In 2007, a paper I wrote as part of my college thesis on economic liberalization and capital controls was published. The paper examined the relationship between capital flows, investment, and development. At the time, this debate was polarizing. Advocates of liberalization argued that opening economies to international capital would accelerate growth and development. My co-authors and I took the more cautious view; that unfettered capital flows could increase volatility, weaken domestic institutions, and deepen inequality.
Over the last two decades, the world has supplied a rich body of evidence. And, looking back, I find myself reflecting beyond the original arguments, and on broader questions: What is the role of capital in human development? Why has progress in emerging markets been mixed? Where are the right places to invest?
The Philosophy
Capital controls - whether liberal or restrictive - are not the mechanism that drives growth and return. Robust vision and policy are. In strong policy environments, capital can be directed with clear prioritization, local context, and command of problems to deliver superior return. Foreign investors seeking alpha must then accept the full package of risk on the terms set locally. Bandaiding a weak policy environment or dictating how the game is played from outside, destroys value for investors, discourages local entrepreneurship, and ultimately harms customers and communities that rely on the success of the venture.
An Unpopular Argument at the Time
What I remember most vividly was the the reaction to our research. At the time, mainstream finance and policy circles largely treated capital liberalization as self-evidently beneficial; the prevailing view held that opening a developing economy’s markets lowered the cost of capital and accelerated growth. Our findings cut against that consensus. We argued that, absent a credible macroeconomic framework, liberalization would import volatility rather than growth. Many journals and reviewers were reluctant to embrace conclusions that questioned the orthodoxy.
Today, I understand both sides of that debate better. The past two decades have revealed both the power and the limits of capital liberalization. And, when I look at the results, the debate was really about institutions, governance, incentives, and who ultimately benefits from growth.
Was South Africa the Right Case Study?
Twenty years on, and with more lived and learned experience, I debate whether South Africa was the ideal case study.
At the time, South Africa was compelling. There was a clear political transition, economic integration, and capital market liberalization, all at once. The end of apartheid was a rare opportunity to observe how international capital would respond to political and economic reform.
And, yet South Africa was also unusual. It entered liberalization carrying the legacy of profound political, social, and economic division. Its exchange controls sat within a broader context shaped by apartheid, international sanctions, political uncertainty, and persistent concerns about capital flight. That makes it difficult to isolate the effects of liberalization from the larger forces reshaping the country at the time.
What strikes me most, in hindsight, is the paradox. Conventional economic thinking would hold that sanctions, political isolation, and restrictions on capital mobility should have severely constrained development. South Africa’s experience was different…
I don’t have a tidy explanation. The South African paradox raises hard questions about how capital, politics, institutions, alliances, and development interact, and it suggests that the relationship between liberalization and growth is more complex than I assumed as a confident, and perhaps naive 20-year old.
Today, I find those questions more compelling than the original debate and find answers in simpler solutions that focus on humans: their collective will to plan, to build, to align incentives and to command a desired destiny.
What 20 Years Have Taught Me About Capital
The biggest lesson from the years since is that capital matters, but never in isolation.
Countries do not develop simply because capital arrives, and certainly not because it is free to leave whenever it chooses. And countries that try to halt capital flight do not develop either.
Instead, capital follows institutions, capabilities, and incentives more often than it creates them. The countries that have made the greatest progress over the past two decades have generally paired capital formation with stronger institutions, expanding human capital, infrastructure investment, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and predictable regulation.
Capital is a powerful accelerant, but it tends to amplify the strengths and weaknesses already present in a system.
The Evolution of Capital Flows in Africa
Perhaps the most important change since 2007 has been the diversification of capital itself.
Twenty years ago, development conversations centered on sovereign borrowing, multilateral institutions, and foreign direct investment. Today the picture is more layered. Across Africa and other emerging markets, we have seen the rise of domestic pension funds, local capital markets, venture capital ecosystems, private equity, development finance institutions, diaspora investment, and digital financial infrastructure. Most fascinating to me are remittances…
The entrepreneurial ecosystems now taking shape in cities such as Lagos, Nairobi, Cape Town, Cairo, and Abidjan would have been difficult to predict at scale in 2007.
Significant challenges remain. But capital formation is growing within emerging markets, reducing dependence of foreign money and philosophies. That distinction matters: sustainable development ultimately rests on a society’s ability to mobilize and allocate its own capital.
Capital and Social Progress
My greatest evolution in thinking is the relationship between economic growth and social progress.
In 2007, I was primarily interested in the mechanics of capital allocation and economic development. Today I am focused on outcomes. The critical question is not whether capital flows. It’s whether it meaningfully expands opportunity in foundational areas that move the needle – health, wealth, planet.
Looking Ahead
The debate between liberalization and capital controls is ultimately too narrow. Capital matters, but capital alone does not create progress. First, societies must identify the opportunities most critical to prosperity and quality of life. Second, they must create the policy, incentive, and institutional conditions that support solutions. Only then can the technical rules provide benefit.
Ultimately, development is not primarily about the mechanics of capital. It is about the vision, strategy, and systems that determine where capital flows, what it builds, and whose lives it benefits.
Based on: Tswamuno, D. T., Pardee, S., & Wunnava, P. V. (2007). “Financial Liberalization and Economic Growth: Lessons from the South African Experience.” International Journal of Applied Economics, 4(2), 75–89.
Join our Mission
If you would like to explore partnering with Fairbridge, I’d love to hear from you and if you are a founder, you can apply for funding.
