Author Description

This study examines the impact capital controls had in Malaysia (1998-1999) and Thailand (1997). We aim to assess the extent to which the capital controls were effective in delivering the outcomes that motivated their imposition. We conclude that in Thailand the controls did not deliver much of what was intended--although, one does not observe the counterfactual. By contrast, in the case of Malaysia the controls did align closely with the priors of what controls are intended to achieve: greater interest rate and exchange rate stability and more policy autonomy.