Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2024, Vol. 528 Issue (6): 1-19    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
全球金融周期、宏观审慎政策和跨境资本流动——兼论“三元悖论”和“二元悖论”之争
虞梦微, 谭小芬, 宋佳馨
浙江工商大学金融学院, 浙江杭州 310018;
北京航空航天大学经济管理学院, 北京 100191;
首都经济贸易大学金融学院, 北京 100070
The Global Financial Cycle, Macroprudential Policies and Cross-border Capital Flows: With an analysis of the “Trilemma” and the “Dilemma” Debate
YU Mengwei, TAN Xiaofen, SONG Jiaxin
School of Finance, Zhejiang Gongshang University;
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University;
School of Finance, Capital University of Economics and Business
下载:  PDF (1492KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 在全球金融周期的驱动下,跨境资本流动呈现明显的顺周期性波动,资本的大进大出会影响经济金融稳定。本文通过构建开放经济动态随机一般均衡模型,并结合实证研究,分析宏观审慎政策平滑全球金融周期引致的资本流入顺周期性波动及其机制和效果。研究发现,宏观审慎政策可以平滑全球金融周期驱动下资本流入的顺周期性波动,并且,对债权型资本流入顺周期波动的平滑效果优于对股权型资本流入顺周期波动的平滑效果。异质性分析表明,外部风险敞口越大、抵御外部风险能力越弱、内部脆弱性越明显,以及汇率制度越缺乏弹性的经济体,实施宏观审慎政策的缓冲效果越好。基于在险资本流动(CFaR)框架的进一步研究发现,宏观审慎政策的缓冲作用因汇率制度类型和跨境资本流动分布而有所差异。本文可为相关部门选择合适的宏观审慎政策工具应对外部输入性金融风险提供有益参考。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
虞梦微
谭小芬
宋佳馨
关键词:  全球金融周期  宏观审慎政策  跨境资本流动  三元悖论    
Summary:  As global financial integration deepens, the financial conditions of various countries exhibit significant cross-border co-movements, known as the “global financial cycle”. As a critical transmission channel of the global financial cycle, cross-border capital flows display a marked procyclicality. If a recipient country's capital flows are highly procyclical with respect to the global financial cycle, they can form a positive feedback loop with the domestic financial system, becoming part of the financial accelerator and increasing the vulnerability of the financial system. Given that the intermediate targets of macroprudential policies are to mitigate the procyclical feedback of domestic financial cycle variables such as asset prices, credit, and leverage, and that these variables are also key components of the positive feedback loop in the transmission of the global financial cycle, theoretically, macroprudential policies should be able to weaken the procyclical feedback of capital flows to the global financial cycle.
This paper constructs an open economy dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model and combines it with empirical research to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the main mechanisms through which macroprudential policies smooth global financial cycle shocks. It compares the mechanisms of macroprudential policies on different types of cross-border capital inflows and analyzes the heterogeneous effects of these policies. The study finds that macroprudential policies can reduce the procyclical impact of the global financial cycle on capital inflows and that the buffering effect on the procyclicality of debt-type capital inflows is superior to that on equity-type capital inflows. The analysis of policy effectiveness heterogeneity indicates that economies with higher external risk exposure (higher financial development, greater capital account openness, higher financial integration, greater pegging to the dollar, and more foreign currency-denominated external debt), lower capacity to withstand external risks (weaker global financial safety net, lower foreign exchange reserves), more pronounced internal vulnerabilities (higher macro leverage levels in the non-financial corporate sector, public sector, and household sector), and fixed exchange rate regimes benefit more from the buffering effects of macroprudential policies against global financial cycle shocks.
Furthermore, considering that the global financial cycle is often accompanied by the debate on whether the “trilemma” has transformed into a “dilemma”, this paper further investigates the dynamic response of cross-border capital flows distribution to global financial cycle shocks using the Capital Flows-at-Risk (CFaR) framework. It particularly focuses on the dynamic effects of the floating exchange rate regime in isolating external shocks under the tail risks of capital flows. The paper finds that when capital inflows are at a low level, the floating exchange rate regime can act as a buffer and completely isolate external shocks, which is consistent with the “trilemma”. However, when capital inflows are at median and high levels, although the floating exchange rate regime experiences the least shocks compared to intermediate and fixed exchange rate regimes, it cannot completely isolate external shocks, which aligns with the “dilemma” to some extent.
