Under French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s leadership, the G-20 has made addressing food-price volatility a top priority this year, with member states’ agriculture ministers meeting recently in Paris to come up with solutions. The choice of priorities has turned out to be timely: world food prices reached a record high earlier in 2011, recalling a similar price spike in 2008.

Consumers are hurting worldwide, especially the poor, for whom food takes a major bite out of household budgets. Popular discontent over food prices has fueled political instability in some countries, most notably in Egypt and Tunisia. Even agricultural producers would prefer some price stability over the wild ups and downs of the last five years.

The G-20’s efforts will culminate in the Cannes Summit in November. But, when it comes to specific policies, caution will be very much in order, for there is a long history of measures aimed at reducing commodity-price volatility that have ended up doing more harm than good.

For example, some inflation-targeting central banks have reacted to increases in prices of imported commodities by tightening monetary policy and thereby increasing the value of the currency. But adverse movements in the terms of trade must be accommodated; they cannot be fought with monetary policy.

Producing countries have also tried to contain price volatility by forming international cartels. But these have seldom worked.  

In theory, government stockpiles might be able to smooth price fluctuations, releasing commodities in times of shortage and adding to stocks when prices are low.   A free-marketer will point out that they can undermine the incentive for the private sector to hold stockpiles.  A valid response is that this incentive is undermined regardless, because political economy never allows “hoarders” to “price gouge” in times of food crisis.    It all depends on how stockpiles are administered.  The record in practice is not encouraging.

In rich countries, where the primary producing sector usually has political power, stockpiles of food products are used as a means of keeping prices high rather than low. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is a classic example – and has been disastrous for EU budgets, economic efficiency, and consumer pocketbooks.

In many developing countries, on the other hand, farmers lack political power.  Some African countries adopted commodity boards for coffee and cocoa at the time of independence. Although the original rationale was to buy the crop in years of excess supply and sell in years of excess demand, thereby stabilizing prices, in practice the price paid to cocoa and coffee farmers, who were politically weak, was always below the world price.  In response, production fell.

Politicians often seek to shield consumers through price controls on staple foods and energy.  But the artificially suppressed price usually requires rationing to domestic households. (Shortages and long lines can fuel political rage as well as higher prices can.). Otherwise, the policy can require increased imports in order to satisfy the excess demand, and so can raise the world price even more.

If the country is a producer of the commodity in question, it may use export controls  to insulate domestic consumers from increases in the world price. In 2008, India capped rice exports, and Argentina did the same for wheat exports, as did Russia in 2010.

Export restrictions in producing countries and price controls in importing countries both serve to exacerbate the magnitude of the world price upswing, owing to the artificially reduced quantity that is still internationally traded. If producing and consuming countries in grain markets could cooperatively agree to refrain from such government intervention, working through the World Trade Organization, world price volatility could be lower.

In the meantime, some obvious steps should be taken.  It is too bad that the G20 attempt to do away with bio-fuel subsidies has failed, so far. Ethanol subsidies, such as those paid to American corn farmers, do not accomplish policymakers’ avowed environmental goals, but do divert grain and thus help drive up world food prices. By now this should be clear to everybody. But one cannot really expect the G-20 agriculture ministers to be able to fix the problem. After all, their constituents, the farmers, are the ones pocketing the money. The US, it must be said, is the biggest obstacle here.

What the G-20 farm ministers — meeting for the first time June 23 — have agreed is to forge an Agricultural Market Information System to improve transparency in agricultural markets, including information about production, stocks, and prices. More complete and timely information might indeed help.

But speculation is not necessarily destabilizing. Sarkozy is right that leverage is not necessarily good just because the free market allows it.  And that speculators occasionally act in a destabilizing way. But speculators more often act as detectors of changes in economic fundamentals and provide the signals that smooth fluctuations. In other words, they often are a stabilizing force.

The French have not yet been able to obtain agreement from the other G-20 members on measures aimed at regulating commodity speculators, such as limits on the size of their investment positions. I hope it stays that way. Shooting the messenger is no way to respond to the message.

[This op-ed appeared via Project Syndicate.  Comments can be posted at that site.]

