DOCSLIB.ORG

G8 Reform: Expanding the Dialogue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
G8 Reform: Expanding the Dialogue G8 Reform: Expanding the Dialogue An Overview of the G8’s Ongoing Relationship with the Emerging Economic Countries and Prospects for G8 Reform G8 Research Group Civil Society and Expanded Dialogue Unit Co-Directors and Editors: Vanessa Corlazzoli Janel Smith G8 Research Group Chair: Anthony Navaneelan June 2005 Table of Contents The Group of Eight .....................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary and Introduction..........................................................................................4 The Group of Twenty and The Leaders’ Twenty .........................................................................6 PART ONE Expanding the Dialogue: The Group of Eight .........................................................7 Canada ....................................................................................................................................7 France ...................................................................................................................................13 Germany ...............................................................................................................................16 Italy.......................................................................................................................................23 Japan.....................................................................................................................................28 Russia ...................................................................................................................................32 United Kingdom....................................................................................................................41 United States.........................................................................................................................47 PART TWO Expanding the Dialogue with Emerging Economic Countries ..............................59 Brazil ....................................................................................................................................59 India......................................................................................................................................63 China ....................................................................................................................................71 Mexico..................................................................................................................................80 South Africa..........................................................................................................................84 PART THREE Conclusion........................................................................................................92 Appendix 1: Brazil....................................................................................................................93 Appendix 2: China ....................................................................................................................95 Appendix 3: India .....................................................................................................................97 Appendix 4: Mexico..................................................................................................................99 Appendix 5: South Africa........................................................................................................101 G8 References.........................................................................................................................103 2 G8 Reform: Expanding the Dialogue Civil Society and Expanded Dialogue, G8 Research Group The Group of Eight The Group of Eight (G8) is comprised of the eight leading industrialized democracies in the world: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Together, these eight states account for 48% of the global economy and 49% of global trade, hold four of the United Nations’ five Permanent Security Council seats, and boast majority shareholder control over the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The G6 (Canada and Russia excluded) originally met in Rambouillet, France in 1975 to discuss the economic impact of the OPEC oil crisis and the end of the US-dollar gold standard regime. In 1976, they were joined by Canada, with Russia gaining membership in 1998. Each year the leaders of these states meet at an annual summit in what is the most powerful and intimate meeting of global leaders anywhere in the world. Unlike other multilateral meetings, leaders at the G8 Summit meet privately behind closed-doors; there are no aides or intermediaries and there are few scripts of protocols. For some, the G8 is a concert of powers operating the most relevant center for global governance, with its flexibility and dynamism making it far more effective than the post-1945 institutions, namely the United Nations (UN). For others, the G8 is an unelected ‘committee that runs the world,’ an epicenter of global capitalism and neo-colonialism. In the past the G8 has discussed and made joint commitments on a variety of issue areas that relate to the international economy, nuclear disarmament, peacekeeping, terrorism, energy, development, climate change, and regional security. While there are disagreements over its intentions, few deny the reach and scope of the G8’s