Editor's Note: Nadia Piffaretti is an assistant to the Chief Economist at the World Bank Group and a Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President. She is the author of an upcoming paper on Reshaping the International Monetary Architecture.
The crisis has taught us that economists ought to believe their own warnings about systemic vulnerability. If analysis points out that a system can fail, it probably will at some point. Knowing what we know today, having experienced – in a sort of “real-life economic laboratory” – how systemic vulnerabilities can transmit and amplify shocks, we cannot avoid turning a worried eye to the largely imbalanced growth of the global economy.
Before this crisis, many economists had warned about another crisis – a disorderly unwinding of global imbalances. It didn’t happen. It still may.
While most recently global imbalances have been narrowing, due to short term factors (like oil prices), the IMF is forecasting a widening again starting in 2010. At the same time, conditions do not seem to be reunited for a clear shift of growth engines at both sides of the global imbalances, especially at a juncture when governments attempt to calibrate exit-strategies from fiscal stimuli, walking the fine line between possible fiscal unsustainability, and the risk of too early withdrawal of stimulus.
It is against this backdrop, and the realization that the international monetary architecture looks vulnerable indeed, that I reminded myself of the almost forgotten “1941 Keynes’ Plan” which the “Master” had elaborated in view of the Bretton Woods negotiations.
The plan stemmed from the idea that monetary architecture matters.
Recent comments