The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, the existing literature rarely examines the role of macroprudential policies in preventing the procyclical risks of cross-border capital flows induced by the global financial cycle, and this paper provides a detailed and in-depth heterogeneous analysis of the effectiveness of macroprudential policies. Given that policy implementation needs to be tailored to the national context, there are no universal policy tools. Therefore, the heterogeneous analysis of policy effectiveness in this paper can provide policy insights for countries to respond to global financial cycle shocks in a context-specific manner.
Second, while existing research extensively discusses how macroprudential policies affect cross-border capital flows and economic fluctuations in open economy macro models, theoretical literature primarily focuses on debt-type capital inflows. This paper's theoretical model, however, encompasses both debt-type and equity-type capital inflows within a unified framework. Additionally, when characterizing the decision-making behavior of the financial intermediary sector, existing studies either focus on financial accelerator frictions arising from information asymmetry in lending activities between financial institutions and enterprises or emphasize financial frictions stemming from balance sheet constraints within financial institutions. This paper's theoretical model encompasses both types of financial frictions, providing a reference framework for evaluating the effects of macroprudential policies in an open economy.
Third, from a novel perspective of capital flow distribution, this paper offers a unified and intrinsically consistent explanation for the “trilemma” and “dilemma” debate. It complements the literature related to the “trilemma” and “dilemma” debate by showing that the insulating effect of the floating exchange rate regime varies with the distribution of capital flows. Moreover, this paper explores how the buffering effects of macroprudential policies vary with exchange rate regimes and the distribution of cross-border capital flows within the CFaR framework, a topic that has been scarcely addressed in existing literature.
Keywords:  Global Financial Cycle    Macroprudential Policy    Cross-Border Capital Flows    Trilemma
JEL分类号:  F32   F33   F41  
基金资助: * 感谢国家社科基金重大项目(20&ZD101,22&ZD120)、教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(23YJC790181)、首都经济贸易大学新入职青年教师科研启动基金(XRZ2024032)的资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  宋佳馨,经济学博士,讲师,首都经济贸易大学金融学院,E-mail: jiaxin.song@cueb.edu.cn.   
作者简介:  虞梦微,经济学博士,讲师,浙江工商大学金融学院,E-mail: cayla1@126.com.
谭小芬,经济学博士,教授,北京航空航天大学经济管理学院,E-mail: xiaofent@163.com.
引用本文:    
虞梦微, 谭小芬, 宋佳馨. 全球金融周期、宏观审慎政策和跨境资本流动——兼论“三元悖论”和“二元悖论”之争[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 528(6): 1-19.
YU Mengwei, TAN Xiaofen, SONG Jiaxin. The Global Financial Cycle, Macroprudential Policies and Cross-border Capital Flows: With an analysis of the “Trilemma” and the “Dilemma” Debate. Journal of Financial Research, 2024, 528(6): 1-19.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2024/V528/I6/1
[1] 苟琴、耿亚莹和谭小芬,2022,《跨境资本涌入与非金融企业杠杆率》,《世界经济》第4期,第54~79页。
[2] 马勇和姚驰,2022,《外生冲击下双支柱调控框架的稳定效应——理论建模及基于全球样本的实证检验》,《中国工业经济》第12期,第14~32页。
[3] 毛其淋和钟一鸣,2023,《出口多元化如何影响企业产能利用率?——来自中国制造业的微观证据》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第5期,第113~135页。
[4] 彭红枫和祝小全,2019,《短期资本流动的多重动机和冲击:基于TVP-VAR模型的动态分析》,《经济研究》第8期,第36~52页。
[5] 谭小芬和虞梦微,2021,《全球金融周期与跨境资本流动》,《金融研究》第10期,第22~39页。
[6] 吴迪、张楚然和侯成琪,2022,《住房价格、金融稳定与宏观审慎政策》,《金融研究》第7期,第57~75页。
[7] Alam, Z., A. Alter, J. Elseman, G. Gelos, H. Kang, M. Narita, E. Nier and N. Wang, 2019, “Digging Deeper—Evidence on the Effects of Macroprudential Policies from a New Database”, IMF Working Papers, No.19/66.