influence and control. While originally conceived as an economic gathering, the G8 Summit has now become a major arena for international action on HIV/AIDS, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism and global trade. Past G8 Summits have produced such landmark agreements as the 1995 reform of the World Bank and IMF, the 1999 Enhanced HIPC Initiative for debt relief, and the 2001 Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. But with increased prestige comes increased scrutiny. Since the 2001 Summit in Genoa, alternative-globalization advocates have made the G8 Summit a central focus in their debates over the economic and environmental responsibilities of the North to the South. Their concerns have also raised bold new questions concerning issues of accountability and transparency in globalization and have succeeded in shifting the G8’s attention towards global poverty, the Millennium Development Goals and the African continent. The agenda for the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, dominated by African Development and Climate Change, would have been highly improbable even ten years ago and is evidence of the G8’s responsiveness to critiques over its legitimacy and policy-focus. Unlike the United Nations or North American Treaty Organization (NATO), there is no permanent secretariat, staff or headquarters for the G8. Instead, the Group of Eight is maintained through the cooperation and coordination of national bureaucrats primarily in the foreign affairs and finance ministries of member-states. The Presidency of the G8 rotates on an annual basis. This year the United Kingdom holds the G8 Presidency, followed by the Russian Federation in 2006 and Germany in 2007. 3 G8 Reform: Expanding the Dialogue Civil Society and Expanded Dialogue, G8 Research Group Executive Summary and Introduction The G8 as an institution has a lot of power, not because it represents a majority of the world’s population, but because it is comprised of members from wealthy countries who can alter and create policies that affect the rest of the world. The G8 has come under continuous criticism for not being an inclusive or representative body. There have been calls for the G8 to reform, or to dismantle entirely to allow other multilateral organizations to take its place. Many see the G8 as an archaic cold war institution that does not reflect the current global situation.1 Furthermore, the G8 does not include the two most populous countries in the world China and India and all of the member states are highly industrialized countries from the “North” with no representation from the Middle East, Latin America, or Africa. For its part, the G8 has taken some actions to address these concerns. Since the 2001 Genoa Summit, whenever dealing with a regional issue, such as African development, the G8 has extended invitations to a selective number of leaders from the particular region. In fact, since 2002, leaders from Africa have been invited to meet for short discussions with the G8 leaders during each summit. At the 2004 Sea Island Summit, the United States also extended this invitation to leaders from the Middle East to contribute to the creation of a “Broader Middle East Initiative.” In 2003 at the Evian Summit, French President Jacques Chirac also invited the leaders of four emerging countries: China, India, Mexico and Brazil to participate in the G8’s dialogue. On 28 March 2005, Tony Blair followed President Chirac’s lead by extending an invitation to attend this year’s summit in Gleneagles, Scotland to the four leading emerging countries and South Africa. More commonly, the hosting G8 country has invited leaders or ministers from other institutions to different Ministerial Meetings. In the past, the President of the European Commission, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Secretary-General for the United Nations have been asked to participate in these meetings and have been involved in some of the discussion at certain summits. This report specifically focuses on the involvement of the G8 member states in the G8 expanded
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Korea-South Korea Relations: Never Mind the Nukes?
    North Korea-South Korea Relations: Never Mind The Nukes? Aidan Foster-Carter Leeds University, UK Almost a year after charges that North Korea has a second, covert nuclear program plunged the Peninsula into intermittent crisis, inter-Korean ties appear surprisingly unaffected. The past quarter saw sustained and brisk exchanges on many fronts, seemingly regardless of this looming shadow. Although Pyongyang steadfastly refuses to discuss the nuclear issue with Seoul bilaterally, the fact that six-party talks on this topic were held in Beijing in late August – albeit with no tangible progress, nor even any assurance that such dialogue will continue – is perhaps taken (rightly or wrongly) as meaning the issue is now under control. At all events, between North and South Korea it is back to business as usual – or even full steam ahead. While (at least in this writer’s view) closer inter-Korean relations are in themselves a good thing, one can easily imagine scenarios in which this process may come into conflict with U.S. policy. Should the six-party process fail or break down, or if Pyongyang were to test a bomb or declare itself a nuclear power, then there would be strong pressure from Washington for sanctions in some form. Indeed, alongside the six- way process, the U.S. is already pursuing an interdiction policy with its Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which Japan has joined but South Korea, pointedly, has not. Relinking of cross-border roads and railways, or the planned industrial park at Kaesong (with power and water from the South), are examples of initiatives which might founder, were the political weather around the Peninsula to turn seriously chilly.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Partnership in Global Economic Governance: Canada’S G20 Summit from Toronto to Turkey John Kirton Co-Director, G20 Research Group
