Abstract
This paper examines the claim that the IMF catalyzes other capital flows. We identify a series of propositions based on recent theoretical work, use a treatment effects model to deal with selection bias, and examine whether the IMF catalyzes both aggregate private financial flows and important subgroups for middle-income countries. The results presented here support many of the propositions, but also indicate that the sign and significance of catalysis varies according to the type of flow and the circumstances of the country. The finding that catalysis is complex and nuanced has important implications for policy that are briefly discussed.