## Interest Rate Controls, Capital Flow Restrictions, and Other Potentially Costly Financial Market Regulatory Tools

_IMF Blog, February 6, 2020_

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Interest Rate Controls, Capital Flow Restrictions, and Other Potentially Costly Financial Market Regulatory Tools](https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2020/02/06/interestratecontrolscapitalflowrestrictionsandotherpotentiallycostlyfinancialmarketregulatorytools)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/en/blogs/articles/2020/02/06/interestratecontrolscapitalflowrestrictionsandotherpotentiallycostlyfinancialmarketregulatorytools/index.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/en/blogs/articles/2020/02/06/interestratecontrolscapitalflowrestrictionsandotherpotentiallycostlyfinancialmarketregulatorytools/index.json)
- [Bundle manifest](/en/blogs/articles/2020/02/06/interestratecontrolscapitalflowrestrictionsandotherpotentiallycostlyfinancialmarketregulatorytools/bundle-manifest.json)

## Bibliographic details
- Authors: Etibar Jafarov, Rodolfo Maino, Marco Pani
- Published: February 6, 2020

---

### Context and scope
- Financial repression — administrative restrictions on interest rates, credit allocation, capital movements, and other financial operations — has reappeared on the policy agenda with the surge in public debt after the global financial crisis.
- The findings summarized derive from an IMF staff working paper using an updated index of interest rate controls covering 90 countries over 45 years.

### Quantified growth impact
- Key estimate: Interest rate restrictions (a form of financial repression) could reduce real per capita growth by about 0.4–0.7 percentage points, on average.
- The adverse effect is larger in countries with larger financial systems.

### Mechanisms of harm
- Distorting market incentives and signals, financial repression induces losses from inefficiency and rent-seeking that are not easily quantified.
- Rent-seeking and inefficiency can arise when administrative restrictions:
  - reduce access to certain financial services (such as credit) for some users while improving benefits (e.g., through low interest rates) for selected users at the expense of those excluded;
  - generate wasteful competition among potential users seeking the favored benefits.
- Interest rate controls may also:
  - disrupt financial stability;
  - reduce access to financing for small enterprises.

### Evidence from case studies
- Kenya (interest-rate controls introduced in 2016):
  - Banks sharply reduced lending to micro-, small-, and medium-sized firms while shoring up corporate clients.
  - Banks were incentivized to switch to short-term funding and loans, exacerbating financial soundness indicators.
- Bolivia (interest rate controls introduced in 2013, along with credit quotas):
  - Rapid growth in credits to targeted sectors.
  - Reduced bank profitability.
  - Raised concerns among some analysts about asset quality and financial inclusion, despite broadly sound financial indicators in the current cycle.

### Policy-relevant findings
- A full liberalization of interest rates is necessary to significantly increase growth.
- Changes in interest rate restrictions short of full liberalization have a limited impact.

*Source: IMF Blog post by Etibar Jafarov, Rodolfo Maino, Marco Pani, February 6, 2020.*

---


## References

- [working paper](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/09/30/Financial-Repression-is-Knocking-at-the-Door-Again-48641)

_Source: https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2020/02/06/interestratecontrolscapitalflowrestrictionsandotherpotentiallycostlyfinancialmarketregulatorytools_