Still, this characterization is based on very crude generalizations; in reality, EMEs spread over a broad range of possibilities for each dimension and different combinations of them. The question is then to what extent does such variety of cases make a difference for the spillover from changes in global financial conditions and what role does the exchange rate (ER) play in it. How important are global financial and business cycles to EMEs compared to local ones? To address this issue from an EME’s perspective, a first question refers to the relative importance of externally-induced shocks as compared to purely domestic ones. Even if the Global Financial Cycle were a very powerful force, as long as countries can still get into troubles of their own, macro policy, including the ER regime, may make an important difference. A review of the last 40 years of economic history reveals many episodes during which cyclical turning points originated in domestic, rather than foreign, shocks. In Latin America in particular, many of the major shocks of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s originated locally, usually from misconceived policies, private sector exuberance, or inadequate regulations. The fact that these shocks showed up as large current account deficits surely reflects the degree of dependence of governments and business on external funding, but that does not exempt local conditions from being the main source of the imbalances.
In particular, a classical Latin American and Caribbean countries (LAC) crisis would show up as an unsustainable disequilibrium between public, private, or foreign savings and investment partially contained by some form of FX control, which turns into a major economic and financial crisis once the currency devaluates. Abundant foreign capital may help prolong the situation for a while, but only to make the inevitable turnaround more damaging. It is important to underscore the role of domestic ER policies. During the upswing, central banks in EMEs often try to curb the resulting appreciation, either through outright currency fixation of heavy FX market intervention. As a number of recent papers have found, these policies tend to reinforce capital flows. 1 When the tide turns, however, these rigid ER regimes are often accompanied by large devaluations, which contribute substantially to insolvency problems in both real and financial domestic sectors. Global financial conditions may thus influence the timing or even the intensity of a domesticallyinduced crisis, but they cannot suppress it altogether. Moreover, such favorable financial conditions usually hit back with a vengeance once local weaknesses reveal themselves. From here we can conclude that appropriate macro policies are necessary to prevent locally-induced cycles, even when powerful global financial forces are at play. The transmission of Global Financial Cycles to EMEs and the role of ER regimes 1  See Maurice Obstfeld, Jonathan D. Ostry, and Mahvash S. Qureshi (2018), “Global Financial Cycles and the Exchange Rate Regime: A Perspective from Emerging Markets,” Discussion Paper #12696, Centre for Economic Policy Research.