Need for Change: Towards the New International Economic Order represents a selection of speeches given during the period to early In most cases they are transcripts from oral presentations and are reproduced more or less as delivered.
- No More Panic Attacks: A 30-Day Plan for Conquering Anxiety;
- Log in to Wiley Online Library.
- Honest Horses: Wild Horses in the Great Basin.
- Anacalypsis Volume 1.
- The Economic Viability of Micropolitan America.
- Sections menu.
The volume is organized into five parts. Part II presents a diagnosis of the weaknesses besetting the world economic system from the point of view of the developing countries. Part IV covers the case for comprehensive, interrelated reform of trading relations; details of the proposed new mechanisms tabled by the secretariat from time to time; and discussion of the characteristics of various individual commodities and their particular importance in the trade of the developing countries.
Part V focuses on the role of UNCTAD in the UN system, which entails discussion of the structure of the system as a whole and examination of the nature of international economic negotiations, in both their substantive and procedural aspects. We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.
The relation of the new international economic order to health.
We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit. If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time. Skip to content. Search for books, journals or webpages As elaborated in the report. Things are different.
Why changes need to be made to the international economic order
The global economy has changed dramatically. It has become much more deeply integrated and interdependent. Yet, even though many developing countries have gained from expanding trade and finance, in broad terms, the outcomes are less than desirable. Globalization remains unbalanced and international income inequality has increased further. At the same time, however, the recent food, fuel and financial crises have been felt globally. This is a manifestation of the growing globalization and the degree of interdependence.
But there simultaneous occurrence has also made us aware that the factors driving these crises have been closely interconnected. Trade and finance have been vehicles of expanding human activity, but unfortunately lack of concern for sustainable development has indirectly resulted in environmental degradation. These complexities clearly are more pronounced and hence different from 40 years ago. They also underscore getting to a NIEO not only the more urgent, but also the more challenging.
First , global trade has expanded dramatically, due to a reduction in trade barriers and changing production patterns. In , in the wake of the Asian crisis, the G20 was established as a forum for finance ministers and central bankers of the 20 largest developed and developing economies, in order to expand representation in global economic governance beyond the G8.
And, in , things seemed to be going according to plan, with the G20 promoting a plan to reform the governance and quota structure of the IMF by redistributing votes and seats to underrepresented emerging economies, especially China. This initiative, however, produced limited action. Waiting for leadership to change organically — that is, leaving it up to developing countries to work together to get their voices heard — simply will not bring about the governance reforms that are needed. To be sure, if developing countries can all get behind a single candidate, it is possible that the next IMF managing director will be a non-European.
But that landmark would be achieved nearly a quarter-century after the Asian financial crisis — far later than it should have.
Simply put, the onus should not be on developing countries to fight for the influence they have already earned. Such resistance seems set only to intensify, at least in the US. Trump has expressed clearly his distaste for international structures — from NATO to the Paris climate agreement to the G20 — which he claims advance the interests of others over those of the US.
Most Read Articles
He has also made explicit his belief that the US should no longer bankroll the provision of global public goods, from defence to financial stability. Add to that the deafening silence from the largest European countries on the issue, and it is possible that emerging economies, particularly China, will give up on advocating reform from within the Bretton Woods system. While emerging economies have made it clear that the existing system can remain relevant, if all stakeholders commit to making the necessary changes, a credible plan to do so has yet to emerge.
The IMF retains its role in providing an extensive financial safety net for the global economy. But regional facilities have been created to provide a cooperative mechanism for dealing with occasional liquidity crunches. The facility can be expanded if necessary, provided that members are prepared to assume the risk.
To succeed, the group will need to reconcile the views of the countries that form the bulk of the membership of the Bretton Woods institutions and devise a concrete plan for rebalancing. Just as the Bretton Woods institutions resulted from years of debate about how to shape a new model of international economic cooperation, the reform of these institutions must reflect a process of careful deliberation. To be sure, since the financial crisis, there has been much debate about globalization, governance, international cooperation, and the tension between open markets and domestic politics.
Well-rehearsed discussions of issues like financial surveillance, coordination, moral hazard, international lenders of last resort, a debt-resolution regime, and sustainability in development finance will surely inform the work of the eminent persons group. But discussion does not imply consensus, and I am not convinced that agreement on any of these topics is strong enough to produce concrete policy action.