International financial stability: what should be done?
Looking at the next decade, a number of different developments in the international financial system are possible.
Capital markets could go through a process of progressive and partial fragmentation: no significant capital account opening would occur in many parts of the world. Conversely, new barriers could be erected either in the form of "soft" capital controls or through national regulations forcing financial institutions to ring‐fence local pools of capital and liquidity. There would be little convergence in domestic financial systems and regulations. Foreign exchange reserves would keep growing, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of world GDP.
This scenario may be seen as the only realistic response to increased diversity in a multipolar world.
The systemic consequences, however, are not clear. In such a world, current account imbalances would be heavily influenced by public actions and policies. Regulatory competition would determine the location of financial activities and the allocation of savings. In the absence of some “rules of the game”, tensions would naturally arise between countries regarding many aspects of their domestic and international macroeconomic policies.
The opposite scenario would involve the progressive opening of all capital accounts, together with some (more or less intensive) convergence in financial systems and regulations. This would allow for the emergence of a unified world capital market, an efficient allocation of savings across countries and a smooth financing of current account imbalances. Experience shows, however, that an open international financial system is not inherently stable and, therefore, very dependent on strong infrastructure.
Two elements of such an infrastructure seem especially important:
· First, countries could come to a common understanding about the core elements and principles governing their financial markets development and regulations. Full harmonisation is neither desirable nor feasible. But policy‐induced divergences may prove very destabilising and lead to a reduction in welfare. It should be possible to agree on the core principles governing, for instance, capital account regimes, the treatment and resolution of internationally‐active financial institutions, deposit insurance, and the organization and functioning of securities markets. Divergences in financial development are a fact of life. Some of them reflect true social choices and preferences that must be respected and accommodated. Others result from deliberate or inadvertent policy‐induced distortions, which should have been reduced or eliminated. Disentangling these two sources of divergences in financial development should be a priority in the international agenda.
· Second, the search for an efficient and powerful "financial safety net" should be pursued. Stabilising the demand for international reserves would bring huge benefits in terms of world welfare. At present, reserve accumulation can only occur through a conjunction of balance of payment surplus and some degree of exchange rate intervention. In addition, if sterilisation proves difficult or impossible, it also leads to unwanted changes in monetary policy. Precautionary reserve accumulation, however legitimate, unavoidably creates side effects for domestic macro policies as well as spillover effects on other countries. All countries, therefore have a common interest in finding ways to disconnect reserve accumulation from exchange rate management and, more generally, from balance of payment situations and monetary policies.
He concluded by saying that after the financial crisis, "business as usual" is not an option.
© Banque de France
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article