The G-20 summit in April 2009 focused on enhancing global cooperation to reform financial systems and transition to a sustainable, green economy, with a $5 trillion commitment by member countries expected to boost global output by 4%. While agreements were reached on regulating financial firms and addressing climate change, fundamental reforms related to currency and representation in institutions like the World Bank and IMF were largely sidelined. Concerns about hypocrisy regarding tax havens and the need for more inclusive economic indicators were also highlighted.

1. RESPONSE TO G-20 SUMMIT
The G-20 April 2nd Summit in London acknowledged the
group’s interdependence and moved toward greater cooperation
now essential to reforming global finance. The G-20 endorsed
the goal of building a resilient, sustainable and green economy.
“We will make the transition towards clean, innovative,
resource-efficient, low-carbon technologies and infrastructure.”
The G-20 also reaffirmed their commitment to address climate
change and to reach agreement at the December 2009 UN
Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen.
Commitments underway by G-20 countries of $5 trillion are
expected to raise global output by 4% and accelerate the
transition to a green economy.
Fundamental reforms were not addressed, including the need to
re-design debt-based money and banking or to create a new
global reserve currency, already proposed by China, Russia,
India, Brazil and other G-20 members so as to relieve
imbalances and excessive pressure on the US dollar.
More immediate reform of the voting representation on the
boards of the World Bank and the IMF are a step forward,

2. together with an additional $750 billion: with $250 billion for a
new issuance of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs); $250 billion to
support trade finance; $100 billion of additional lending to
developing countries, as well as an additional $1.1 trillion from
IMF gold sales for concessional finance to the poorest countries.
The heart of the G-20 agreements is to move beyond the
“Anglo-Saxon” economics typified by the now-rejected
“Washington Consensus” model. Many sensible new rules were
promulgated to regulate and oversee global financial firms,
including hedge funds, new principles for executive pay,
accounting rules, credit rating agencies, excessive leverage and
restraining excessive risk taking. Rules for tax and regulatory
arbitrage are to be tightened and tax-havens “named and
shamed.” However, the hypocrisy reported by Australia’s
Griffith University professor Jason Sharman must be addressed:
that the US states of Nevada, Delaware and Wyoming, as well
as some OECD member countries, must be included in the
“shaming.”
No mention was made on correcting GDP as proposed by the
European Parliament to include statistics on education, health,
environment or poverty gaps; nor on the need for incorporating
such ESG factors in company balance sheets and reporting
(www.globalreporting.org).