Capital Controls

Rawi E. Abdelal; Laura  Alfaro

Background Note | HBS Case Collection | April 2002 (Revised September 2002)

Capital Controls

Abstract

Only in the waning years of the 20th century did international financial markets begin to enjoy the freedom from government regulation that they had experienced before the first world war. By 2002, international capital markets had grown to be enormous--$1.2 trillion flowed around the globe per day. The massive size of the market presented policy makers with a serious challenge as they were forced to grapple with the costs and benefits of such mobile capital. This note briefly relates the modern history of capital controls and summarizes scholarship on the advantages and disadvantages of international financial market regulation.

Keywords: History; Policy; Business and Government Relations; Change Management; Cost vs Benefits; Governance Controls; Governance Compliance; Emerging Markets; Financial Markets; Network Effects; Banking Industry; Financial Services Industry;

Format: Print

4 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Abdelal, Rawi E., and Laura Alfaro. "Capital Controls." Harvard Business School Background Note 702-082, April 2002. (Revised September 2002.)

The prevalence of online platforms opens new doors to traditional businesses for customer reach and revenue growth. This research investigates platform choice in a setting where prices are determined by negotiations between platforms and businesses. We compile a unique and comprehensive dataset from the U.S. daily deal market, where merchants offer deals to generate revenues and attract new customers. We specify and estimate a two-stage supply-side model in which platforms and merchants bargain on the wholesale price of deals. Based on Nash bargaining solutions, our model generates insights into how bargaining and competition jointly determine the price and firm profits. Our results show that there is systematic variation in bargaining power between platforms and merchants with different characteristics. By working with a bigger platform, merchants enjoy a larger customer base, but they are subject to lower margins due to less bargaining power during negotiations. Our counterfactual results quantify the value of platforms for merchants and show that merchants with lower bargaining power benefit more by working with a smaller platform. Regarding the impact of price negotiations on platform competition, we estimate that roughly 11% of the deals on a smaller platform are attributable to the platform’s lower level of revenue sharing.

Investors and policymakers throughout the world were confronted with the risk of painful economic consequences arising from the large U.S. current account deficit. In 2007, the U.S. current account deficit was $731 billion, equivalent to 5.3% of GDP. The implications of the deficit were debated with intensity. At one extreme, it was argued that large deficits would eventually resolve themselves smoothly, even if they persisted for many more years. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was among those expecting a "benign resolution to the U.S. current account imbalance." Other analysts, such as economists at the World Bank, believed the large deficits raised the risk of a sharp and disorderly fall of the dollar and that necessary macroeconomic adjustment could be painful, for the United States as well as for the rest of the world. The Financial Times asked: "How long will foreigners be prepared to make such generous 'gifts' to the US?" In this environment, Berkshire Hathaway, run by legendary investor Warren Buffett, postulated that current account imbalances would lead to "some chaotic markets in which currency adjustments play a part" and announced to shareholders a plan to increase investment in overseas companies to protect against this risk. It remained to be seen what the short- and long-term implications of the current account deficit would ultimately yield.

Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2018 (Revised August 2019)

Everybody Knows: Russia and the Election

Rawi Abdelal, Rafael Di Tella and Galit Goldstein

Following a contentious presidential race, Donald Trump’s 2016 election destabilized America’s status quo. Academics, journalists, politicians and the public at large examined why Trump had won. Many Americans, inside and outside the government, asserted that a state-led Russian disinformation campaign had influenced the election’s outcome. The leaders of major social media companies, including Twitter and Facebook, also conceded that state actors had gamed their platforms to influence American politics. Trump himself made conflicting statements, while Russian politicians asserted that American elites had rhetorically weaponized the issue of election interference to justify an unwillingness to work with their country internationally. It was hard to parse where reality ended and political rhetoric began. Post-election, the future of U.S.-Russia relations remained unclear, and the United States grappled with how to regulate cyberspace. Analyzing the 2016 election and its aftershocks helps students confront interrelated questions about business regulation, international relations, cultural identity, strategic communications, political will and the Internet. The case encourages students to consider the boundary between narrative and reality, and examine subjectivity, objectivity and power in the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Strategic industry; strategic alliances (business); Business and Government; business and public policy; business and society; Media Businesses; media content; media slant; media regulation; social media; internet of everything; government policy; politics; political campaigns; political strategy; political turmoil; government; Government Regulation; Security; international business; International Relations; National Security; Political Elections; News; Media; Internet; Rights; Problems and Challenges; Globalization; Business and Community Relations; Business and Government Relations; Government Legislation; Risk and Uncertainty; Cognition and Thinking; Conflict and Resolution; Identity; Civil Society or Community; Culture; Public Opinion; Social Issues; War; Online Technology; Public Administration Industry; United States; Russia;

Citation:

Abdelal, Rawi, Rafael Di Tella, and Galit Goldstein. "Everybody Knows: Russia and the Election." Harvard Business School Case 719-012, October 2018. (Revised August 2019.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

Faculty & Research

Capital Controls

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors