US Air Force

    Coordinated Capital Controls: A Further Elaboration

    Sun, 11/29/2009 - 06:56 EDT - Baseline Scenario - The Blog
    • Arvind Subramanian
    • capital controls
    • commentary
    • Comments

    This guest post is by Arvind Subramanian, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.  His recent proposal that countries consider coordinated capital controls has stimulated a great deal of discussion, and here he explains how discouraging capital flows relates to arguments about the attractiveness of a Tobin-type tax. 
    Paul Krugman, in his Friday column for the New York Times, endorsed a tax on financial transactions, proposed recently by Adair Turner, Britain’s top financial regulator.  It is important to distinguish this Turner proposal from the original Tobin tax on international flows and these two taxes in turn from the kind of coordinated capital controls I proposed in this blog post two weeks ago.
    Tobin’s original idea was to discourage speculation by taxing flows of international capital.  The Turner variant is to tax all financial transactions, domestic and international.  What they have in common is that both are seen as structural measures to be applied regardless of the state of the macroeconomic cycle.
    In contrast, the capital controls that are now being proposed are more in the spirit of “macroprudential” measures, to be taken in response to surges in international capital flows (and not to steady and permanent flows) to emerging markets that have the potential of creating bubbles in asset prices, including exchange rates.  Such measures are therefore intended to be taken during the upswing of the cycle and not at all times.
    The case for a number of emerging market countries coordinating such measures under the auspices of the G-20 is to avoid the stigma of being labeled market-unfriendly, a stigma that is a consequence of the strong—but misguided—belief system that all foreign capital in all quantities is always good.  This is important because the magnitude of the tax that emerging market countries may need to impose could be substantial in magnitude and not-so-short-term in duration. Effectively deterring inflows would require a tax that has to substantially narrow the return differentials that drives flows in the first place.  With near zero interest rates in the US, these differentials could be as high as 5-7 percent for a typical emerging market country and could persist because the US Fed is likely to keep rates low for some time.  Few countries would be willing, on their own, to risk imposing such “drastic” measures.
    A second argument for coordination is that if only a few countries threw “sand in the wheels” (to use Tobin’s famous phrase) of international finance, the flows could simply be diverted to other emerging market destinations, aggravating the problem for them.
    Clearly the magnitude and type of action should vary across countries depending on their macroeconomic situation and the alternative policy choices available to them: for example, if capital inflows are creating a housing bubble, then one country may be able simply to take prudential measures such as higher provisioning requirements for real estate lending but another may have to stop or moderate the flows in the first place.
    But a third argument for coordination is that the magnitude of the tax that any one country imposes will also depend on actions taken by other emerging markets. For example, the more China persists with its exchange rate policy, the less willing other emerging market countries will be to allow their currencies to appreciate, and therefore the stronger the brakes that they may have to apply.  Coordination will also serve as an accountability mechanism for emerging market countries. To prevent indiscriminate controls, countries should be able to justify their actions to each other. For example, Korea may have less basis for applying taxes than say Brazil, whose currency has appreciated more significantly.  
    Fourth, an important risk with taxing inflows is that it simply leads to the tax or restriction being evaded (through under or over-invoicing of trade) or to transactions shifting offshore.  Coordination, including the cooperation of industrial country jurisdictions to which these transactions could shift, could then become a way of minimizing this risk (it can never really be eliminated) of such circumvention of controls.  The possibility of evasion or circumvention of restrictions on inflows cannot in itself be decisive in rejecting restrictions. We do not abandon levying income or other taxes just because they can be evaded, we just design and implement them in a manner that maximizes their impact while minimizing the risks of evasion.   
    Paul Krugman noted in his column that United States officials are dead set against the financial transactions tax. For the same reason, they are likely to oppose actions by emerging market countries to impose and coordinate controls on foreign flows. Another test for the G-20 looms. If it, and the old G-7 within it, can respond to emerging market concerns we can be hopeful. Otherwise, it will just be the G-7 (plus who?) all over again.
    By Arvind Subramanian

    • Original article
    • Login to post comments
     

    Related

    • Time For Coordinated Capital Account Controls?

    • Stuck on Tobin again

      UNVEILING the European Union budget for 2014 to 2020 yesterday, the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, pleaded with member states not to react in a Pavlovian manner to proposed spending increases. Surveying this morning’s British newspapers, Mr Barroso will be disappointed. The budget has received a predictably hostile response.

    • Guest Post: Interpreting The Indian Election

      This guest post was contributed by Arvind Subramanian, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.  He notes two surprises in the outcome of India’s recently concluded election and suggests that India offers an alternative model of development for much of the world.

    • Europeans move towards watered-down 'Tobin' tax

      Milan (AFP) - European finance ministers struggled to agree a long promised financial transaction tax on Saturday, with Germany urging a watered-down version amid resistance from France, eager to protect its lucrative derivatives trading sector.

    • Olivier Blanchard Speaks Delphicly on Managing International Capital Flows

      Olivier Blanchard writes: Olivier Blanchard: Monetary Policy Will Never Be the Same: Finally, turning to capital flows. In emerging markets (and, more generally, in small advanced economies, although these were not explicitly covered at the conference), the evidence suggests the best way to deal with volatile capital flows is by letting the exchange rate absorb most but not necessarily all the adjustment.

    • Olivier Blanchard: Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy

      Olivier Blanchard: Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy: Rethinking and reforms are both taking place.  But we still do not know the final destination, be it for the redefinition of monetary policy, or the contours of financial regulation, or the role of macroprudential tools. We have a general sense of direction, but we are largely navigating by sight. I shall take six examples….

    • Guest Post: Hayek vs Krugman – Cyprus’ Capital Controls

      Submitted by Steve Hanke, Professor of Applied Economics, The Johns Hopkins University Hayek v. Krugman – Cyprus’ Capital Controls

    • Peterson's Subramanian Says US, India FTA `While Away': Video

    • The Future of Finance: International Edition

      By Simon Johnson Bankers and hedge fund managers are fond of saying, “if you place restrictions on our activities in New York, we’ll just move elsewhere – like London.”  This makes attitudes towards the financial sector in other countries – particularly the UK – highly relevant for American public policy debate on this issue.  Is it the case that the new found skepticism about modern finance and its effects on the real economy is confined to the United States?  Or is there a broader shift in thinking around the world, including in other leading financial centers?

    Latest

    This venture capitalist throws the most exclusive and outrageous parties in Silicon Valley — take a look inside
    This venture capitalist throws the most exclusive...
    North Korea nukes and Russia tension set to top Toronto G7 foreign ministers’ talks
    North Korea nukes and Russia tension set to top...

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 2579.37 0.16% FTSE: 7487.96 -0.07% Nikk.: 22420.08 1.82% DAX: 13465.51 1.75% HSI: 28594.06 1.22% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1401 USD/EUR: 1.1618 JPY/USD: 114.1510 Commodities: Gold: 1276.1000

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • About Us