FT社评：IMF的有益反思

As far as intellectual shifts go, the U-turn by the International Monetary Fund on capital controls is remarkable. In the 1990s, the IMF came close to including the promotion of capital account liberalisation in its rule book. On Monday, after a thorough three-year review, the fund has accepted institutionally that direct controls can play a useful role in calming volatile, international capital flows.

国际货币基金组织(IMF)对资本管制立场的180度大转弯，称得上是一次非同寻常的思想转变。上世纪90年，IMF差点把推动资本账户放开纳入其规章。经过三年的全面评估之后，IMF本周一终于从制度层面上承认，直接资本管制可在缓和不稳定的国际资本流动方面发挥积极作用。

The past two decades of financial history show that the IMF is right to rethink its policy. Hasty liberalisations of the capital account were one of the reasons behind the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Meanwhile, an array of controls has helped China to avoid a financial meltdown, contributing to its impressive growth record. Recent research by the IMF has shown that those nations that used capital controls were among the least hard-hit during the 2007 crisis.

过去二十年的金融历史表明，IMF对其政策做出反思是正确的。资本账户仓促放开是上世纪90年代末亚洲金融危机的起因之一。与此同时，一系列管制措施帮助中国避免了金融崩溃，帮助其实现了令人瞩目的增长。IMF最近的研究表明，2007年金融危机期间，那些实施资本管制的国家受冲击程度最轻。

Indeed, the benefits of liberalisation of the capital account are largest for economies with a high degree of financial and institutional development. In the absence of deep markets, inflows of hot money can lead to the creation of asset bubbles. The lack of regulators may induce foreign institutions to take excessive risks. When outside investors withdraw their investments, the sudden reversal can result in a crisis.

实际上，资本账户放开的最大受益者，是那些金融和机构发展水平较高的经济体。如果市场容量不大，热钱流入可能会催生资产泡沫。如果监管缺位，可能会诱使外国机构采取过度冒险的行为。当外国投资者撤出他们的投资时，资本流动的突然反转可能会引发一场危机。

If there are good reasons to adopt capital controls, emerging economies should not treat them as a panacea. As the IMF rightly argues, the first line of defence against financial instability should always be more conventional macroeconomic tools. When an emerging market is facing a precipitate inflow of hot money, cutting the interest rate and tightening fiscal policy can be more effective than direct controls.

即使实施资本管制的理由很充分，新兴经济体也不应把它们当成万灵药。IMF正确地指出，预防金融不稳定的第一道防线始终应当是更为传统的宏观经济工具。当新兴市场经济体面临热钱迅猛流入时，降息和收紧财政政策可能比直接资本管制更有效。

This applies to the capital inflows which emerging markets are experiencing as a result of ultra-loose monetary conditions in the rich world. Officials such as Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, believe that capital controls are an effective way to respond to a “currency war. But these measures – which have a dangerously protectionist echo – have proved ineffective in the past.

这一结论适用于新兴市场经济体目前面对的、由富裕世界超宽松货币环境导致的资本流入。巴西财长吉多·曼特加(Guido Mantega)等官员相信，资本管制是应对“汇率战争的有效方式。但以往的事实已经证明，这些带有危险的保护主义色彩的措施是无效的。

Ultimately, countries should not turn their back on financial liberalisation. Foreign capital can foster competition in the financial sector and expand the availability of credit for both consumers and business. Governments should use controls, but only as a temporary shield while they implement useful reforms such as strengthening their banks and deepening their capital markets.

最后要指出的是，各国不应对金融自由化说不。外国资本可以促进金融领域的竞争，让消费者和企业都能更容易地获得信贷。各国政府应该采取资本管制，但只应将其用作临时屏障，与此同时，它们还应实施有用的改革，比如增强银行实力和扩大资本市场容量。