In this paper we assess whether capital controls effectively insulate countries from U.S. monetary shocks, looking simultaneously at a large range of country experiences in a unified estimation framework. We estimate the effect of identified U.S. monetary shocks on the exchange rate and foreign country interest rates, and test whether countries with less open capital accounts exhibit systematically smaller responses. We find essentially no evidence in favor of this notion. Other country factors such as the exchange rate regime or degree of dollarization explain more of the crosscountry differences in responses. The significant differences in responses we do find are more pronounced at short horizons. JEL classification: F32, F34 1 Introduction The question of whether the existing "architecture" of the world financial system can cope with the size and nature of modern-day capital flows has once again come with force to the attention of policymakers and academics. Key to the resurgence of interest is the late 1990's crises in Asia, Russia and Brazil, aided by the perception that Malaysia avoided a harsher fate

We assess whether capital controls effectively insulate countries from U.S. monetary shocks, examining a large range of country experiences in a unified estimation framework. We estimate the effect of identified U.S. monetary shocks on the exchange rate and foreign country interest rates, and test whether countries with less open capital accounts exhibit systematically smaller responses. We find essentially no evidence of this. Other country factors such as the exchange rate regime or degree of dollarization explain more of the cross-country differences in responses. The significant differences in responses we do find are more pronounced at short horizons. Copyright 2007 The Ohio State University.

The Central, Eastern, and South Eastern European (CESEE) region is ripe for a reassessment of the role of the state in economic activity. The rapid income convergence with Western Europe of the early 2000s was not always equally shared across society, and it has now slowed dramatically in many countries of the region.

We assess whether capital controls effectively insulate countries from U.S. monetary shocks, examining a large range of country experiences in a unified estimation framework. We estimate the effect of identified U.S. monetary shocks on the exchange rate and foreign country interest rates, and test whether countries with less open capital accounts exhibit systematically smaller responses. We find essentially no evidence of this. Other country factors such as the exchange rate regime or degree of dollarization explain more of the cross-country differences in responses. The significant differences in responses we do find are more pronounced at short horizons.JEL codes: F32, F34

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. I study the implications of productivity shocks in a model where agents observe the aggregate level of productivity but not its permanent and transitory components separately. The model's predictions under learning differ substantially from those under full information and are in line with several empirical findings: (i) the response of investment to a permanent shock is sluggish and peaks with delay; (ii) permanent shocks generate positive rather than negative savings on impact; and (iii) saving and investment are highly correlated despite the assumption of capital mobility. Unlike other standard explanations of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle, learning induces high correlations irrespective of the assumed persistence of shocks.