Korea may have an opportunity to exercise historic leadership, when it chairs the G-20 meeting in Seoul, November 11-12.    This will be the first time that a non-G-7 country has hosted the G-20 since the larger, more inclusive, group supplanted the smaller rich-country group in April of last year as the premier steering committee for the world economy.  With large emerging market and developing countries playing such expanded economic roles, the G-7 had lost legitimacy.  It was high time to make the membership more representative.    But there is also a danger that the G-20 will now prove too unwieldy, in which case decision-making might then revert to the smaller group.

When countries like China and India used to demand a larger voice in world governance based on their large populations, they did not get very far.   Substantive power in multilateral governance is allocated according to the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold rules.”    But after a few decades of miraculous economic growth rates they now have the economic heft.    China is now larger economically than Japan or Germany.   Brazil is also one of the seven largest economies.

Beyond GDP, we have recently seen a historic role reversal, in which debtor-creditor patterns have changed.    Many developing countries, breaking historic patterns, took advantage of the global boom of 2003-2007 to achieve high national saving rates, particularly in the form of strong government budgets, while the advanced countries did not.   As a result, the debt levels of the top 20 rich countries (debt/GDP ratios around 80%) are now twice those of the top 20 emerging markets.   And it is rising rapidly.   A number of emerging market countries now have higher credit ratings than a number of so-called advanced countries.  A stronger fiscal position is one of the reasons that countries like China could afford to undertake large and sustained fiscal stimulus in response to the 2008-09 global recession.   The United States and United Kingdom, by contrast, had wasted the preceding expansion running budget deficits, and hence by 2010 had come to feel heavily constrained by their debts.

It is understandable if Korea views its hosting of the G-20 as another opportunity for marking its arrival on the world stage (as when it hosted the Olympics) or for consolidating its status as an industrialized economy (as when it joined the OECD).  But it should make more of its opportunity than this.  Korea should seize the chance to exercise substantive leadership.   Otherwise, the risk is that its period in the chair could appear like a replay of the chaotic Czech presidency of the EU in the first half of 2009, which confirmed the feelings of some in the larger European countries that it was a mistake to let smaller countries take their turns behind the wheel.

Korea can serve as a bridge between the G-7 and the developing countries.  But chairing a successful meeting will be a challenge, with respect to both meeting management and substantive issues.

With regard to managing the meeting, the challenge comes from the size of the group.   There is always a tradeoff between legitimacy and workability.   The G-7 was small enough to be workable but too small to claim legitimacy.  The United Nations is big enough to claim legitimacy but too big to be workable.  The latest evidence of this was the Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen last December.  The UNFCCC proved a totally ineffectual vehicle, in part because small countries repeatedly blocked progress.    President Obama was able to make more progress by spending a few minutes in a room with a few big emitting countries than the delegates had achieved in two weeks.

The G-20 has enough legitimacy for its purpose — which is more limited than the purposes of formal institutions such as the UN, IMF, and WTO.  It accounts for 85% of the world’s GDP, for example.    But it is too big to be workable as a steering group.  A principle of multilateral talk-shops is that conversation is not possible with more than 10 in the room.  With 20 delegations, each reads prepared statements;  there is no give and take and the communiqué is a watered down least-common-denominator press release.   Not only does the G-20 have more than 10 delegations; it actually has more than 20.

The G-20 needs a smaller informal steering group within the steering group, a G-6 or G-9 within the G-20.   It could meet in the evening before the main G-20 meeting and discuss how to organize the discussion in the larger group.

Who would be in the G-6 or G-9?   It would be unwise to be too specific at this point.  Nevertheless, the US, Japan, and Europe (represented perhaps by the EU Commission), must be there on the rich-country side; China, India, and Brazil must be there on the developing-country side.   Of course the pressure to expand is always irresistible.  Europe could be represented by both the U.K. and euroland.    In Seoul, Korea has to be there as the host. Who would be the 9^th country in the G-9?   It should be the country of which the person reading this blog post is a citizen.