    Potential Partnership in Global Economic Governance: Canada’s G20 Summit from Toronto to Turkey John Kirton Co-director, G20 Research Group Paper prepared for a presentation at TEPAV, Ankara, and DEIK, Istanbul, Turkey, June 7-8, 2010. Version of June 13, 2010. Introduction The Challenge In less than two weeks the most powerful leaders of the world’s 20 most systemically significant countries arrive in Toronto, Canada for their fourth summit of the Group of Twenty (G20). It will be their first meeting of the newly proclaimed permanent priority centre of international economic co-operation, the first co-chaired by an established and emerging economy, and the first held in tight tandem with the older, smaller Group of Eight (G8) major power democracies. In Toronto the G20 leaders will confront several critical global challenges. The first is the European-turned-global financial crisis, erupting in May even before the previous American-turned-global financial crisis of 2007-9 had been solved. The second is the devastation to trade, investment and development that these financial-turned-economic crises cause. The third is the environmental and social problems they exacerbate, from climate change and energy to food and health. And the fourth is strengthening the G20 itself and the international financial institutions and other global bodies more generally, to govern more effectively, equitably and accountably today’s complex, uncertain, intensely interconnected world. Can Canada and Turkey work together at Toronto to cope with these and other challenges that the world confronts? At first glance, Canada and Turkey would appear to be distinctly different countries, within the global community and as members of the G20, the institutionalized club of systemically significant countries that was created in 1999 in response to the Asian-turned-global financial crisis then and that leapt to the leaders’ level in response to the American-turned-global financial crisis continuing today.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2018 G7 Summit: Issues to Watch
    AT A GLANCE The 2018 G7 Summit: Issues to watch On 8 and 9 June 2018, the leaders of the G7 will meet for the 44th G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, for the annual summit of the informal grouping of seven of the world's major advanced economies. The summit takes place amidst growing tensions between the US and other G7 countries over security and multilateralism. Background The Group of Seven (G7) is an international forum of the seven leading industrialised nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union). Decisions within the G7 are made on the basis of consensus. The outcomes of summits are not legally binding, but compliance is high and their impact is substantial, as the G7 members represent a significant share of global gross domestic product (GDP) and global influence. The commitments from summits are implemented by means of measures carried out by the individual member countries, and through their respective relations with other countries and influence in multilateral organisations. Compliance within the G7 is particularly high in regard to agreements on international trade and energy. The summit communiqué is politically binding on all G7 members. As the G7 does not have a permanent secretariat, the annual summit is organised by the G7 country which holds the rotating presidency for that year. The presidency is currently held by Canada, to be followed by France in 2019. Traditionally, the presidency country also determines the agenda of the summit, which includes a mix of fixed topics (discussed each time), such as the global economic climate, foreign and security policy, and current topics for which a coordinated G7 approach appears particularly appropriate or urgent.
    [Show full text]
  • FROM the G7 to a D-10: Strengthening Democratic Cooperation for Today’S Challenges
    FROM THE G7 TO THE D-10 : STRENGTHENING DEMOCRATIC COOPERATION FOR TODAY’S CHALLENGES FROM THE G7 TO A D-10: Strengthening Democratic Cooperation for Today’s Challenges Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig (United States) With Tobias Bunde (Germany), Sophia Gaston (United Kingdom), and Yuichi Hosoya (Japan) ATLANTIC COUNCIL A Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Democratic Order Initiative This report is a product of the Scowcroft Center’s Democratic Order Initiative, which is aimed at reenergizing American global leadership and strengthening cooperation among the world’s democracies in support of a rules-based democratic order. The authors would like to acknowledge Joel Kesselbrenner, Jeffrey Cimmino, Audrey Oien, and Paul Cormarie for their efforts and contributions to this report. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. © 2021 The Atlantic Council of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Atlantic Council, except in the case of brief quotations in news articles, critical articles, or reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • SYSTEMIC REFORM at a STANDSTILL: a FLOCK of “Gs” in SEARCH of GLOBAL FINANCIAL STABILITY by Roy Culpeper, President, the North-South Institute
