https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/stockzmt/2026-02-10/doc-inhmhrqq4790030.shtml
Expanding capital account openness is perhaps one of the reform topics with the broadest consensus yet also the greatest controversy. The capital account encompasses all types of transactions between a country's residents and non-residents that involve financial assets and liabilities. The consensus exists because most people agree that capital account liberalization is an inherent component of market-oriented reform and high-level opening up—a goal that must eventually be achieved. The proposal for the 15th Five-Year Plan explicitly calls for "raising the level of capital account openness." The controversy persists because concerns among policymakers, academics, and market participants about capital account liberalization have never ceased: once opened, will it inevitably trigger capital outflows? Will it destabilize the exchange rate or even spark financial risks? Whenever the external environment shifts or capital flows become volatile, these concerns are swiftly amplified, manifesting in practice as the pendulum of consensus swinging between openness and tightening.
扩大资本账户开放或许是最有共识但也最有争议的改革议题之一。资本账户涵盖一国居民与非居民之间、涉及金融资产和负债的各类交易。说最有共识，是因为大多数人都认同资本账户开放是市场化改革和高水平对外开放的应有之义，也是一个迟早要实现的目标。"十五五"规划建议明确提出"提升资本项目开放水平"。说最具争议，是因为在政策、学界和市场参与者中间，围绕资本账户开放的担忧也从未停止：一旦放开，是否必然引发资本外流？是否会冲击汇率稳定、甚至引发金融风险？每当外部环境变化或资本流动出现波动，这些担忧便会被迅速放大，并在实践中表现为共识在开放和收紧之间的摇摆。
A considerable portion of these concerns stems from cognitive biases regarding capital flows, exchange rate formation mechanisms, and related policy tools. Some empirical judgments, formed under earlier conditions, may no longer hold in the current domestic and international environment. At this strategic window when the global monetary order is undergoing accelerated restructuring, the practical conditions for further advancing capital account liberalization are ripening. A more open capital account is also of significant importance for China's transition from an economic power to a financial and monetary power. However, a prerequisite for steadily raising the level of capital account openness is to dispel longstanding cognitive biases.
这些担忧有相当一部分源于对资本流动、汇率形成机制以及相关政策工具的认知偏差。还有部分经验判断，在当前的内外环境和制度条件下已未必成立。在全球货币秩序加速重构的战略窗口期，进一步推进资本账户开放的现实条件正在趋于成熟，更开放的资本账户对于中国从经济大国迈向金融与货币强国也有重要意义。但要稳步提升资本账户开放水平，前提是破除长期存在的认知偏差。
With this in mind, this article systematically examines seven of the most common misconceptions in the capital account liberalization process, covering topics that attract high attention—capital outflows, exchange rate determination, currency swaps, and foreign exchange management. The aim is to clarify misunderstandings, calibrate expectations within a more rational and comprehensive analytical framework, and provide reference for further raising the level of capital account openness.
基于此，本文围绕资本外流、汇率决定、货币互换、外汇管理等关注度较高的议题，系统梳理资本账户开放过程中最常见的七个误区，力求在更理性、更完整的分析框架下，澄清误解、校准预期，为进一步提升资本账户开放水平提供参考。
It must be emphasized that capital account liberalization is not a binary "0 or 1" choice, much less a matter of simply letting go. In practice, capital account opening must be coordinated with macroeconomic regulation, financial reform, and risk prevention, and dynamically adjusted according to changes in the domestic and external environment. Only on the basis of correct understanding can capital account opening become a force for enhancing the resilience of the financial system and the efficiency of resource allocation, rather than a source of risk.
需要强调的是，资本账户开放并非"0或1"的选择题，更不是一放了之。实践中，资本账户开放必须与宏观调控、金融改革和风险防范统筹推进，并根据内外部形势变化动态调整。只有在正确认知的基础上，资本账户开放才能成为提升金融体系韧性与资源配置效率的助力，而非风险的来源。
For most emerging market economies, when exchange rate flexibility is insufficient, capital account opening is often accompanied by more frequent cross-border capital movements, and may even create risks to macroeconomic and financial stability—including capital flight, currency crises, and rising income inequality (Furceri and Loungani, 2015). During the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis, massive inflows and outflows of international capital caused sharp declines in the exchange rates and stock markets of economies such as Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and South Korea, with the shock spreading rapidly from the financial system to the real economy and society. China also experienced a reversal of capital flows between 2013 and 2016; against the backdrop of insufficient exchange rate flexibility, China's foreign exchange reserves plummeted by approximately one trillion US dollars in just 18 months. Based on these lessons, a natural line of thinking emerges: since capital account opening carries risk, wouldn't keeping the capital account as closed as possible be the safest approach?