[8] Benetrix, A., D. Gautam, L. Juvenal and M. Schmitz, 2019, “Cross-Border Currency Exposures”, IMF Working Papers, No. 19/299.
[9] Bernanke, B. S., M. Gertler and S. Gilchrist, 1999, “The Financial Accelerator in a Quantitative Business Cycle Framework”, in Handbook of Macroeconomics, Eds. by J. B. Taylor and M. Woodford, pp. 1341~1393.
[10] Bordo, M. D., A. F. Cavallo and C. M. Meissner, 2010, “Sudden Stops: Determinants and Output Effects in the First Era of Globalization, 1880-1913”, Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), pp. 227~241.
[11] Brandao-Marques, L., G. Gelos, M. Narita and E. Nier, 2020, “Leaning Against the Wind: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for an Integrated Policy Framework”, IMF Working Papers, No. 20/213.
[12] Bruno, V. and H. S. Shin, 2015, “Cross-Border Banking and Global Liquidity”, Review of Economic Studies, 82(2), pp. 535~564.
[13] Cerutti, E., S. Claessens and L. Laeven, 2017, “The Use and Effectiveness of Macroprudential Policies: New Evidence”, Journal of Financial Stability, 28, pp. 203~224.
[14] Céspedes, L. F., C. Roberto and V. Andres, 2004, “Balance Sheets and Exchange Rate Policy”, American Economic Review, 94(4), pp. 1183~1193.
[15] Chinn, M. D. and H. Ito, 2005, “What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls, Institutions, and Interactions”, Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), pp. 163~192.
[16] Christensen, I. and A. Dib, 2008, “The Financial Accelerator in an Estimated New Keynesian Model”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 11(1), pp. 155~178.
[17] Devereux, M. B., P. R. Lane and J. Xu, 2006, “Exchange Rates and Monetary Policy in Emerging Market Economies”, Economic Journal, 116(511), pp. 478~506.
[18] Eichenbaum, M. S., B. K. Johannsen and S. T. Rebelo, 2021, “Monetary Policy and the Predictability of Nominal Exchange Rates”, Review of Economic Studies, 88(1), pp. 192~228.
[19] Gelos, G., L. Gornicka, R. Koepke, R. Sahay and S. Sgherri, 2022, “Capital Flows at Risk: Taming the Ebbs and Flows”, Journal of International Economics, 134, 103555.
[20] Gertler, M. and P. Karadi, 2011, “A Model of Unconventional Monetary Policy”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 58(1), pp. 17~34.
[21] Gygli, S., F. Haelg, N. Potrafke and J. E. Sturm, 2019, “The KOF Globalisation Index-Revisited”, Review of International Organizations, 14(3), pp. 543~574.
[22] Iacoviello, M., 2015, “Financial Business Cycles”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 18(1), pp. 140~163.
[23] Iacoviello, M. and G. Navarro, 2019, “Foreign Effects of Higher U.S. Interest Rates”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 95, pp. 232~250.
[24] Melecky, M. and A. M. Podpiera, 2013, “Institutional Structures of Financial Sector Supervision, Their Drivers and Historical Benchmarks”, Journal of Financial Stability, 9(3), pp. 428~444.
[25] Mbaye, S., M. Moreno Badia and K. Chae, 2018, “Global Debt Database: Methodology and Sources”, IMF Working Papers, No. 18/111.
[26] Miranda-Agrippino, S. and H. Rey, 2020, “U.S. Monetary Policy and the Global Financial Cycle”, Review of Economic Studies, 87(6), pp. 2754~2776.
[27] Obstfeld, M., J. D. Ostry and M. S. Qureshi, 2019, “A Tie That Binds: Revisiting the Trilemma in Emerging Market Economies”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(2), pp. 279~293.
