Using empirical analysis, complemented with case studies, this paper studies under which circumstances IMF programs manage to catalyze private capital flows into the countries concerned. While we found no catalysis in general, the situation differs very much depending on the type of capital flow and the program's objective. On the first, the Fund seems to be doing a better job at attracting FDI than shorter-term flows, particularly cross-border bank lending. On the second, programs oriented towards crisis prevention or with longer-term objectives, also perform better in terms of catalysis. In turn, programs oriented towards crisis resolution actually discourage private capital flows. This worrisome finding, given the importance of crisis resolution for the Fund, is mitigated for FDI inflows in the case studies analysed.Finally, all case studies point to the role of conditionality –as opposed to signalling and liquidity– as the strongest channel through which IMF catalyzes private flows.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (María D. González. Electronic Dissemination of Information Unit. Research Department. Banco de España).
Find related papers by JEL classification: F32 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Current Account Adjustment; Short-term Capital Movements F33 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions F34 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - International Lending and Debt Problems
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: