While FX-related prudential regulations appear to have some effect on growth resilience during crises when included on their own, the effect of capital controls tends to dominate when both are included together in the regression (column 11).Other prudential measures, particularly, limits on sectoral lending and reserve requirements, seem to complement the effect of capital account restrictions, with both measures retaining significance when included together. Evidence from past crises episodes supports the association of capital controls with growth resilience— specifically, we find that among the EMEs that experienced crises in earlier years, those with higher economy-wide capital account restrictions in their pre-crisis years experienced smaller growth declines when the crises occurred. Thus our hypothesis is not that prudential measures and controls on capital flows are necessarily good for growth in “normal” times, but rather that such measures–by reducing financial vulnerabilities– can help countries avoid some of the worst outcomes in the event of a crisis. Our findings support those of some earlier studies, for example,
Gupta et al. (2007), who find that the fall in output during crisis episodes is significantly lower if capital controls were in place in the years running up to the crisis.