Спампаваць 0.92 Mb.
2.3 CAPITAL FLIGHT AND CAPITAL FLOWS
The subject of capital flight is often included under the topic of capital flows while countries that have done some researches refer to it simply as capital flows, which makes it sounds less illegitimate and less unethical in development economics and international finance. The reasons for this treatment or compartmentalization is rooted in the economic importance and understanding of investment and portfolio diversification, especially as it concerns acquisition of assets overseas by residents of a country. There are two basic reasons why an entity may want to hold assets in foreign economy. Firstly, it protects the assets from a dwindling currency that normally happens where the local or domestic currency may be facing devaluation, or when depreciation of the currency is anticipated. In order to avoid this problem or the possibility of capital losses, the agent simply transfers such assets into a currency where some stability is assured – this is capital in flight.
Secondly, the exportation of capital from a country is seen as a means of diversifying assets, rather than holding one portfolio, spreading of investment is advised to the investor. This is seen in the light of investors investing resources outside the domestic economy, for diversification purposes. In this wise, the investor, who has diversified becomes a foreign investor who could now be a foreign direct or portfolio investor, with noticeable impact in the macroeconomic condition of the host country. The capital is lost to the home country but a gain to the host country. The challenge here is that factors that affect foreign private direct and portfolio investments must equally manipulate capital flight since both are included in capital flows. Before now, the traditional explanatory factors that have been held to be responsible for the behaviour of exchange rates movements, such as the impacts of international trade and cross border flows have declined somewhat, capital flows having increased in importance in the meanwhile (Moosa, 2004). This comes in a bundle and has been defined variously by WFGI in manners that suited their purposes.
The classifications of capital flows and flight can be nebulous is adequate line is not drawn between the two, namely when does capital flows become capital flight. The following can be considered as signposts of flight rather than flows:
2.3.1 Public and Private Wealth or Capital
The definitions of these two terms notwithstanding, there arises the need to distinguish private capital or wealth from public wealth or capital. Collier, Patillo and Hoeffler (2003 deals with capital flight and flows issues as it concerns capital and wealth on one hand and public and private on the other. Public wealth is the total stock of assets that is available to a particular nation at any point in time. The wealth of a nation here includes all that pertain to the nation in terms of investment goods and other publicly accumulated assets less liabilities. In other words, public wealth is common good available to all and every member of the community or society, but its direction and use is often controlled by the appointed representative or leaders of the people. Private wealth is the accumulation of the micro units in form of the individual or the firm in the society. This is equally a stock aggregated from flows of income. Private wealth is not available to the general populace and is controlled not by appointed leaders or representatives, but the holder or the owner. The holder directs or deploys it the way he or she chooses including investment in any country of choice. Public wealth is directed by the leaders and for the purpose of the people. Capital flight as private sector activity could only involve public capital if there is a leakage of public capital to the private sector. The table below shows capital flight per region per worker.
Private Wealth and Its Composition by Region
Source: Flight Capital as Portfolio Choice (Collier, Patillo and Hoeffler (2003)
2.3.2 Capital Flight and Wealth of a Country
Capital flight reduces the welfare of the people of a country. The meaning of wealth is often associated with the stock of capital a person, business firm and a country holds. It is taken to be money, savings, investments or some other form of financial capital. Real wealth is not just about possessions because the word real depicts tangibility or visibility, which gives it form. Thus, wealth is defined not only in terms of financial investments but also in terms of tangible riches that can be seen as evidence of well being.
The wealth of a nation is measured in terms of its ability to produce and the stock of goods or infrastructure in place in the country. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1963 defined wealth or the Gross National Product (GNP) of a country to include the air, other environmental and ecological factors surrounding national wealth and things that make life worthwhile. Webster’s Dictionary defines wealth as “asset in whatever form that has the capability of being used to produce more wealth.” This definition resembles the one for capital, which makes some people often want to substitute wealth for capital in today’s lexicon. Principally, the part of wealth taken out or withdrawn to be used to produce income is capital. Therefore, capital is that part of wealth engaged in production, while income or return is the gains made from capital invested.
Wealth is a stock, which differentiates from income that is regarded as a flow. The terms are generally measurable. Different types of capital exist as we noted in the first part of the chapter. The one often referred to most are financial and physical capital. Human capital and social capital exist as well, as they can be used to build more wealth. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001) defines social capital as relationships, networks and norms that facilitate the collective action and human capital as the knowledge, skills, competencies and other attributes of each individual that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well being.
The flights of capital reduce aggregate domestically available capital for either investment or consumption in the economy. It affects both the Gross National Product (GNP) as well as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) though unequally. The adverse effect is seen more significantly in domestic product aspect than the national product, since some capital may not be traceable after it leaves the shores of the economy.
