Working Paper: NBER ID: w27698
Authors: Kristin J. Forbes
Abstract: Countries are using macroprudential tools more actively with the goal of improving the resilience of their broader financial systems. A growing body of evidence suggests that these tools can accomplish specific domestic goals and should reduce country vulnerability to many domestic and international shocks. The evidence also suggests, however, that these policies are not an elixir. They will not insulate economies from volatility and they generate leakages to the non-bank financial system and spillovers through international borrowing, lending and other cross-border exposures. Some of these unintended consequences can mitigate the effectiveness of macroprudential policies and generate new vulnerabilities and risks. The “Corona Crisis” provides a lens to evaluate the effectiveness of current macroprudential regulations during a period of extreme market volatility and economic stress. Experience to date suggests that macroprudential tools provide some benefits and can help achieve certain macroeconomic goals, but they have limitations and expectations of what they can accomplish must be realistic.
Keywords: macroprudential policy; financial stability; international finance; economic resilience
JEL Codes: E44; E5; F33; F36; F38; G21; G23; G28
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Slower credit growth (E51) | Dampened equity market booms (E32) |
| Macroprudential tools (E52) | Moderation of financial cycles (E32) |
| Tighter macroprudential regulations (G28) | Reduced vulnerability during downturns (G32) |
| Tighter macroprudential policies (E61) | Mixed impact on GDP growth (F69) |
| Tighter macroprudential policies (E61) | Better equity market performance during the corona crisis (G19) |
| Tighter macroprudential policies (E61) | Slower credit growth (E51) |