对于大多数新兴市场经济体而言，在汇率灵活性不足时，资本账户开放往往伴随着更频繁的资本跨境流动，甚至造成宏观和金融稳定风险，包括资本外逃、货币危机以及收入不平等加剧等问题（Furceri and Loungani，2015）。1997-1998年亚洲金融危机期间，国际资本大进大出，泰国、马来西亚、菲律宾、印度尼西亚和韩国等经济体的汇率与股市剧烈下跌，冲击随即由金融体系蔓延至实体经济和社会层面。中国在2013-2016年也经历了资本流动逆转，在汇率弹性不足的背景下，我国的外汇储备在18个月内骤降约1万亿美元。基于这些经验教训，一个自然而然的想法是：既然资本账户开放有风险，那么是不是资本账户越不开放就越安全呢？
From both theoretical and empirical perspectives, keeping the capital account closed cannot insulate a country from external risks. Two economies or markets with no direct economic or financial linkages can still be highly correlated through mechanisms such as risk premia, the common-creditor effect, and common fundamental shocks. Russia's 1998 debt default is a classic case. At the time, there were virtually no significant trade or financial ties between Russia and Brazil. Yet after Russia's default, Brazil's sovereign bond spreads widened markedly and the real faced intense depreciation pressure. The key reason was not bilateral linkages but the common-creditor effect: a large number of hedge funds specializing in emerging market investments held Russian government bonds. Russia's default as a major emerging economy exceeded market expectations. These funds immediately reassessed their portfolios—which other economy resembled Russia? The answer quickly pointed to Brazil: also a large emerging economy, lacking reserve currency status, and highly dependent on commodity exports. As a result, capital withdrew en masse from Brazilian assets, and Brazil's foreign exchange reserves fell from $64 billion to $32 billion within six months. Ultimately, Brazil's central bank was forced to abandon its fixed exchange rate in early 1999.
无论从理论还是现实经验看，资本账户封闭并不能将外部风险隔绝在国门之外。两个没有直接经济或金融联系的经济体和市场，仍可能通过风险溢价、共同债权人效应，以及共同基本面冲击等机制高度联动。1998年的俄罗斯债务违约就是一个经典案例。当时，俄罗斯与巴西之间几乎不存在明显的经贸或金融联系。但俄罗斯违约发生后，巴西主权债券利差显著走阔，本币面临强烈贬值压力。其关键原因并不在于双边联系，而是来自共同债权人效应：当时大量专注投资新兴市场的对冲基金持有俄罗斯国债。俄罗斯作为大型新兴经济体发生违约，超出了市场预期。这些基金随即重新审视自己的投资组合——还有哪个经济体看起来和俄罗斯很相似？答案很快指向巴西：同为大型新兴经济体、没有储备货币地位、高度依赖大宗商品出口。结果，资金集中撤离巴西资产，巴西的外汇储备半年内从640亿美元降至320亿美元。最终，巴西央行不得不于1999年初放弃固定汇率。
This case demonstrates that even without direct cross-border capital flows, a financial system can still be linked to global financial markets through other channels. A closed capital account does not deliver "absolute safety"—it merely alters the transmission path of risk. On the contrary, when pressure is released in concentrated fashion, the shock is often more severe.
这一案例表明，即便没有直接的跨境资本流动，金融体系仍可能通过其他渠道与全球金融市场联动。资本账户封闭并不能带来"绝对安全"，只是改变了风险的传导路径。相反，在压力集中释放时，冲击往往更加剧烈。
Since capital account opening is not inherently safe, nor can closure insulate against risk, how should policy choose? The trade-off between opening and closing the capital account requires a comprehensive assessment of potential benefits and risks, and this trade-off exhibits significant threshold effects: once a country reaches certain thresholds in income levels, financial deepening, and institutional quality, cross-border capital flows are more likely to improve the efficiency of resource allocation rather than trigger systemic crises (Kose, Prasad, and Taylor, 2009; Jeanne, Subramanian, and Williamson, 2011; Wei, 2018). For China, as its economy continues to expand and its financial system gradually matures, the benefit-risk trade-off of capital account liberalization is likely improving (Prasad and Rajan, 2008).