    SYSTEMIC REFORM AT A STANDSTILL: A FLOCK OF “Gs” IN SEARCH OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL STABILITY by Roy Culpeper, President, The North-South Institute Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Conference on Developing Countries and Global Financial Architecture Marlborough House London, 22-23 June 2000 1 SYSTEMIC REFORM AT A STANDSTILL: A FLOCK OF “Gs” IN SEARCH OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL STABILITY by Roy Culpeper, President, The North-South Institute1 Introduction The subject of “Global Governance” became topical in the 1990s with a rash of financial crises, the most far-reaching and dramatic one having started in East Asia in mid-1997 and spread around the world before subsiding during the course of 1999. It is worth recalling, however, that the subject of Global Governance has been a hardy perennial since the breakdown of the original Bretton Woods system a quarter century ago. Its antecedents include the debate on the New International Economic Order in the 1970s; the North-South Summits of the early 1980s; the UNCED negotiations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; and the chain of ensuing UN conferences throughout the decade – the Vienna conference on Human Rights, the Social Summit at Copenhagen, the Beijing Conference on gender and development, and the Cairo conference on Population and Development. While these discussions have produced a few tangible results, their impact on Global Governance has been minimal. Although it may sound unpleasant to believers in the rationality of a more equitable world order, perhaps a large reason for the failure of these many attempts to reform the global order is that they have been dominated by the poor and the powerless, while the rich and powerful have not been persuaded of the need for significant changes to the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Better Global Economic Brics
    Economics Global Economics Research from the GS Financial WorkbenchSM at https://www.gs.com Paper No: 66 Building Better Global Economic BRICs n In 2001 and 2002, real GDP growth in large emerging market economies will exceed that of the G7. n At end-2000, GDP in US$ on a PPP basis in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) was about 23.3% of world GDP. On a current GDP basis, BRIC share of world GDP is 8%. n Using current GDP, China’s GDP is bigger than that of Italy. n Over the next 10 years, the weight of the BRICs and especially China in world GDP will grow, raising important issues about the global economic impact of fiscal and monetary policy in the BRICs. n In line with these prospects, world policymaking forums should be re-organised and in particular, the G7 should be adjusted to incorporate BRIC representatives. Many thanks to David Blake, Paulo Leme, Binit Jim O’Neill Patel, Stephen Potter, David Walton and others in the Economics Department for their helpful 30th November 2001 suggestions. Important disclosures appear at the end of this document. Goldman Sachs Economic Research Group In London Jim O’Neill, M.D. & Head of Global Economic Research +44(0)20 7774 1160 Gavyn Davies, M.D. & Chief International Economist David Walton, M.D. & Chief European Economist Andrew Bevan, M.D. & Director of International Bond Economic Research Erik Nielsen, Director of New European Markets Economic Research Stephen Potter, E.D. & Senior Global Economist Al Breach, E.D & International Economist Linda Britten, E.D.
    [Show full text]
  • International Economic and Financial Cooperation: New Issues, New Actors, New Responses
    International Economic and Financial Cooperation: New Issues, New Actors, New Responses Geneva Reports on the World Economy 6 International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB) International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies 11 A Avenue de la Paix 1202 Geneva Switzerland Tel (41 22) 734 9548 Fax (41 22) 733 3853 Website: www.icmb.ch © 2004 International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Centre for Economic Policy Research 90-98 Goswell Road London EC1V 7RR UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7878 2900 Fax: +44 (0)20 7878 2999 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cepr.org British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 1 898128 84 7 International Economic and Financial Cooperation: New Issues, New Actors, New Responses Geneva Reports on the World Economy 6 Peter B Kenen Council on Foreign Relations and Princeton University Jeffrey R Shafer Citigroup and former US Under Secretary of the Treasury Nigel L Wicks CRESTCo and former Head of HM Treasury Charles Wyplosz Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva and CEPR ICMB INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES CIMB CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DETUDES MONETAIRES ET BANCAIRES International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB) The International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies was created in 1973 as an inde- pendent, non-profit foundation. It is associated with Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies. Its aim is to foster exchange of views between the financial sector, cen- tral banks and academics on issues of common interest.