What about the substance of the meetings?   The group will discuss whatever the bigger countries consider it most useful to discuss at the time.    Five possible topics include:

• At long last, giving more seats on the IMF executive board to big emerging market countries, in proportion to their rising economic clout,offset by consolidation of some of Europe’s seats.
• More financial regulatory reform, such as coordination of any small taxes or penalties that members want to apply to risk-taking banks.
• Global current account imbalances. Perhaps there will be a statement agreeing that large current account deficits or surpluses tend to lead to problem (absent some good economic justification), that exchange rates and budget deficits both bear some responsibility for current large imbalances, and that the burden of adjustment should be born by neither one alone, but rather by both.
• Macroeconomic exit strategies. I personally would favor an articulation of the proposition that concrete steps toward long-term fiscal consolidation in each country need not require premature withdrawal of current fiscal stimulus. An example would be to raise the future retirement age or take other steps today to reform public pensions, even while simultaneously enacting some short-term stimulus in the US and UK.
• Moving toward a new agreement on climate change to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. Korea is in a good position to lead, as essentially the first post-Kyoto country to accept emission targets.

Don’t judge the outcome of the meeting by what appears in the media.   Press reviews usually pronounce such summits a let-down.   But occasionally such meetings are important, in ways that are often not clear until later.

Consider the London G-20 meeting of April 2009.    It was not obvious at the time that it had been a success in terms of substantive policies.   Observers even compared it to the infamous failed London Economic Summit of 1933, which was a way of saying that the world had not learned the lessons of the Great Depression.    But the 2009 meeting appears far better in hindsight.  Looking back on 2009, fiscal stimulus turned out to be more widespread in 2009 than one might have guessed.    Similarly, global monetary policy was easy, avoiding another big mistake of the 1930s.  The G-20 unexpectedly agreed to triple IMF resources and bring the SDR back from the dead.  Even in the area of trade policy, despite fears of protectionism, the outcome was not bad at all by the standards of past recessions, let alone in comparison with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930.   Overall, policy-makers’ immediate response to the global recession in 2009 did not repeat the mistakes of the early 1930s.

Currently, however, the advanced countries are in danger of repeating the mistake that President Franklin Roosevelt made in 1937, when he cut spending prematurely and sent the US economy back into recession.  Perhaps the G-20 will be a venue in which the big emerging market countries can remind the U.S. and the U.K. of the lesson they once knew but have now forgotten — what it means to run a countercyclical fiscal policy.

[This column was written for Project Syndicate. Comments can be posted there.]

National leaders are meeting at the United Nations in New York today, to discuss the climate change negotiations.    Talks will continue at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh later in the week.   But hopes look very bleak for progress sufficient to produce at Copenhagen in December a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.   The biggest roadblock is the familiar game of “After you, Alphonse.”  The United States will not accept quantitative emission targets unless China, India and other developing countries do the same, at the same time.    But the developing countries will not cut their emissions below the Business as Usual path (BAU) unless the rich countries go first. 

My own proposal for how to break the deadlock is a plan that tries in a politically realistic way to assign emission targets, leaving no country feeling it is being asked to incur an economic cost that is unfair or too large.    The targets are derived from a family of formulas   The specific detailed example of the plan that I have given in the past attained an environmental target by the year 2100 of CO2 concentrations equal to 500 ppm.  It did so without violating the political constraints, which included the constraint that no country is asked to accept an ex ante target that costs it more than 1% of income in present value, or more than 5% of income in any single budget period.

The G-7 leaders, meeting in Italy in June 2009, set a more aggressive collective goal, corresponding approximately to concentrations of 380 PPM.   I have recently been trying to hit that goal, working with Valentina Bosetti, within the same political constraints and framework of formulas.    To achieve the more aggressive environmental goal, we advance the dates at which some countries are asked to begin cutting below BAU.  We also tinker with the values for the parameters in the formulas (parameters that govern the extent of progressivity and equity, and the speed with which latecomers must eventually catch up).   The resulting target paths for emissions are run through the WITCH model to find their economic and environmental effects.   We find that it is not possible to attain the 380 ppm goal, subject strictly to our political constraints.  We are, however, able to attain a concentration goal of 460 ppm with somewhat looser political constraints. 

Some may conclude from these results that the more aggressive environmental goals are not attainable in practice, and that our earlier proposal for how to attain 500ppm is the better plan.   We take no position on which environmental goal is best overall.   Rather, we submit that, whatever the goal, our approach will give targets that are more practical economically and politically than approaches that have been proposed by others.

