What to Make of Global Policy Meetings?
Mohamed El-Erian
President @ Queens' College, Cambridge | Finance, Economics Expert
Finding myself on the road this weekend, I caught up with some video watching – not movies but, instead, various reports on the prior weekend’s gathering of economic officials for the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank. I had three main reactions:
First, relief that I had decided not to go to the meetings this time around. The videos from the event were a great complement to the research and media reports I had already read; and all signaled that little new ground was covered despite the enormous gathering of government officials, central bankers, and representatives from private business and academia.
Second, bewilderment that so much money can be spent by so many for so little. Yes, there is merit in gathering lots of people in one place, especially when solutions require not just uniform analyses but also a better sense of collective responsibility. But to make this benefit meaningful, the agenda needs to be proactive and action-oriented – which does not seem to have been sufficiently the case.
Third, the impact of such large global meetings is losing ground to more focused events. Yes, the vast majority of today’s economic and financial problems are interconnected – across sectors, countries and regions. But it is also clear that key decision-makers prefer to work in smaller setups.
Consider Europe where officials are irritated at having "their" challenges discussed by other countries. Their preference is to handle the serious stuff at the regional (rather than global) level; and to do so after a series of bilateral meetings among governments and institutions able to pull key policy levers.
I do realize that dramatic policy breakthroughs often occur behind closed doors and only surface later. Let us hope that this was indeed the case last weekend. Otherwise, having spent a lot of time and money, the international community would have wasted an important opportunity.
(Photo: IMF/Flickr)
This article contains the current opinions of the author but not necessarily those of PIMCO. Such opinions are subject to change without notice. This article has been distributed for educational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission.
Sales Director
12 年Agree with Mohamed's 3 reasons except in point 2 , the word " better" collective sence of responsibility , can someone tell me what is the commone interest ( not objectives) of USA , china & Europe !!!
Early Stage Investor I Growth Operator I Angel Investor
12 年Going back in time to the seminal Bretton Woods meeting in 1944, it gathered 740 delegates from 44 Allied Nations in the Mount Washington Hotel. Can we assume that creating the IMF and the IBRD has been an easier task than the reforming of these very institutions?.. achieving consensus today is a blurry dream? what is at stake isn't much different today..
Semi-retired Construction Manager - Continuing Student and Instructor
12 年Probably the best use of time Mohamed, is the lower level meetings and development of relationships between the worker bees, while all the queen bees are buzzing about. And of course it does put money in local economies in the form of tips to bellmen, wages to cooks and housekeepers, interns get to write about economic news and certain entertainment venues may see an increase in spending.