Der IWF gibt überraschend seinen Widerstand gegen Kapitalverkehrskontrollen auf. Diese sollen dazu dienen, Kapitalflüsse einzudämmen, die schwachen Wirtschaften gefährlich werden könnten. Warnungen bestehen allerdings weiterhin, dass solche Kontrollen transparent und zielgerichtet ablaufen müssten, heißt es in einem neuen Bericht des IWF.
Die Eckpunkte des Papiers:
Capital flows can have substantial benefits for countries, including by enhancing efficiency, promoting financial sector competitiveness, and facilitating greater productive investment and consumption smoothing.
At the same time, capital flows also carry risks, which can be magnified by gaps in countries‘ financial and institutional infrastructure.
Capital flow liberalization is generally more beneficial and less risky if countries have reached certain levels or ―thresholds‖ of financial and institutional development. In turn, liberalization can spur financial and institutional development.
Liberalization needs to be well planned, timed, and sequenced in order to ensure that its benefits outweigh the costs, as it could have significant domestic and multilateral effects. Countries with extensive and long-standing measures to limit capital flows are likely to benefit from further liberalization in an orderly manner. There is, however, no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times.
Rapid capital inflow surges or disruptive outflows can create policy challenges. Appropriate policy responses comprise a range of measures, and involve both countries that are recipients of capital flows and those from which flows originate. For countries that have to manage the macroeconomic and financial stability risks associated with inflow surges or disruptive outflows, a key role needs to be played by macroeconomic policies, including monetary, fiscal, and exchange rate management, as well as by sound financial supervision and regulation and strong institutions. In certain circumstances, capital flow management measures can be useful. They should not, however, substitute for warranted macroeconomic adjustment.
Policymakers in all countries, including countries that generate large capital flows, should take into account how their policies may affect global economic and financial stability. Cross-border coordination of policies would help to mitigate the riskiness of capital flows.
The Fund is well-placed to provide relevant advice and assessments to its members in close cooperation with country authorities and other international organizations. This paper clarifies the trade-offs between policy options for dealing with capital flows, harnessing the benefits of capital mobility, and addressing the implications of capital flow management for global economic and financial stability.
The proposed view will guide Fund advice to members and, where relevant, Fund assessments in the context of surveillance. It does not, however, alter members‘ rights and obligations as this would require an amendment of the Articles of Agreement. Members‘ rights and obligations under other international agreements also remain unaffected.
Der IWF war in den neunziger Jahren ein starker Verfechter von Marktliberalisierungen und freiem Fluss von Kapital.
In dem zitierten Bericht heißt es jedoch, dass „Liberalisierungen gut geplant sein müssten, damit sichergestellt werden kann, dass die Nutzen die Kosten überwiegen“. Es werde nicht angenommen, dass „komplette Liberalisierung jederzeit ein adäquates Mittel für alle Länder“ sei.
Das Beispiel der EU zeige die Gefahr von freiem Kapitalverkehr bei gleichzeitigem Fehlen von Regeln für das Finanzsystem.