G-20 Grabs Bigger Role in Global Economy

Leaders of the world's major economies gather to discuss reforms that guard against the dangerous imbalances that contributed to the global economic downturn. Friday, the group decided they will serve as the board of directors on decisions for the global economy, taking over a role performed for more than three decades by a smaller group of wealthy nations.
By Annys Shin and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 26, 2009

PITTSBURGH, Sept. 25 -- The leaders of the 20 largest economies officially anointed themselves the steering committee of the global financial system and reached a series of agreements Friday aimed at navigating the world out of recession and onto the path of recovery

President Obama, hosting his first Group of 20 summit, managed to achieve most but not all of his top objectives. They included getting member nations to agree to review one another's economic policies to ensure they do not provoke a repeat of the worst financial crisis since the Depression.

"Because our global economy is now fundamentally interconnected, we need to act together to make sure the recovery creates new jobs and industries while preventing the kind of imbalances and abuses that led us into this crisis," Obama said at a news conference at the close of the two-day meeting.

The summit was the third gathering of G-20 leaders since the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year triggered a global economic free fall. Lately, signs of recovery have emerged around the world, prompting questions among the G-20 nations about whether it is time to tighten interest rates and withdraw hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending. But the leaders arrived in Pittsburgh already in agreement that the global economy is still too fragile to warrant a pullback.

"A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency," the leaders said in a joint statement. "The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete."

The global economy has become stable enough, however, for the leaders to turn their attention to preventing future crises. The United States and European nations were able to settle differences over how best to stem irresponsible risk-taking by financial companies.

The United States had emphasized the need to raise the quality and quantity of capital that banks must hold to cover potential losses. The Europeans had stressed restrictions on bankers' pay, including hard limits on compensation. In the end, the leaders agreed to those principles -- minus the hard limits -- along with provisions that better align executive compensation with long-term performance and promote more transparency for trading in complex securities known as derivatives.

Obama also got Europe and China to commit to avoid economic policies that could fuel the huge global imbalances blamed by economists for helping spark the current crisis. Under the agreement, countries with large deficits such as the United States would promise to borrow less and major exporters such as China and Germany would pledge to stimulate domestic consumption. The members agreed to use the International Monetary Fund to help review their economic policies to make sure they do not generate harmful imbalances.

Although other G-20 members signed off on the U.S. proposal, many remained doubtful of its effectiveness and its purpose.

"There remains considerable skepticism among many G-20 leaders from emerging markets that this may simply be a ruse by the U.S. to deflect attention from its massive budget deficit," by casting the problem as a global one, said Eswar Prasad, a trade policy expert and professor at Cornell University.

What made the agreement so easy to sign was that countries that do not abide by its principles face no penalties. Critics noted that similar arrangements have been tried, with little impact on national decisions.

But Edwin Truman, a fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Treasury Department official, said this latest attempt at rebalancing global growth is promising because it puts leaders on the record and potentially raises the political stakes for them if they do not comply.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2009 The Washington Post Company