Abstract
Due to the recent financial crisis and ensuing sudden stop episodes, the question whether capital inflows are dominated by push or pull factors has become an extremely important policy question in small, open and integrated economies. The aim of this paper is to empirically measure, in a methodologically innovative manner, the extent to which the movement of capital inflows in the non-eurozone European Union new member states (EU NMS) has been determined by domestic and external factors and discuss potential consequences of such trends, thereby filling the existing literature gap, i.e. the lack of empirical papers that systematically model the temporal dynamics of capital flow determinants. The paper uses econometric methods, i.e. historical decomposition from a structural vector autoregression model, to examine the temporal dynamics of capital flow determinants and extract components of capital inflows in non-eurozone EU NMS that are influenced by domestic and foreign shocks separately. Econometric analysis confirmed the hypothesis that macroeconomic factors in the eurozone are becoming increasingly dominant determinants of capital inflows in EU NMS, especially after the EU accession, and proved that these trends can be connected to rising financial integration levels of analysed countries. Furthermore, results suggest that the rising influence of push factors can be connected with the higher volatility of capital inflows, thus making host countries more prone to sudden stop episodes. The paper uncovers several non-negligible macroeconomic risks of large capital inflows determined by push factors for domestic economic authorities in small integrated economies and points out the need to make efforts to strengthen the domestic financial and regulatory system to ensure the capability of these economies in efficiently managing capital inflows.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ötker-Robe et al. (2007) argued that domestic factors have had the dominant role in attracting foreign capital to these countries. However, the findings weren't supported by econometric analysis, and covered only the period until 2,005 when the effects of the EU membership on the levels of financial integration and capital mobility had not yet come into force. Hegerty (2009) employed an unrestricted VAR model and failed to reach a unified conclusion about the dominance of any group of factors, while Aristovnik (2008) focused more on the determinants of the current rather than the capital account. Jevčák et al. (2010) found proof of a significant influence of domestic and external factors, but did not measure their relative importance. Moreover, the external component of capital flows in their study was extracted using principal component analysis, which made it equal for all countries in the sample, thereby ignoring some country-specific factors that could either emphasize or mitigate the influence of external variables on capital flows. Finally, Atoyan et al. (2012) found evidence of the dominant influence of external factors, but their analysis was limited only to the pre-crisis period (2000–2007).
Croatia also joined the EU in July 2013, but has not been included in the sample since there are no data available for the post-accession period. Latvia joined the eurozone in January 2014, but the time span of the analysis includes only the pre-accession period.
The advantages of making the SVAR model as parsimonious as possible have been emphasized by Enders (2010).
The ADF test was used to determine the degree of integration of each variable (ADF test results are given in Sect. 3).
Explanatory power of each component in determining the variation of actual capital inflows has been tested by coefficients of determination from linear regression models where capital inflows had been regressed on the foreign or domestic component. The R 2s in all cases are practically identical to the correlation coefficients, and are not reported in order to save space.
In case of Bulgaria and Romania, around the period of official confirmation of EU accession.
Even in Poland the coefficient becomes statistically significant if the explanatory variable is the change in the volatility of the foreign component.
Christiano et al. (2003) showed that the estimated response of hours worked to a technology shock is positive when the former variable enters the VAR in levels. This is the opposite result from that obtained by Francis and Ramey (2005) who estimated the VAR with hours worked entering the model in first differences and got a negative response to a technology shock.
In Latvia, the share of the foreign component slightly decreases over time, but reaches a stable level at 80 % of variation in capital inflows, significantly higher than the domestic component.
For instance, Schmitz (2011) found proof that countries with more reformed and developed banking sectors receive significantly higher FDI inflows, the type of capital flows with highest beneficiary potential for host economies.
For more details on the construction of indices see Aizenman et al. (2010), also available from: http://web.pdx.edu/~ito/w14533.pdf [Accessed 4 February 2014].