    [Show full text]
  • “Focusing on the Future” Congress Outlines the Challenges
    RECORD OF THE KWANALU CONGRESS HELD ON THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2013 AT THE ROYAL SHOW, PIETERMARITZBURG CONGRESS THEME “Focusing on the Future” Congress outlines the challenges and opportunities of current day activities and the role of the agricultural sector in KwaZulu-Natal 1. Registration 2. Welcome The Chairman, Brian Aitken, called the meeting to order and welcomed the guests, amongst others, John Black, an Honorary Life Vice-President of Kwanalu, Robin Barnsley and his wife Sharon, Cyril Xaba, Per Bjorvig, Andries Geyser, Edgar Dhlomo, Students from Weston and Cedara Colleges, SAPS members, various Department officials, sponsors and the press. Apologies had been recorded on the attendance register. He explained that after a review by the Board and Manco, the day’s proceedings would run a little differently as in the past. There would be a longer tea break followed by the Guest Speakers and lunch would move to after the conclusion of Congress. 3. Scripture reading and prayer Andy Buchan opened Congress with a scripture reading and a prayer. He read from Romans 5, 3-5. He said we all went through trials and tribulations but we hold onto hope. We can put our hope in the Lord who never changes. He opened the Congress with a prayer. 4. Motions The Chairman requested Congress to stand for a moment’s silence in remembrance of the three members of Kwanalu, Jannie Boshoff, Jannie Kemp and Theuns van Rensburg who had tragically perished in a light aeroplane crash returning home after last year’s Congress and all those who had lost loved ones as well as those who had been victims of crime since the 2012 Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • National Assembly Written Reply
    MINISTRY PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Department of Public Works l Central Government Offices l 256 Madiba Street l Pretoria l Contact: +27 (0)12 406 1627 l Fax: +27 (0)12 323 7573 Private Bag X9155 l CAPE TOWN, 8001 l RSA 4th Floor Parliament Building l 120 Plain Street l CAPE TOWN l Tel: +27 21 402 2219 Fax: +27 21 462 4592 www.publicworks.gov.za NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WRITTEN REPLY QUESTION NUMBER: 1294 [NO. NW1487E] INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.: 13 of 2021 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 MAY 2021 DATE OF REPLY: 22 JUNE 2021 1294 Mrs M B Hicklin (DA) asked the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure: (1) With reference to the 107-hectare Bryntirion Estate that her department owns (details furnished), what are the (a) names and (b) positions of the persons living in the 27 houses on the property that is owned by her department; (2) in view of the security guards and maintenance people living on the estate in outbuildings reporting that most of the fittings in the houses have been stolen and sold for scrap, on what date was the last inspection conducted by her department; (3) whether any oversight visit can be undertaken to ascertain or establish (a) the state of the houses and (b) who inhabits the Estate; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) (a) what budget has been set aside for the maintenance of the specified property and (b) under which portfolio does the property fall? NW1487E _______________________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL ASSEMBLY QUESTION NO.
