Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific
Author: Arvind Subramanian, PIIE
With the United States throwing its support behind Christine Lagarde for the post of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, the search for a new chief is all over.
Although the French magistrate’s continuing investigating of Lagarde’s role in the Bernard Tapie affair is unfortunate. Read more…
Author: Arvind Subramanian, PIIE
When the presidents of China and the United States met last week in Washington, neither was likely be aware that, measured in terms of purchasing power, it is Hu Jintao, and not Barack Obama, who represented the world’s largest economy.
Some time in 2010, the Chinese economy overtook that of the United States. Read more…
Author: Arvind Subramanian, Peterson Institute for International Economics
The wobbly West and the rising rest. That is now the context to all gatherings of the world’s economic policy-makers. The monopoly on power and influence wielded by the hegemon (the United States) and by the other advanced economies is being broken for real and for good. Key decisions will emanate less from conversations amongst a few and more from a wider group. It is difficult to predict whether the theater of real action will be the G20 or some other collectivity. But we can be increasingly sure that the ‘halcyon’ days of the G1 or the G7 are behind us.
This makes for both bad news and good news. Read more…
Author: Arvind Subramanian, Peterson Institute for International Economics
In the run-up to the G-20 Summit in London in April, China created a frisson of excitement by pushing for the use of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as an alternative to the dollar as a global economic currency. To be sure, China’s demarche was self-serving. It is also true that when China now talks, the world must listen. But the Chinese proposal was taken seriously because it had enough objective appeal and systemic relevance.
In all the discussions about the reform of the international economic architecture and the G-20 process, India’s predominant concern has been with getting a seat at the table. This desire for influence is appropriate and attaining it is long overdue particularly since existing international arrangements, especially at the IMF and World Bank, are outdated and inequitable. But acquiring influence cannot become an end in itself. ‘Influence for what’ is a question that India must continually ask.