References
Agénor PR (1998) The surge in capital flows: analysis of ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. Int J Financ Econ 3:39–57
Ahmed S, Park JH (1994) Sources of macroeconomic fluctuations in small open economies. J Macroecon 16(1):1–36
Ahmed S, Ickes BW, Wang P, Yoo BS (1993) International business cycles. Am Econ Rev 83(3):335–359
Aizenman J, Chinn MD, Ito H (2010) The emerging global financial architecture: tracing and evaluating the new patterns of the Trilemma’s configurations. J Int Money Financ 29(4):615–641
Aristovnik A (2008) Short-term determinants of current account deficits—evidence from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. East Eur Econ 46(1):24–42
Aristovnik A (2013) Twin deficits and the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle: a comparison of the EU member states and candidate countries. Actual Probl Econ 143(5):205–214
Atoyan R, Jaeger A, Smith D (2012) The pre-crisis capital flow surge to emerging Europe: did countercyclical fiscal policy make a difference? IMF working paper 12/222
Babetskii I, Komárek L, Komárková Z (2007) Financial Integration of Stock Markets among New EU Member States and the Euro Area. Financ úvěr Czech J Econ Financ 57(7–8):341–362
Baker S, Bloom N, Davis S (2013) Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Chicago booth research paper 13-02
Bayoumi T, Eichengreen B (1994) Macroeconomic adjustment under Bretton Woods and the post-Bretton Woods float: an impulse-responses analysis. Econ J 104(425):813–827
Blanchard O, Quah D (1989) The dynamic effects of aggregate supply and demand disturbances. Am Econ Rev 79(4):655–673
Byrne JP, Fiess N (2011) International capital flows to emerging and developing countries: national and global determinants. Discuss Pap Scott Inst Res Econ 3(2011–03). http://repo.sire.ac.uk/handle/10943/245
Calvo GA, Leiderman L, Reinhart CM (1993) Capital inflows and real exchange rate appreciation in Latin America. IMF Staff Pap 40(1):109–151
Calvo GA, Leiderman L, Reinhart CM (1996) Inflows of capital to developing countries in the 1990s. J Econ Perspect 10(2):123–139
Chinn MD, Ito H (2006) What matters for financial development? Capital controls, institutions, and interactions. J Dev Econ 81(1):163–192
Chinn MD, Ito H (2008) A new measure of financial openness. J Comp Policy Anal 10(3):309–322
Chinn MD, Ito H (2013) The Chinn–Ito index—a de jure measure of financial openness. http://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Chinn-Ito_website.htm. (Accessed 4 Feb 2014)
Christiano L, Eichenbaum M, Vigfusson R (2003) What happens after a technology shock? NBER working paper 9819
Chuhan P, Claessens S, Mamingi N (1993) Equity and bond flows to Asia and Latin America: the role of global and country factors. World Bank working paper series 1160
Clarida R, Gali J (1994) Sources of real exchange rate fluctuations: how important are nominal shocks? Carnegie–Rochester Conf Ser Public Policy 41:1–56
De Vita G, Kyaw KS (2008) Determinants of capital flows to developing countries: a structural VAR analysis. J Econ Stud 35(4):304–322
Doan TA (2013) RATS handbook for vector autoregressions. ftp://ftp.uic.edu/pub/depts/econ/hhstokes/e538/VAR_Material/VAR%20Workbook.pdf. (Accessed 17 Sept 2013)
Dooley MP, Fernández-Arias E, Kletzer KM (1996) Is the debt crisis history? Recent private capital inflows to developing countries. World Bank Econ Rev 10(1):27–50
Enders W (2010) Applied econometric time series. Wiley, Hoboken
Fernald JG (2007) Trend breaks, long-run restrictions, and contractionary technology improvements. J Monet Econ 54(8):2467–2485
Fernández-Arias E (1996) The new wave of private capital inflows: push or pull? J Dev Econ 48:389–418
Forbes KJ, Warnock FE (2011) Capital flow waves: surges, stops, flight, and retrenchment. NBER working paper 17351
Francis N, Ramey VA (2005) Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead? Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited. J Monet Econ 52(8):1379–1399
Fratzscher M (2012) Capital flows, push versus pull factors and the global financial crisis. J Int Econ 88(2):341–356
Galí J (1999) Technology, employment, and the business cycle: do technology shocks explain aggregate fluctuations? Am Econ Rev 89(1):249–271
Gavin M, Hausmann R, Leiderman L (1995) The macroeconomics of capital flows to Latin America: experience and policy issues. Int-Am development bank working paper 310
Glick R, Rogoff K (1995) Global versus country-specific productivity shocks and the current account. J Monet Econ 35(1):159–192
Hegerty SW (2009) Capital flows to transition economies: what is the role of external shocks? Econ Bull 29(2):1345–1358
Hernández L, Mellado P, Valdés R (2001) Determinants of private capital flows in the 1970s and 1990s: is there evidence of contagion? IMF working paper 01/64
