Pierre-Hugues Verdier once suggsted to me - somewhat skeptically, to be sure - that it was possible that the G-20, the head of state, central banker, and finance minister rolling confab, could provide some political legitimacy for an otherwise opaque and technical effort to create rules for international finance. It's an interesting possibility, and the G-20 has been much more active in the wake of the financial crisis than were its predecessors before it.
But how is it doing now? Colin Bradford has the sorta depressing upside - disagreements are legion, aliiances within the 20 can shift, the most notable product is lack of product - and he has the nerve to call these the seven laws of the organization.
Well, they aren't laws that any lawyer would recognize. Dan Drezner has the relevant evisceration here.
But I think the G-20 will ultimately be "successful," because it has to be. There is going to be coordination in the global regulation of finance, and the G-20 will manage it, while leaving it to Basel and IOSCO to work out. It may or may not lead to world government. But it's pretty inevitable.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Links to weblogs that reference The G-20, Pro and Con: