This led to the endorsement of the G20 as "the first forum for international economic cooperation".2  1  Anne Krueger (2007), “An enduring need: multilateralism in the twenty-first century”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 23, Number 3, 2007, pp.335–346. 2 G20 Pittsburgh Declaration, September 2009. 4/8  Indeed, the new framework proved to be key in containing the effects of the global financial crisis, through multilateral and coordinated actions on the monetary and fiscal fronts. The protectionist response to the crisis was significantly smaller than during the Great Depression. In addition, since 2009, the G20 has promoted a range of policies to enhance the resilience of the global financial sector, including stricter prudential requirements for internationally active banks and, particularly, for systemically important institutions. However, after the initial impetus provided by the G20-multilateralism, finding consensus at international level has become increasingly difficult over time and the initial hopes that the G20 could become an effective mechanism for coordinating national policies have faded somewhat. Against this backdrop, it seems clear to me that the way in which international cooperation is defined and multilateral institutions work need to be revised. The system of global trade is a paradigmatic case, given the broad consensus on the need to reform and revitalise its backbone, the WTO.3 While some western economies raise concerns about China’s trading practices, as well as the effects of its industrial and technology policies on the level-playing field, many emerging countries complain about western countries’ policies in areas such as agriculture.
3  Hoeckman (2018), “Revitalizing Multilateral Governance at the World Trade Organization”, Report of the High-Level Board of Experts on the Future of Global Trade Governance. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/60580 4 Dai, Mian, Yoto Yotov and Thomas Zylkin (2014), “On the trade-diversion effects of free trade agreements”, Economics Letters, 122(2): 321-325. 5/8  On the financial front, the international architecture has also become more fragmented during the last decade. The difficulty of reforming the IMF´s governance structure and the impression that its resources might prove insufficient should a severe crisis occur, have contributed to the emergence of multiple layers in the global financial safety net.5 Since the global financial crisis, the system has expanded to encompass multiple forms of insurance, comprising the IMF and a number of regional financial arrangements (RFAs) — the size of which has increased from almost negligible amounts in the early 2000s to more than 1.5 trillion dollars today —, bilateral swap lines and reserve arrangements. The proliferation of regional financial agreements is a response to countries’ need to ensure access to support for their balance of payments when circumstances require it — in some cases subject to less strict conditionality, in an effort to avoid the IMF stigma —, but also to the need to boost resources for crisis prevention and resolution. The latter need is clearly the rationale for the largest RFA, the European Stability Mechanism, created in the middle of the euro area sovereign debt crisis.