International Monetary Fund (2011) World economic outlook April 2011. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC
International Monetary Fund (2012) The liberalization and management of capital flows: an institutional view. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC
Jevčák A, Setzer R, Suardi M (2010) Determinants of capital flows to the new EU member states before and during the financial crisis. European Commission economic paper 425
Kalemli-Ozcan S, Reshef A, Sørensen BE, Yosha O (2006) why does capital flow to rich states? CEPR discuss paper 5635
Ketenci N (2012) The Feldstein–Horioka puzzle and structural breaks: evidence from EU members. Econ Model 29(2):262–270
Kim Y (1996) Income effects on the trade balance. Rev Stat Econ 78(3):464–469
Kim Y (2000) Causes of capital flows in developing countries. J Int Money Financ 19:235–253
Kučerová Z (2009) Measuring financial integration in Central Europe through international investment positions. East Eur Econ 47(4):25–41
Lane PR, Milesi-Ferretti GM (2007) Capital flows to central and Eastern Europe. Emerg Mark Rev 8(2):106–123
Lütkepohl H (2011) Vector autoregressive models. European University Institute, Florence
Mody A, Taylor MP, Kim JY (2001) Modelling fundamentals for forecasting capital flows to emerging markets. Int J Financ Econ 6:201–216
Montiel PJ, Reinhart C (1999) Do capital controls and macroeconomic policies influence the volume and composition of capital flows? Evidence from the 1990s. J Int Money Financ 18:619–635
Ötker-Robe I, Polański Z, Topf B, Vávra D (2007) Coping with capital inflows: experiences of selected european countries. IMF working paper 190
Schmitz M (2011) Financial reforms and capital flows to emerging Europe. Empirica 38:579–605
Syllignakis MN, Kouretas GP (2010) German, US and Central and Eastern European stock market integration. Open Econ Rev 21(4):607–628
Taylor MP, Sarno L (1997) Capital flows to developing countries: long- and short-term determinants. World Bank Econ Rev 11(3):451–470
Wagner H, Berger W (2004) Globalization, financial volatility and monetary policy. Empirica 31:163–184
Ying YH, Kim Y (2001) An empirical analysis on capital flows: the case of Korea and Mexico. South Econ J 67(4):954–968
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
The conventional economic theory implies that policy makers cannot achieve the three following objectives simultaneously—a stable exchange rate, no capital controls, and independent monetary policy—thus facing the monetary policy trilemma, i.e. the impossible trinity. Consequently, if the government wants to fully accomplish two objectives of the impossible trinity, the third one must completely give up. If this restriction is quantified in a way that the achievement of each of the three objectives is labelled with separate indices, such that each index assumes a value between 0 and 1 (where 1 indicates the full realisation of each objective, and 0 the complete lack of its realisation), it could be derived from the theory of the trilemma that the sum of three indices should be approximately equal to 2.
Aizenman et al. (2010) created the trilemma indices which quantify the extent to which countries achieve each of the three objectives of the impossible trinity.Footnote 12 The deviation of the sum of trilemma indices from theoretically assumed values, marked as DEV t :
where EXR t indicates the exchange rate stability index, SOV t monetary sovereignty index, and OPN t financial openness index, should in theory, if a country is fully financially integrated and capital is perfectly mobile, be equal to or near 0.
However, the aforementioned deviation has very rarely been equal to theoretically assumed values in case of EU NMS (Fig. 11), indicating that capital mobility in these countries is not perfect and that they are not fully financially integrated. In such terms, capital flows will not be motivated solely by the movement of interest rates and by the maximisation of the portfolio profitability. Instead, factors like risk aversion, animal spirits and boom-bust cycles in source countries will have a more pronounced impact on capital flows volatility, which makes it possible to achieve more than only two goals of the trilemma. The differences in average values of DEV t across countries indicate differences in their levels of financial integration.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Globan, T. Financial integration, push factors and volatility of capital flows: evidence from EU new member states. Empirica 42, 643–672 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-014-9270-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-014-9270-2