US Trade Policies Limit Countries' Use of Capital Control
Online Publication Date: 24 February 2009
US Trade Policies Limit Countries’ Use of
Capital Control
As the global economy descends further into crisis, a new
report finds that US trade and investment agreements with 52 countries have
removed one tool that has proved effective in past crises: capital
controls.
The Institute of Policy Studies
(IPS), in its report “Policy Handcuffs in the
Financial Crisis” said that at a time when many economists including those in
the IMF have recognized the importance of capital controls in the management of
financial crises, the
US has pushed
ahead with attempts to restrict their use.
This worrying development is
likely to be reflected as well in current and future trade agreements being
negotiated by the European Union (EU) with 123 developing countries. Financial
liberalization is a key element in EU trade agreements. As in the case of the
EU-Caribbean Forum (CARIFORUM) Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the EU is
pushing for liberalization of major financial services including the free
movements of capital and current payments. An analysis by TWN (http://www.ftamalaysia.org/article.php?aid=214)
shows that although the CARIFORUM-EU EPA does contain some financial liberalisation safeguards, they are inadequate. This is
because they are too narrow (for example, they cannot be used to limit the
movement of current payments, or can only be used if there is also a balance of
payments crisis), and comes with other restrictions.
If this is any indication, both the EU and US FTAs will see limits being imposed on countries’ ability to
regulate their financial sector at a time when government regulation and control
have never been more critical to stem the current and growing global financial
and economic crisis.
The IPS report can be
found at: http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US
trade policies limit 52 governments’ use of capital controls to fight financial
crisis
Policy holdover conflicts with growing consensus among
economists
Institute for Policy Studies
As the global economy
descends further into crisis, governments are searching their toolboxes for
instruments to protect their people from financial volatility. A new report
finds that U.S.
trade and investment agreements with 52 countries have removed one tool that has
proved effective in past crises: capital controls.
”The Obama administration has a tremendous opportunity to wipe
away the relics of a failed policy agenda that turned our global economy into a
financial casino,” says report author Sarah Anderson, director of the Global
Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. “Eliminating obsolete
restrictions on capital controls is one important step.”
The report
includes quotes in support of capital controls from numerous noted economists,
including former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff,
who recently wrote that countries with stringent capital controls are less
likely to suffer from the current financial crisis than those completely open to
international capital markets.
KEY
REPORT FINDINGS:
U.S.
Web of Capital Control Limits: Although many countries have used capital
controls effectively to address financial market volatility, 52 national
governments lack the power to control money flows across their borders as the
result of U.S.
trade pacts or bilateral investment treaties.
IMF Learned from Asian
Crisis, U.S. Didn’t: The International Monetary Fund abandoned its blanket
opposition to capital controls after some countries used this tool to avoid the
worst effects of the Asian financial crisis that erupted in 1997. The
U.S. government
forged ahead, initiating agreements restricting capital controls with 22 more
countries. Such restrictions are also in the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade
Agreement.
Investors Can Sue for Compensation: Countries that violate
these restrictions face potentially expensive lawsuits by foreign investors. In
the supra-national arbitration tribunals that handle such cases, there’s no
public accountability, no standard judicial ethics rules, and no appeals
process.
Policy Handcuffs are Inherited: Of the
52 leaders who are now bound to such agreements, only 13 were in office at the
time their country’s agreement was signed. In
Bolivia ,
Ecuador , and
several other countries, government leaders are working to develop alternative
models for governing international investment and finance.
Opportunities
under new U.S. Administration: President BarackObama has committed to revising the investment rules in
U.S. free trade
agreements, along with other proposed trade policy reforms. The
IPS report lays out five key opportunities
for change, including renegotiating trade agreements and bilateral investment
treaties, rolling back World Trade Organization commitments on financial
deregulation, and reforming World Bank and IMF policies.
According to
report author Anderson, “It’s critical that policymakers not only eliminate
capital control restrictions, but also commit to building a new global framework
that allows governments to play responsible roles in ensuring that foreign
investment and finance support social goals.”
source: IPS
|