Search results

n the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, international financial institutions have changed their views on the benefits of capital account liberalization and the management of capital flows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) began to publicly express support for what have traditionally been referred to as "capital controls." The impacts of restrictions on capital flows have, unfortunately, still not been established, and capital controls create distortions if they remain in place indefinitely. The present study uses quarterly data on capital controls in 25 emerging economies over the period between 2000 and 2016. Through an examination of a panel vector autoregressive (PVAR) with variance decomposition and impulse-response functions analysis, the study provides further evidence of some domestic effects of restrictions on capital flows. The results show that restrictions were more effective following the 2008 financial crisis and allowed for more monetary policy autonomy and exchange rate stability. Unexpectedly, the findings do not show any significant impact on international reserves accumulation. The study highlights the necessity of following the international financial organizations' guidelines to well manage external capital flows and to better coordinate macroeconomic policies in the hope of finding an optimal policy mix.

Post-conflict peacebuilding is a multidimensional, highly complex and multifaceted undertaking that requires significant resources (financial, technical, human, etc.). With the proliferation of actors in this field, it's in this context that peacebuilding interventions by international financial institutions in countries emerging from armed conflict are taking place. It's therefore not surprising to see that international financial institutions linking are peace and development issues. Because it should be noted that "action in favour of development produces its best results only in times of peace." While the competence of international financial institutions in the economic field is a truism, their competence in peacebuilding is not reflected and deserves more appeal and questioning. Peacebuilding is therefore not expressly included in the constitutive documents of the international financial institutions. This is why it's relevant to focus on the legality of peacebuilding interventions by international financial institutions whose intervention in fragile countries, including post-conflict countries, is very often criticized and can generate feelings of mistrust and enthusiasm. The international financial institutions in question include the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Regional Development Banks. The main objective of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security. Today, this objective has evolved to include peacebuilding after maintaining it. Thus, since the international financial institutions are specialized agencies of the United Nations, their peacebuilding interventions are, therefore, lawful because they are part of the United Nations system.