Garima Vasishtha

While quantitative easing (QE) in the United States likely increased capital flows to emerging-market economies (EMEs), putting upward pressure on asset prices and exchange rates, diverging fundamentals between advanced economies and EMEs were also important drivers. Evidence suggests that the benefits of QE to EMEs, in higher global demand and increased confidence, appear to outweigh the costs. When advanced economies begin to normalize monetary policy, the best defence for EMEs against any potential instability is likely to be further strengthening of their macroeconomic and financial policy frameworks.

Many emerging-market economies (EMEs) have significantly improved their macroeconomic fundamentals and undergone structural reforms since the Asian crisis. These developments have enhanced the composition of capital flows to EMEs through an improved debt structure, a larger share of capital flows as foreign direct investment, and greater access to international debt markets for corporations in EMEs. Structural changes in the global financial landscape have also increased capital flows, bringing economic and financial benefits to EMEs. During the recent financial crisis, however, the opening up of capital accounts and increased financial and trade linkages left many countries vulnerable to external disruptions. Countries with sound fundamentals have weathered the crisis relatively well. Policy-makers in EMEs need to implement policies that support capital flows and ensure that controls imposed to deal with detrimental outflows during periods of stress or rapid inflows are only temporary.