There is ample empirical literature centering on the effectiveness of foreign exchange intervention (FXI). Given the mix of objectives and country-heterogeneity, the general lack of consensus thus far is no surprise. We shed light on this debate by conducting the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the FXI literature, with 279 reported effects that stem from 74 distinct empirical studies. We cover estimations conducted in 19 countries across five decades. Overall, our meta-survey reports an average depreciation of domestic currency of 1% and a reduction of exchange rate volatility of 0.6%, in response to a $1 billion US dollar purchase. Results are qualitatively confirmed but smaller in size under fixed and random-effect estimations. When narrowing in on different economic factors, we find that effects are magnified for cases consistent with the monetary trilemma (greater if financial openness and monetary independence are low). Effects are also larger in emerging than advanced economies, when banking crises remain mild, and when interventions are large in size and are announced.
There is ample empirical literature centering on the effectiveness of foreign exchange intervention (FXI). Given the mix of objectives and country-heterogeneity, the general lack of consensus thus far is no surprise. We shed light on this debate by conducting the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the FXI literature, with 279 reported effects that stem from 74 distinct empirical studies. We cover estimations conducted in 19 countries across five decades. Overall, our meta-survey reports an average depreciation of domestic currency of 1% and a reduction of exchange rate volatility of 0.6%, in response to a $1 billion US dollar purchase. Results are qualitatively confirmed but smaller in size under fixed and random-effect estimations. When narrowing in on different economic factors, we find that effects are magnified for cases consistent with the monetary trilemma (greater if financial openness and monetary independence are low). Effects are also larger in emerging than advanced economies, when banking crises remain mild, and when interventions are large in size and are announced.
We investigate whether central banks are able to attract or redirect capital flows, by bringing together the entire empirical literature into the first quantitative meta-analysis on the subject. We dissect policy effects by the type of flow and by the origin of the monetary shock. Further, we assess whether policy effects depend on factors that drive investors to either search for yields or fly to safety. Our findings indicate a mean effect size of inflows in the amount of 0.09% of quarterly GDP in response to either a 100 basis point (bp) increase in the domestic policy rate or a 100bp reduction in the external rate. However, the effect size under a random effect specification is much lower (0.01%). Factors that significantly attract inflows include foreign exchange reserves, output growth, and financial openness, while factors that deter flows include foreign debt, capital controls, and departures from the uncovered interest rate parity. Also, both local and global risks matter (global risks exerting a larger pressure). Finally, we shed light on differences across the different types of flows: banking flows being the most responsive to monetary policy, while foreign direct investment being the least responsive.
There is ample empirical literature centering on the effectiveness of foreign exchange intervention (FXI). Given the mix of objectives and country-heterogeneity, the general lack of consensus thus far is no surprise. We shed light on this debate by conducting the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the FXI literature, with 279 reported effects that stem from 74 distinct empirical studies. We cover estimations conducted in 19 countries across five decades. Overall, our meta-survey reports an average depreciation of domestic currency of 1% and a reduction of exchange rate volatility of 0.6%, in response to a $1 billion US dollar purchase. Results are qualitatively confirmed but smaller in size under fixed and random-effect estimations. When narrowing in on different economic factors, we find that effects are magnified for cases consistent with the monetary trilemma (greater if financial openness and monetary independence are low). Effects are also larger in emerging than advanced economies, when banking crises remain mild, and when interventions are large in size and are announced.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.