The succession of crises in the 1990s—Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, Russia, and Brazil—suggested to some that financial crises are a direct and inevitable result of globalization. Indeed one question that arises in both advanced and emerging market economies is whether globalization makes economic management more difficult.
Does globalization reduce national sovereignty in economic policy-making?
Does increased integration, particularly in the financial sphere make it more difficult for governments to manage economic activity, for instance by limiting governments’ choices of tax rates and tax systems, or their freedom of action on monetary or exchange rate policies? If it is assumed that countries aim to achieve sustainable growth, low inflation and social progress, then the evidence of the past 50 years is that globalization contributes to these objectives in the long term.
In the short-term, as we have seen in the past few years, volatile short-term capital flows can threaten macroeconomic stability. Thus in a world of integrated financial markets, countries will find it increasingly risky to follow policies that do not promote financial stability. This discipline also applies to the private sector, which will find it more difficult to implement wage increases and price markups that would make the country concerned become uncompetitive.
But there is another kind of risk. Sometimes investors—particularly short-term investors—take too sanguine a view of a country’s prospects and capital inflows may continue even when economic policies have become too relaxed. This exposes the country to the risk that when perceptions change, there may be a sudden brutal withdrawal of capital from the country.
In short, globalization does not reduce national sovereignty. It does create a strong incentive for governments to pursue sound economic policies. It should create incentives for the private sector to undertake careful analysis of risk. However, short-term investment flows may be excessively volatile.
Efforts to increase the stability of international capital flows are central to the ongoing work on strengthening the international financial architecture. In this regard, some are concerned that globalization leads to the abolition of rules or constraints on business activities. To the contrary—one of the key goals of the work on the international financial architecture is to develop standards and codes that are based on internationally accepted principles that can be implemented in many different national settings.
Clearly the crises would not have developed as they did without exposure to global capital markets. But nor could these countries have achieved their impressive growth records without those financial flows.
These were complex crises, resulting from an interaction of shortcomings in national policy and the international financial system. Individual governments and the international community as a whole are taking steps to reduce the risk of such crises in future.
At the national level, even though several of the countries had impressive records of economic performance, they were not fully prepared to withstand the potential shocks that could come through the international markets. Macroeconomic stability, financial soundness, open economies, transparency, and good governance are all essential for countries participating in the global markets. Each of the countries came up short in one or more respects.
At the international level, several important lines of defense against crisis were breached. Investors did not appraise risks adequately. Regulators and supervisors in the major financial centers did not monitor developments sufficiently closely. And not enough information was available about some international investors, notably offshore financial institutions. The result was that markets were prone to "herd behavior"— sudden shifts of investor sentiment and the rapid movement of capital, especially short-term finance, into and out of countries.
The international community is responding to the global dimensions of the crisis through a continuing effort to strengthen the architecture of the international monetary and financial system. The broad aim is for markets to operate with more transparency, equity, and efficiency. The IMF has a central role in this process, which is explored further in separate fact sheets