Capital flows from Asia into the US challenge many assumptions of international financial analysis. This book presents a novel geography of these flows, revealing their driving forces and assessing the market mechanisms necessary for a smooth global flow of funds. It is essential for all those interested in international finance.

The book examines the rapid growth and dramatic changes in capital flows globally and to emerging markets. In the context of relevant economic theory, it analyses benefits and costs of large and volatile capital flows to developing countries; the latter includes damaging currency crises as the Mexican and East Asian economies. The book makes innovative proposals on how best national governments - and especially - international organisations can avoid such crises.

The demand pressure and the plethora of evidences observed in the form of increasing infrastructure financing gap, ageing infrastructure, environmental factors, such as climate change and rising quality standards are factors attracting institutional and private sector participation in infrastructure investment. Therefore, the search for innovative means of financing infrastructure has become incessant. Also, the features of the financial landscape, especially in a financial crisis has further underpinned the significance of looking beyond the present infrastructure need, to a more sustained infrastructure financing scheme anticipated from institutional investors. A well established capital market has therefore been identified as a viable option for long term and steady global capital flows to financing infrastructure projects; else, the burden will remain on governments to offer direct or indirect support to private investors in attracting financing for infrastructure development. This book therefore conceptually investigates the potentials of the capital market and institutional investors’ capital flows in bridging the global infrastructure funding gap. A fundamental conclusion from the book revealed that institutional investors particularly pension funds have the capacity to pool enormous resources into the infrastructure market, thus emphatically projecting them as a force to be reckoned with in the global infrastructure investments.

Firms often cite financing constraints as one of their primary obstacles to investment. Global capital flows, by bringing in scarce capital, may ease host-country firms' financing constraints. However, if incoming foreign investors borrow heavily from domestic basnks, direct foreign investment (DFI) may exacerbate financing constraints by crowding host country firms out of domestic capital markets. Combininb a unique cross-country firm-level panel with time-series data on restrictions on international transactions and capital flows, we find that different measures of global flows are associated with a reduction in firm-level financing constraints. First, we show that one type of capital inflow--DFI--is associated with a reduction in financing constraints. Second, we test whether restrictions on international transactions affect firms' financing constraints. Our results suggest that only one type of restriction--those on capital account transactions--negatively affect firms' financing constraints. We also show that multinational firms are not financially constrained and do not appear to be sensitive to the level of DFI. This implies that DFI eases financing constraints for non-multinational firms. Finally, we show that DFI only eases financing constraints in the non-G7 countries.

The growing integration of capital markets has strengthened incentives for greater international coordination of economic and financial policies. Structural changes in these financial market, however, may have undermined the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy and complicated market access by developing countries. These are among the findings of this study of capital flows in the 1970s and the 1980s.

Does capital flow from rich to poor countries? We revisit the Lucas paradox and explore the role of capital account restrictions in shaping capital flows at various stages of economic development. We find that, when accounting for the degree of capital account openness, the prediction of the neoclassical theory is confirmed: less developed countries tend to experience net capital inflows and more developed countries tend to experience net capital outflows, conditional of various countries’ characteristics. The findings are driven by foreign direct investment, portfolio equity investment, and to some extent by loans to the private sector.

This book offers a comprehensive analysis of the debates on international capital flows, and presents a new evidence-based answer to the long-standing question of why capital doesn’t tend to flow from rich to poor countries as predicted by standard neoclassical theory – a puzzle known as the Lucas paradox. Further, the book reviews alternative approaches to conventional estimates of the marginal product of capital (MPK) and considers whether these estimates actually help us understand observed international capital flows. A rigorous quantitative approach is subsequently used to provide clear empirical evidence on the determinants of capital flows across borders. The findings of this empirical analysis suggest that generous economic policies on capital account convertibility are more influential than differences in institutional quality in terms of determining international capital flows. In closing, the relative importance of various types of political risk (e.g. expropriation and corruption) is examined. After determining that expropriation risk has one of the greatest effects on foreign direct investment (FDI), the book proposes an appealingly intuitive explanation for the lack of FDI flows to many capital-scarce developing countries.

Paul J.J. Welfens and Holger C. Wolf While the economies of Asia and, more recently, South as well as North America have enjoyed sustained high growth, the growth performance of western Europe and in particular continental Europe has been rather modest. Coupled with sizable improvements in labor productivity and - at best - steady capital productivity, growth proved insufficient to sustain employment levels, much less to replicate the US job creation success. Relative inflation performance has been much better: in the run-up to European Monetary Union inflation rates have dramatically converged towards the lower end of the distribution while risk premia on formerly high inflation economies have fallen. Yet, looking forward, the undoubted success in achieving price stability is mitigated by the lackluster growth -and in particular employment -performance. Indeed, the relative little attention paid to initiatives directed at raising economic growth is startling, not only in the light of the US policy record but also in light of the remarkable rebound of those European economies which have aggressively tackled the structural problems, most prominently the UK and Ireland.

This study examines the impact of British capital flows on the evolution of capital markets in four countries - Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States - over the years 1870 to 1914. In substantive chapters on each country it offers parallel histories of the evolution of their financial infrastructures - commercial banks, non-bank intermediaries, primary security markets, formal secondary security markets, and the institutions that provide the international financial links connecting the frontier country with the British capital market. At one level, the work constitutes a quantitative history of the development of the capital markets of five countries in the late nineteenth century. At a second level, it provides the basis for a useable taxonomy for the study of institutional invention and innovation. At a third, it suggests some lessons from the past about modern policy issues.

Using a sample of 34 emerging markets and developing economies over the period 2009Q3-2015Q4, the paper employs a panel framework to study the determinants of capital flows, both net and gross, across a wide range of instruments. The baseline regressions are then extended to focus on high and low episodes – quarters with flows one standard deviation above/below mean. Overall, the results suggest that the capital flow slowdown witnessed in recent years is due to a combination of lower growth prospects of recipient countries and worse global risk sentiment. However, the determinants of flows can be considerably different across instruments and across the type of flows considered, net or gross. The sensitivity of certain types of flows, towards push and pull factors, increases during periods of high and low capital flows. Moreover, some variables may not necessarily be significant during normal times, but can be important drivers during such episodes, and vice versa. Indicators like the gap between the U.S. long- and short-term maturity bond yields – not significant during normal times – can be an important driver during high episodes.