2.3.3 Capital Accumulation or Formation
Capital accumulation or formation refers to the process of amassing or stocking of assets of value, the increase in wealth or the creation of further wealth. Capital formation can be differentiated from savings because accumulation deals with the increase in stock of investments and not necessarily all savings are invested. Investment can be in financial assets, human (capital) development, real assets that can be productive or unproductive. The increase in investment through non-financial assets has been held to increase value to the economy and the increase in the gross domestic product through further increase in employment.
The focus of investment in the accumulation process is increase in the total net fixed capital formation for the country, foreign direct investments and increase in household assets on annual basis. Over the years there has been continuous debate on growth theories and the function of capital in the process. Both Keynesians and Neo classicalists have disagreed on the function of capital in the process of growth. Thus from Solow (1956), Kaldor (1957) and through to Sraffa (1960), there are deluge of agreements and disagreements on the issue. Sraffa and Robinson were of the Cambridge school while Samuelson and Solow were of the MIT. These sustained the exogenous growth model. The model was an extension of the Harrod-Domar growth model with the inclusion of productivity and growth. The essence of all these is to explain the significance of capital accumulation in the economic growth and development process. These economists agreed with the H-O theory on capital mobility and its impacts in the growth process.
Of recent, there has been a dissenting view that capital accumulation has nothing to do with economic growth or development according to Easterly and Levine (2001). Before this study, the widely accepted view was that capital and its accumulation affects and influences growth. Easterly and Levine insists that the process of growth was not necessarily fuelled by capital accumulation, but by some specific endogenous variables in each of those countries. They made the following observations:
In spite of all of these, why does capital still flow from one country to another?
The answer is not farfetched from the possible real returns from investments and its safety in different sectors of the economies of countries where growth and development is induced and encouraged. The factors that encourage the flows of capital from one economy to another are rooted in the domestic policies of the country receiving such investment or capital. The argument that capital formation and accumulation are the main causes of development that, the receiving countries have received cannot hold true, because it is not capital formation or accumulation that drives growth. Nevertheless, capital is attracted to the best environment where it can be profitably invested for real returns with little attendant risks. In order words, the environment to large extent determines if capital inflow or flight would occur or not. Therefore, it is possible that capital flight takes place because the environment is not conducive for capital to be stay and thrive.
2.3.4 Portfolio Theory in Capital Flight
One common reason for preference for overseas investment is the portfolio theory argument. Discussions on portfolio elicits high level of esotericism, when they tend to become dynamic, as static models and one country assumption can be easily understood and assimilated. The considerations of currency, real effective exchange rates, possibility of foreign or home bias, influences by the level of risks and real rates of return makes matters to be slightly complicated (Tille and Wincoop, 2007). However, the portfolio approach to international flows and flights of capital have been accepted as the most popular (Obstefeld, 2004). In the analyses of many of the flights of capital investigated, the portfolio approaches seem to have gained upper hand. The choice depends so much on the choice of investors who choose where to hold their wealth, either at home or overseas. The choice of either of these is influenced a lot by the risk and return trade off and other considerations.
Kraay and Ventura (2002, 2003) in their analyses, grouped the drivers of international portfolio flows into two namely: portfolio growth and portfolio reallocation models. The portfolio growth components are defined as increases in the national savings that lead to capital outflows which equals to the rise in national savings times portfolio share of foreign assets. The second one is active portfolio reallocation of wealth across assets. Capital outflows that relate to portfolio reallocation reflect a change in portfolio shares away from passive portfolio, since changes in assets price affect portfolio shares without any asset trade- a dimension known as passive portfolio management. The above scenario abandons the other relative factors that are involved in the inflow and outflow on the exchange rates and equity prices. An appreciable increase in the inflow of resources will undoubtedly affect the real effective exchange rate and the prices of the available equity stocks at home. This is the current position with our stock market and the relationship with the rate of exchange in its bubble days at about 2007 and 2008. This implies that the inflows of foreign portfolio funds into the capital market need to be monitored in order for it not to result in capital flight in the nearest future.
One the most statistically significant theory of capital flows is the portfolio choice argument. The argument has been seen in more than one way. So important is the portfolio approach that Lane and Millesi-Ferretti (2004) and Obstfeld (2004) have called for the continuous use of portfolio approach in the explanation of countries of open economy dynamics. Kouri (1976) and Dooley and Isard (1982) did not support the use of portfolio approach initially with microeconomic foundations as a result of lack of empiricism and because it was in its formation stages. The campaign nevertheless received caution earlier in Obstfeld and Rogoff (2002) as to where to draw the line in dynamic first order open economy before the current position. In Deveruox and Saito (2006), it was found that the existence of nominal bonds and the portfolio composition of net foreign assets is an essential element and a significant cause of capital flows between countries. When investors adjust their gross positions in each currency’s bonds, countries can achieve an optimally hedged change in their net foreign assets (or their capital account), thus facilitating international capital flows.