Research on the macroeconomic impact of capital account liberalization finds few, if any, robust effects of liberalization on real variables. In contrast to the prevailing wisdom, I argue that the textbook theory of liberalization holds up quite well to a critical reading of this literature. Most papers that find no effect of liberalization on real variables tell us nothing about the empirical validity of the theory because they do not really test it. This paper explains why it is that most studies do not really address the theory they set out to test. It also discusses what is necessary to test the theory and examines papers that have done so. Studies that actually test the theory show that liberalization has significant effects on the cost of capital, investment, and economic growth.

Three things happen when emerging economies open their stock markets to foreign investors. First, the aggregate dividend yield falls by 240 basis points. Second, the growth rate of the capital stock increases by an average of 1.1 percentage points per year. Third, the growth rate of output per worker rises by 2.3 percentage points per year. Since the cost of capital falls, investment booms, and the growth rate of output per worker increases when countries liberalize the stock market, the increasingly popular view that capital account liberalization brings no real benefits seems untenable.

The stock market appreciates by an average of 24 percent in real dollar terms when countries attempt to stabilize annual inflation rates that are greater than 40 percent. In contrast, the average market response is 0 when the prestabilization rate of inflation is less than 40 percent. These results suggest that the potential long‐run benefits of stabilization may dominate shortrun costs at high levels of inflation, but at low to moderate levels of inflation, benefits may be offset by costs in a present value sense. Stock market responses also help predict the change in inflation and output in the year following all 81 stabilization efforts.

A stock market liberalization is a decision by a country's government to allow foreigners to purchase shares in that country's stock market. On average, a country's aggregate equity price index experiences abnormal returns of 3.3 percent per month in real dollar terms during an eight‐month window leading up to the implementation of its initial stock market liberalization. This result is consistent with the prediction of standard international asset pricing models that stock market liberalization may reduce the liberalizing country's cost of equity capital by allowing for risk sharing between domestic and foreign agents.

In 2015, the World Bank claimed that rich-country private capital could: (i) close the infrastructure services gap in poor countries, (ii) achieve the sustainable development goals, and (iii) make money by moving from “billions to trillions” of investment in poor-country infrastructure. Our framework distinguishes those poor countries in which the Bank’s claim is tenable from those where it is not. For a given poor country, the framework reveals that investing a dollar in infrastructure is efficient if the social rate of return on infrastructure clears two hurdles: (a) the social rate of return on private capital in the poor country, and (b) the social rate of return on private capital in rich countries. Applying the framework to the only comprehensive, cross-country dataset of social rates of return on infrastructure indicates that in 1985 just 7 of 53 poor countries cleared the dual hurdles in both paved roads and electricity.

Recent work emphasizes the primacy of differences in countries’ colonially-bequeathed property rights and legal systems for explaining differences in their subsequent economic development. Barbados and Jamaica provide a striking counter example to this long-run view of income determination. Both countries inherited property rights and legal institutions from their English colonial masters yet experienced starkly different growth trajectories in the aftermath of independence. From 1960 to 2002, Barbados’ GDP per capita grew roughly three times as fast as Jamaica’s. Consequently, the income gap between Barbados and Jamaica is now almost five times larger than at the time of independence. Since their property rights and legal systems are virtually identical, recent theories of development cannot explain the divergence between Barbados and Jamaica. Differences in macroeconomic policy choices, not differences in institutions, account for the heterogeneous growth experiences of these two Caribbean nations.

In the three-year period following stock market liberalizations, the growth rate of the typical firm's capital stock exceeds its pre-liberalization mean by an average of 4.1 percentage points. Cross-sectional changes in investment are significantly correlated with the signals about fundamentals embedded in the stock price changes that occur upon liberalization. Panel-data estimations show that a 10-percentage point increase in a firm's expected future sales growth predicts a 2.9- to 3.5-percentage point increase in the growth rate of its capital stock. Country-specific changes in the cost of capital drive changes in investment but firm-specific changes in the cost of capital do not.

From 1980 to 1992, emerging and developing countries grew by 3.4 percent per year. Their annual rate of growth increased to 5.4 percent between 1993 and 2012. No such increase occurred for advanced nations, whose average growth from 1980 to 2012 was roughly constant (excluding the impact of the 2008-2009 Recession). Developing nations turned themselves around by embracing discipline-sustained commitment to a pragmatic and flexible growth strategy. Three illustrations of discipline through the lens of trade, fiscal, and debt reforms in the developing world offer relevant, practical lessons for recovery in advanced economies and continued catch-up growth in developing nations.

When developing countries announce debt relief agreements under the Brady Plan, their stock markets appreciate by an average of 60% in real dollar terms—a $42 billion increase in shareholder value. There is no significant stock market increase for a control group of countries that do not sign Brady agreements. The stock market appreciations successfully forecast higher future resource transfers, investment, and growth. Since the market capitalization of U.S. commercial banks with developing country loan exposure also rises—by $13 billion—the results suggest that both borrower and lenders can benefit from debt relief when the borrower suffers from debt overhang.