Governanca global e reformas institucionais (2): uma sintese de minhas respostas

Transcrevo agora, no imediato seguimento do post anterior (ver abaixo) sobre o mesmo tema, um resumo de uma página tratando dos mesmos temas colocados num documento de planejamento de um encontro sobre o assunto, que recebi para comentário pessoal.
O que elaborei, muito rapidamente, a respeito dos temas levantados está no post anterior. A síntese possível segue agora neste.

[Next post: one page outline of this paper]

Global Governance and Institutional Reform: a personal view
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

One page outline

1) Lessons of the crisis and structural changes of the world economy
One small lesson: the origin of the crisis is in the bad monetary policies of the main countries, not in the “deregulation of the financial markets”. A second small lesson: coordination of macroeconomic policies is an impossible dream, as each government is clearly focused in its own national objectives and narrow interests.
A big lesson: the crisis was not serious enough to stimulate a complete reform of governance rules at world level; previous redrafts of international order were the consequence of cataclysmic changes in power relationships. We had none of this now. We have just a recession to administer, with a new emerging power-house: China.
World economy is already transformed, and advanced countries are slowly giving terrain to the dynamic emerging economies, with China at the forehead. Pity that decision-making mechanisms were not reformed accordingly this new reality.

2) Concepts, strategies and institutional features for managing the world economy
Managing the world economy is an elusive goal; the G7 never went beyond ad hoc arrangements for dealing with currency volatility. The only single strategy for today’s world would be to integrate less-developed countries into the world economy, through real trade liberalization, not official development assistance (that’s passé).

3) Existing institutional challenges for intelligent regulation and better governance
G-7/G-8 has no more legitimacy, for being too restrict; G-20 is too large to reach real consensus; solution is an upgrade to a G-13, with new dynamic economies.

4) Interaction between international bodies and between private and public interests
Regular meetings of this new G-13 should give clear guideline to sherpas, who would discuss trade matters, environmental affairs, human rights protection, UN peace-keeping missions, etc., with specific mandates to deliver feasible solutions.

5) International governance: can it be implemented?
It is difficult to implement anything through the UN, too large and chaotic a body; better to rely of the coordination of agendas of the three more important agencies for globalization: IMF, World Bank and WTO. This has to be achieved by means of a more harmonious G-13, but the Europeans have to accept reform in their representation at the first two organizations, ceding voting rights to emerging economies and establish their rotating representation.
A “global new deal” would exchange reinforced protection for proprietary technology by developing countries against access to markets and large investments by advanced economies. Assistance to development should be concentrated on education, human capital and improvement of governance, on technical grounds, as democracy and human rights are difficult to implement even for some of the new emerging powers of the world economy.

[Shanghai, 27.09.2010]