| |
Ethos Issue 3, Oct 2007
The Asian Financial Crisis in Hindsight
Donald Low

The Asian crisis is evidence that economic
growth and financial stability are related but separate policy
objectives, and that IFIs cannot afford to ignore financial
and corporate health and vulnerabilities even if macroeconomic
fundamentals appear healthy.
It is also a cautionary tale about financial
liberalisation in emerging markets. While the case for liberalising
long-term foreign direct investment9
remains sound, the crisis suggests that a more nuanced and
sequenced approach to capital market liberalisation, particularly
in ensuring that the requisite regulatory institutions are
in place, would be more prudent. To a large extent, this lesson
has been taken on board by the IFIs. The IMF, for instance,
now emphasises the need to build stronger regulatory regimes
and financial institutions alongside more open capital markets,
reducing the risks of instability.
The crisis made clear the dangers of fixed
or semi-fixed exchange rate regimes (or soft pegs). Fixed
rates may reduce volatility and uncertainty; they can also
be useful in providing a price anchor in high-inflation countries.
But because fixed rate regimes do not allow for nominal rate
adjustments, they tend to cause currencies to become misaligned
(e.g. over-valued) with the economy’s fundamentals.
To the extent that the severity of the crisis
was in large part due to panic, a key policy thrust of the
IFIs must be to improve disclosure and transparency in emerging
economies before crises occur. In the Asian economies, poor
information environments created uncertainty and led to markets
over-reacting and assuming the worst when new information—for
example, concerning the strength of a particular bank—was
revealed. Such over-reactions are less likely if banks, financial
institutions and governments comply with international and
stricter codes and standards on financial, statistical and
fiscal reporting.
The Asian crisis also demonstrated the need
for market-based mechanisms that could facilitate more orderly
private debt workouts. The complication with the Asian crisis
was that it involved a large number of private-sector debtors,
rather than a sovereign debtor. This calls for a debt restructuring
mechanism that would impose a generalised standstill on a
country’s debt servicing obligations, in tandem with
bringing together debtors and creditors for collective rollovers
and debt renegotiation. This would have reduced the need for
costly IMF bailouts and a reduction in the moral hazard created
by these bailouts. Investors and creditors would also exercise
greater due diligence and focus appropriately on risk in good
times, since they would have to bear the consequences of their
decisions. One market-based alternative that has been taken
up by some emerging economies is to set collective action
clauses in bond issues, requiring investors to authorise a
third party to represent their collective interests in the
event of default.
Finally, the crisis revealed the need for
stronger social safety nets in most emerging economies. Strengthening
governments’ capabilities to sustain essential social
services to the most vulnerable segments of their populations
should become a priority area for development lending and
assistance. This in turn requires institutions such as the
World Bank and regional development banks to develop the expertise
in fiscally sustainable unemployment insurance/assistance
programmes that do not undermine work incentives. In many
emerging economies, families and local communities have tended
to play a bigger role than the state in delivering such assistance.
In this context, the IFIs should look to strengthen and build
on these existing structures rather than require governments
to supplant these traditional institutions of providing assistance.
This article is extracted from a case
study prepared by the author, as Director of the Institute,
for teaching within the Institute of Policy Development, Civil
Service College. Donald Low is
currently Associate Fellow at the Civil Service College.

| NOTES |
| 01. |
Staff team led by Charles Adams, Donald
J. Mathieson, Garry Schinasi, and Bankim Chadha, "The
Asian Crisis: Capital Markets Dynamics and Spillover,"
in International Capital Markets: Developments, Prospects,
and Key Policy Issues (Washington, D.C.: International
Monetary Fund), 13. |
| 02. |
Glick, Reuven, Thoughts on the Origins
of the Asian Crisis: Impulses and Propagation, Pacific
Basin Working Paper Series PB98-07 (San Francisco: Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, September 1998), 3. |
| 03. |
Between 1990 and 1996, the ratio of
bank lending to GDP, grew by 60% or more in Thailand (from
64% to 102% of GDP) and the Philippines (from 19% to 49%
of GDP), 30% in Malaysia (from 71% to 93% of GDP), and
10% in Korea (from 52% to 62% of GDP) and Indonesia (from
46% to 55%). In Indonesia, modest bank lending to the
private sector masked high levels of direct foreign borrowing
by private firms. |
| 04. |
Krugman, Paul, Will Asia Bounce Bank,
Speech for Credit Suisse First Boston, Hong Kong, March
1998. |
| 05. |
Stiglitz, Joseph, Globalization and
Its Discontents (USA: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
2002), 104 |
| 06. |
Feldstein, Martin, "Refocusing
the IMF", Foreign Affairs, March/April 1998. |
| 07. |
Radelet, Steven, and Sachs, Jeffrey,
"What Have We Learned, So Far, from the Asian Financial
Crisis?" Mimeo, Harvard Institute for International
Development, January 1999. |
| 08. |
Rubin, Robert E., and Weisburg, Jacob,
In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street
to Washington (USA: Random House, 2003), 258. |
| 09. |
Foreign direct investment levels to
the Asian-5 countries remained relatively stable throughout
the crisis. |
II |
|