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
- Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil CrisisCommentary
There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.
Gita Wirjawan
- Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in IndonesiaCommentary
As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.
Sana Jaffrey
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like ChinaCommentary
The GDP measure is an attempt to measure value creation in an economy. This measure, however, can vary greatly between economies that have disciplinary mechanisms that force them to recognize investment losses quickly and economies that don’t, and can postpone this recognition for many years.
Michael Pettis
- Some Countries Are Better Prepared for an Energy Crisis This TimeCommentary
As the Iran war shocks oil prices, countries that have invested in renewables, EVs, and battery development since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are seeing the value of their investments.
Noah Gordon
