Session 3: Policy Tools to Sustain a Cooperative Agenda

The G20 Mutual Assessment Process as a case study in policy coordination

Stephen Pickford

The MAP was initiated at the Pittsburgh Summit, as a response to the particular circumstances of the time: the global economy was showing the first signs of starting to emerge from the global financial crisis; but there were big disagreements about how quickly (and when) to start unwinding the exceptional fiscal and monetary support; and there were still real risks of a reversion to protectionism.

It also reflected dissatisfaction with the ‘standard’ instruments of IMF surveillance, which suffered from a perceived lack of even-handedness and independence. There were also questions about the IMF’s model for policy advice. And the IMF was seen as lacking in traction on countries’ policies.

It is worth comparing and contrasting the MAP with the last serious attempt at global coordination to address imbalances: the IMF’s ‘multilateral consultation’ in the mid-2000s (which was generally seen as a failure – indeed some of the features of the MAP were deliberately designed differently from the MC).

There are differences (and some similarities) across a number of dimensions:

Country coverage Policy coverage Country ownership IMF involvement Peer review vs surveillance Transparency

A preliminary judgement:

The MC had very limited impact on the policies of the countries involved in the process

The MAP has, at the very least, put the main issues on the table Traditional alliances have not carried across to the MAP process The Seoul Summit produced some commitments from countries (though time will tell

how far they are adhered to) Seoul also pledged a development and intensification of the process (MAP 2.0).