[0330]加拿大环球邮报：世界为何不应该对G20峰会期待太多[中短长度]

悉听尊便

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090329.wcosummit30/BNStory/specialComment/home

Why the world shouldn't expect too much
The new world financial order should be worked out by technicians, not heads of government PAUL MASSON AND JOHN PATTISON
From Monday's Globe and Mail
March 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT

[size=100%]G20 leaders will hold a summit meeting in London on Thursday to agree upon policy measures to address the financial crisis. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has termed this process Bretton Woods II, after the conference that created the postwar financial system. He and French President Nicolas Sarkozy want to reform global capitalism to make it fairer and prevent the excesses of financial institutions by co-ordinating and strengthening regulatory agencies.
While there is some logic to their vision – global banks would seem to require a global regulator – it is unlikely that agreement on a major change to the global financial architecture will be reached. Moreover, raising false hopes will do nothing to address the crisis, and may hurt confidence when it becomes clear that they will not be achieved.

Instead, countries should concentrate on fixing their regulatory weaknesses and putting their banks on an even keel, while continuing to consult and co-ordinate with other governments in venues set up for the purpose: the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Financial Stability Forum, the International Monetary Fund and other institutions.

Responsibility for financial regulation should remain with national regulators, which are best placed to monitor and sanction their own financial institutions. Once economic activity revives, the challenge will be to reverse government policy interventions: restructure failed banks, remove excess central bank liquidity that has been amply provided, begin to pay down the massive public debt incurred to fight the crisis.

The preparatory meeting of finance ministers reached agreement on principles for regulatory reform, but at a high degree of generality and without operational details. There is a good reason for this: Countries' financial systems and regulatory regimes are different, and it is difficult to specify concrete measures that could be implemented by all governments. In the past, regulatory reform (for instance, the Basel Accord on capital requirements) has involved the major financial centres (principally, the United States and Britain) first agreeing on a common approach, and other G10 governments deciding whether to go along, making modifications to suit national circumstances.

Notwithstanding the regulatory failings of the major financial centres, this is likely to be the model for future reforms – “soft law” rather than formal treaties. It is likely that the weaknesses in the major financial centres will give somewhat greater leverage to coalitions of other countries to influence the ultimate outcome. The details need to be worked out among technicians, not decided by heads of government. This work will take time. It cannot be expected to be completed this year, much less next week.

More urgent is to find a way to deal with banking systems that, after nearly two years of crisis, are stifled by their holdings of toxic assets. To some extent, this problem is due to the bumbling of the previous U.S. administration. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's time would be better spent resolving the problems of his country's banks rather than attending international meetings with ambitious agendas. Fortunately, some progress is being made on this front.

Could leaders not at least commit to the goal of reregulation, to make the excesses that created the current crisis a thing of the past? Bonuses based on short-term performance created perverse incentives for risk-taking, rating agencies were behind the curve, mortgages were granted to people who shouldn't be buying houses and complex, opaque securities were distributed and repackaged globally in ways that were not transparent to investors or regulators. While some of these have regulatory solutions, history has shown the pitfalls of ill-considered government involvement. And the failings are country-specific. For instance, major challenges for the United States involve reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and revamping the way mortgages are granted.

What then should we expect from the London summit? The world is facing a synchronized downturn and the first contraction of global economic activity since the Second World War. While some governments are providing stimulus, many developing countries that are suffering from the lack of global liquidity are not in a position to do so. Whatever its failings, the IMF is the only institution able to provide global financing, and agreement must be reached to increase its resources substantially – by a factor of two or three.

The G20 is an odd set of countries; it is hard to see how progress on financial regulation would be advanced by the inclusion of Argentina, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Turkey. However, it does represent all the world's regions and most of the countries holding substantial foreign currency reserves. It is the right forum for commitment on increasing the funds available to the IMF and agreeing to reform that institution to make it more representative of current economic realities. Its governance and quota systems need to be reformed, and now is the time to do so.

Paul Masson and John Pattison are authors of International Financial Policy Reform and Options for Canada, a study for the Conference Board of Canada. Paul Masson is an adjunct professor at the Rotman School of Managment. John Pattison is an economist and former banker.