Myth, Sin and Redemption in Capital Account Liberalisation

The Fund's argument that capital account liberalisation in developing countries might appeal for justification to the recognised gains from free trade in goods and services was seriously undermined by the Asian financial crisis. Perhaps the most remarkable critique in view of his pre‐eminence in the development of international trade theory and policy was a short paper by Jagdish Bhagwati in which the Fund's parallel was described as a ‘myth’. Taking up the argument he advanced, this article explores further the underlying weakness of the Fund's case. Jagdish emphasised the discrepancy between the nebulous long‐term benefits from capital flow liberalisation and the painful consequences of the crises that they had recently occasioned. The relevance of the ‘original sin’ hypothesis in determining the magnitude of these costs is therefore discussed here with attention drawn to country inability to borrow readily in their own currencies as a reason for their acute exposure to exchange rate speculation. ‘Redemption’ for borrowers is then sought through an identification of sources of genuine comparative advantage in financial trade. Net flows of finance are not required for the realisation of these gains and a final section argues that there should be no presumption that net transfers improve welfare – just as Jagdish claimed.