    [Show full text]
  • The Land Question in South Africa
    TITLE AND ENTITLEMENT: THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH AFRICA TWENTY-EIGHTH ISSUE OCtoBER 2013 QUARTERLY roundtable THE HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION SERIES helen.suzman.foundation promoting liberal constitutional democracy Vision Promoting liberal constitutional democracy in South Africa. Mission To create a platform for public debate and dialogue – through publications, roundtable discussions, conferences, and by developing a research profile through an internship programme – with the aim of enhancing public service delivery in all its constituent parts. The work of the Helen Suzman Foundation will be driven by the principles and values that informed Helen Suzman’s public life. These are: • reasoned discourse; • fairness and equity; • the protection of human rights; • the promotion of rule of law. The Foundation is not aligned to any political party and will actively work with a range of people and organisations to have a constructive influence on the country’s emerging democracy. “I stand for simple justice, equal opportunity and human rights; the indispensable elements in a democratic society – and well worth fighting for.” — Helen Suzman Hosted with the support of the Open Society Foundation For South Africa roundtable Contact Details Tel +27 11 482 2872 Fax +27 11 482 7897 Email [email protected] Website www.hsf.org.za Postal address Postnet Suite 130, Private Bag X2600, Houghton, 2041, South Africa Physical address 2 Sherborne Road, Parktown, 2193, Johannesburg helen.suzman.foundation promoting liberal constitutional democracy Contents 2 PROFILES
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Compliance with G20 and G7 Climate Change Commitments Through Global, Regional and Local Actors
    Creating Compliance with G20 and G7 Climate Change Commitments through Global, Regional and Local Actors John Kirton, Brittaney Warren and Jessica Rapson University of Toronto Paper prepared for the annual convention of the International Studies Association, April 7–10, 2021. Version of April 1. Key words (three tags): G20, G7, climate change Abstract The greatest global change, where the process of globalization is now complete, is climate change and the existential threats it brings. How do the central global governance institutions of the Group of Seven (G7) major democratic powers from the rich North and the Group of 20 (G20) systemically significant states, including countries of the emerging South, create and comply with commitments to control climate change, by working with key actors at the multilateral, regional, sub-national, local and civil society levels? Using data and previous findings from the Global Governance Program, this paper analyzes how the compliance of G7 and G20 members with their leaders’ summit climate change commitments is affected by invoking the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group, by invoking the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, European Union, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement and the Asia- Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, and by invoking local actors such as sub-national states and provinces, cities, and business, as well as Indigenous Peoples. It identifies ways in which the involvement of such “local” actors can improve compliance, through their inclusion in the substance of G7/G20 commitments and through the civil society engagement groups that seek to shape those commitments. It recommends that, to improve compliance, G7 leaders make more climate change commitments, make more highly binding ones, focus them on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Glasgow Summit and link them to sustainable development.
    [Show full text]
  • References--391-406 8/12/04 11:33 AM Page 391
    11--References--391-406 8/12/04 11:33 AM Page 391 References Aghion, Philippe, Philippe Bacchetta, and Abhijit Banerjee. 2000. Currency Crises and Mon- etary Policy with Credit Constraints. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Photocopy. Aghion, Philippe, Philippe Bacchetta, and Abhijit Banerjee. 2001. A Corporate Balance Sheet Approach to Currency Crises. Photocopy. www.hec.unil.ch/deep/textes/01.14.pdf. Alesina, Alberto, and Guido Tabellini. 1990. A Positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Gov- ernment Debt. Review of Economic Studies 57: 403–14. Allen, Franklin, and Douglas Gale. 2000a. Optimal Currency Crises. New York University. Photocopy (April). www.econ.nyu.edu/user/galed/occ.pdf. Allen, Franklin, and Douglas Gale. 2000b. Comparing Financial Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allen, Mark, Christoph Rosenberg, Christian Keller, Brad Setser, and Nouriel Roubini. 2002. A Balance Sheet Approach to Financial Crisis. IMF Working Paper 02/210 (December). Washington: International Monetary Fund. www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2002/ wp02210.pdf. Arbelaez, Maria Angelica, María Lucía Guerra, and Nouriel Roubini. Forthcoming. Debt Dy- namics and Debt Sustainability in Colombia. In Fiscal Reform in Colombia, ed. J. Poterba. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Banque de France. 2003. Toward a Code of Good Conduct on Sovereign Debt Renegotiation. Issues paper prepared by Banque de France staff. Paris: Banque de France. Bartholomew, Ed, Ernest Stern, and Angela Liuzzi. 2002. Two-Step Sovereign Debt Restruc- turing. New York: JP Morgan Chase and Co. www.emta.org/keyper/barthol.pdf. Becker, T., A. S. Richards, and T. Thaicharoen. 2003. Bond Restructuring and Moral Hazard: Are CACs Costly? Journal of International Economics 61: 127–61.
    [Show full text]