Not Heard at the G-20

If the G-20 wants to play a major role in the post-crisis global decision-making process, the issue of legitimacy vis-a-vis the smaller emerging countries needs to be addressed now. The best solution would be to allow these countries to take a rotating seat at the G-20 table.

BOGOTA, LIMA, SANTIAGO – International economic coordination is as necessary as it is elusive. During the global financial crisis, the G-20 became the primary forum to agree on basic principles in areas such as the fiscal-policy response and the role of the International Monetary Fund. By underscoring the need to avoid trade protectionism and other beggar-thy-neighbor policies, it also put some pressure on governments concerning what not to do. In these respects, the G-20 was clearly a step forward.

Lately, however, as the G-20 has tried to reconcile divergent national economic interests and recovery strategies, it has been far less successful relative to its initial meetings in Washington and London in 2009. Indeed, the G-20’s Seoul summit in early November exposed a deep divide.

Global imbalances and currency misalignments could well wreck the global recovery and push the world into the protectionist mire. Most nations would suffer, but nations caught in the middle would suffer the most. Today, the emerging economies of Latin America could become some of the first casualties in the economic crossfire between the United States and China.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.


Log in;