Paper
Sven Behrendt
{
"authors": [
"Sven Behrendt"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Economy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
For the G20, the Glass Is Half Full
The G20 still has far to go in terms of reforming the global financial system and calming the lingering economic turmoil, but the experience of sovereign wealth funds provides a useful outline for what is possible.
Published on Jun 23, 2010
Source: RealClearMarkets
The verdict is still out if the G20, facing singular national interests, can effectively translate principles into more concrete policies and develop a financial architecture that defends a dynamic global economy. If anything, the financial crisis demonstrated that good governance, accountability, and transparency are not some lofty ideals, but have a monetary value - trillions of dollars. The G20 needs to take the lead in finding a solution.
Inspiration about alternative arrangements for meaningful global governance might come from an investor class that in recent years has a made a remarkably noisy entry into global economic affairs. Only two years ago, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) were hugely exposed to critics - particularly in Europe and the United States - where they were perceived as opaque, politically motivated government agencies that challenged the very foundations of the global capitalist system.
Responding to these allegations, an unusual crowd of 26 SWFs from Norway, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore, China, Russia, and other industrialized and emerging economies banded together in 2008 and developed a voluntary code of principles. The "Santiago Principles" committed SWFs to uniform governance, accountability, and transparency standards. And with their adoption, the world's leading SWFs have managed to become more transparent and accountable and as such provide the G20 with valuable lessons when designing new mechanisms for global governance.
Today, these SWFs marshal considerable financial resources, representing around US$2.3 trillion. This is double the size of the global hedge fund industry and roughly equal to the size of global private equity funds. They have made progress in implementing the principles, even though they were a radical deviation from their traditional approach at times.
By submitting to the principles, the SWFs voluntarily ceded their autonomy and made a conscious decision to limit the reach of their so-called sovereignty. The willingness of SWFs to supply higher levels of transparency and predictability has been part of the bargain with recipient countries to maintain open cross-border investment rules and regulations.
While there is no enforcement mechanism for SWFs and no institutionalized authority that can sanction non-compliance, the principles have developed an incentive structure for some of the most powerful players in international finance to voluntarily move forward with the good governance and transparency agenda. They provide a best practice benchmark, and an implicit peer review mechanism helps to prevent the more responsibility oriented funds from falling behind industry leaders.
But the story is not all positive. A closer look at the implementation process reveals that overall, the compliance level of SWFs to the Santiago Principles is just over 50 percent. A number of funds do not provide adequate financial information, including strategic asset allocation, benchmarks, and financial performance. Some also have difficulty clarifying the relationship between their operational management and political leadership.
Still, the glass is half full, rather than half empty.
The G20 in Toronto and in Seoul later this year will undoubtedly be concerned by the necessity to respond to the consequences of the sovereign debt crisis. It will examine mechanisms for closer macroeconomic coordination and hopefully introduce reforms for financial regulation and international financial institutions. As the G20 moves from crisis management to crisis prevention, the group needs to have a closer look at the work of sovereign wealth funds as a unique example of global governance.
Clearly, the G20 still has far to go in terms of reforming the global financial system and calming the lingering economic turmoil. Thankfully, the experience of sovereign wealth funds provides a useful outline for what's possible.
About the Author
Sven Behrendt
Former Visiting Scholar, Middle East Center
Behrendt is an expert in global issues, international negotiations, conflict resolution, and corporate strategy. He previously served at the World Economic Forum in various management positions.
- Sovereign Wealth Funds and the Santiago Principles: Where Do They Stand?
- Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Governance ChallengeArticle
Sven Behrendt
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Stare Down China on Trade?Commentary
The European Commissioner for Trade is headed to China. But after President Xi’s bridge-building visit to Washington, can a more isolated EU overcome Beijing’s stranglehold on critical raw materials? Who will blink first?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- How Le Pen Benefits from the Stalemate in UkraineCommentary
The domestic impacts of how long it is taking to end the war in Ukraine have pushed the French electorate to the political extremes and compromised the country’s diplomatic capacity.
Rym Momtaz
- The Plaza Accord and Its Relevance for ChinaCommentary
The Plaza Accord was not an externally imposed punishment of Japan but part of a broader restructuring that Japanese economists and policymakers themselves recognized was necessary. Its effects were undermined, however, when Tokyo responded to the resulting slowdown with policies that exacerbated investment, credit expansion, and the very imbalances the adjustment was intended to resolve.
Michael Pettis
- A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, TooCommentary
A summer of escalation in the Black Sea has hurt Ukraine economically and is exacerbating world food security. A truce is needed—as is a broader reframing of Europe’s Ukraine strategy.
Thomas de Waal
- BIS in the New Age of Import ControlsCommentary
The Bureau of Industry and Security needs to adjust its focus and practices to maintain its position as the U.S. government’s primary champion of international technological competition.
Geoffrey Irving