[28] Rey, H., 2013, “Dilemma not Trilemma: The Global Financial Cycle and Monetary Policy Independence”, in Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Jackson Hole Economic Symposium Proceedings, pp. 285~333.
[29] Scheubel, B. and L. Stracca, 2016, “What Do We Know About the Global Financial Safety Net? Rationale, Data and Possible Evolution”, ECB Working Papers, No. 2179.
[30] Svirydzenka, K., 2016, “Introducing a New Broad-Based Index of Financial Development”, IMF Working Papers, No. 16/5.
[31] Unsal, D. F., 2013, “Capital Flows and Financial Stability: Monetary Policy and Macroprudential Responses”, International Journal of Central Banking, 9(1), pp. 233~284.
[1] 梅冬州, 宋佳馨, 马振宇. 美联储货币政策紧缩的跨国异质性影响研究[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 517(7): 1-20.
[2] 李志辉, 朱明皓, 李源, 李政. 我国金融机构的系统性风险溢出研究:测度、渠道与防范对策[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 514(4): 55-73.
[3] 吴迪, 张楚然, 侯成琪. 住房价格、金融稳定与宏观审慎政策[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 505(7): 57-75.
[4] 谭小芬, 李兴申, 苟琴. 全球投资者国别风险情绪对跨境股票资本流动的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 504(6): 153-170.
[5] 马勇, 吕琳. 货币、财政和宏观审慎政策的协调搭配研究[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 499(1): 1-18.
[6] 缪延亮, 郝阳, 费璇. 利差、美元指数与跨境资本流动[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 494(8): 1-21.
[7] 钱宗鑫, 王芳, 孙挺. 金融周期对房地产价格的影响——基于SV-TVP-VAR模型的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 489(3): 58-76.
[8] 谭小芬, 虞梦微. 全球金融周期与跨境资本流动[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 496(10): 22-39.
[9] 马勇, 付莉. “双支柱”调控、政策协调搭配与宏观稳定效应[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 482(8): 1-17.
[10] 张智富, 郭云喜, 张朝洋. 宏观审慎政策协调能否抑制国际性银行危机传染?——基于跨境金融关联视角的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 481(7): 21-37.
[11] 黄继承, 姚驰, 姜伊晴, 牟天琦. “双支柱”调控的微观稳定效应研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 481(7): 1-20.
[12] 张礼卿, 钟茜. 全球金融周期、美国货币政策与“三元悖论”[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 476(2): 15-33.
[13] 方意, 王晏如, 黄丽灵, 和文佳. 宏观审慎与货币政策双支柱框架研究——基于系统性风险视角[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 474(12): 106-124.
[14] 马骏, 何晓贝. 货币政策与宏观审慎政策的协调[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 474(12): 58-69.
[15] 马勇. “双支柱”调控框架的理论与经验基础[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 474(12): 18-37.
[1] 王曦, 朱立挺, 王凯立. 我国货币政策是否关注资产价格?——基于马尔科夫区制转换BEKK多元GARCH模型[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 1 -17 .
[2] 刘勇政, 李岩. 中国的高速铁路建设与城市经济增长[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 18 -33 .
[3] 况伟大, 王琪琳. 房价波动、房贷规模与银行资本充足率[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 34 -48 .
[4] 祝树金, 赵玉龙. 资源错配与企业的出口行为——基于中国工业企业数据的经验研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 49 -64 .
[5] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[6] 牟敦果, 王沛英. 中国能源价格内生性研究及货币政策选择分析[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 81 -95 .
[7] 高铭, 江嘉骏, 陈佳, 刘玉珍. 谁说女子不如儿郎?——P2P投资行为与过度自信[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 96 -111 .
[8] 吕若思, 刘青, 黄灿, 胡海燕, 卢进勇. 外资在华并购是否改善目标企业经营绩效?——基于企业层面的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 112 -127 .
[9] 姜军, 申丹琳, 江轩宇, 伊志宏. 债权人保护与企业创新[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 128 -142 .
[10] 刘莎莎, 孔高文. 信息搜寻、个人投资者交易与股价联动异象——基于股票送转的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 143 -157 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1