[Readers wishing to post comments are referred to the SeekingAlpha version.]

The field of International Monetary Economics is not without its own cycles and fads.

In a speech at the European Central Bank over the summer, “On Global Currencies,” I identified eight concepts that I saw as having recently “peaked” and eight more that I saw as newly rising in relevance. Those that I viewed as losing traction were: the G-7, global savings glut, corners hypothesis, proliferating currency unions, inflation targeting (narrowly defined), exorbitant privilege, Bretton Woods II, and currency manipulation. Those that I saw as receiving increased emphasis now and in the future were: the G-20, the IMF, SDR, credit cycle, reserves, intermediate exchange rate regimes, commodity currencies, and multiple international currency system.

A condensed version appears this month in Finance and Development, from the IMF, titled “What’s ‘In’ and What’s ‘Out’ in Global Money.”  I boil the list down to five concepts that I pronounce “on the way out” and five more that I see as replacing them:

• The G-7 has been rendered largely obsolete by its lack of representation of developing countries, and thus in the course of 2009 has been overtaken by the G-20.

• The corners hypothesis had become conventional wisdom by the end of the 1990s. This was the idea that all countries were or should be abandoning intermediate exchange rate regimes (bands, baskets, crawling pegs, adjustable pegs, and heavily managed floats) in favor of either the floating corner or the institutionally fixed corner (currency boards, dollarization, or monetary union). Since 2001 the tide has turned against the corners hypothesis, and far fewer economists would now assert it as a sweeping generalization.  Certainly a huge fraction of the members of the IMF continue to follow intermediate regimes.

• The language of “unfair currency manipulation,” has been in US law since 1988 and the IMF Articles of Agreement for longer. China during the years 2004-2008 was pretty much the first large country to face charges of unfairly manipulating its currency to keep it undervalued. But US Congressmen who have for years urged China to abandon its link to the dollar could well live to regret it, if they were to get their way and the People’s Bank of China did in fact stop buying US treasury bills. It is finally beginning to sink in among Americans that having China as its largest creditor carries with it some new constraints.  What concept is “on its way in,” to replace the idea that intervening to prevent one’s currency from appreciating is anathema?   Reserves.  Two short years ago, Western economists were lecturing surplus countries that they were acquiring too many reserves.  Today we see that the developing countries that have weathered the 2007-09 crisis the best are countries that had previously piled up the most reserves, other things equal.

• Most controversially, I assert that Inflation Targeting — narrowly defined, I hasten to add — has seen its best days. The definition of IT I have in mind is the proposition that the monetary authorities should set a target range for the increase in the CPI each year, and then should focus all their efforts on hitting it. This orthodoxy says that the central bankers should pay no attention to asset prices, the exchange rate, or commodity prices, except to the extent that they carry implications for the CPI. For large rich countries, it has become clear since 2007 that Alan Greenspan was wrong when he (plausibly) abjured all attempts to identify or discourage bubbles in real estate and stock markets. As a result, the credit cycle view of monetary policy has been resurrected , after a long period when only inflation was thought to matter. For smaller and developing countries, I would also argue that volatility in commodity prices has made it clear that monetary policy should let currencies depreciate, at least somewhat, when the terms of trade worsen, rather than the opposite as is implied by a strict interpretation of CPI targeting. For them, I would propose replacing the CPI target with a more production-oriented price index, such as a target for the PPI or even an export price index.

• The United States has benefited throughout the post-war period by an unlimited ability to borrow in dollars. A popular view two years ago, supported by some of the best scholars, was that the US had earned the dollar privilege by establishing a unique comparative advantage in supplying a saving-glut world with high-quality assets. Then the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 revealed that US assets were not so high-quality after all. The dollar did retain the benefit of being the safe haven currency in 2008, as an exorbitant privilege — contrary to the predictions of those of us who had predicted that the unsustainable current account deficit would lead to a large depreciation. Nevertheless, some developments in the course of 2009 have suggested a global movement away from the unipolar dollar standard, and toward a new multiple international reserve system. These events include the gradual rise of the euro as an international currency to rival the dollar, the sudden and unexpected resurrection of the SDR from near-death, new interest in the yen and gold as safe haven assets (including among central banks), and the very first glimmerings of an international role for the RMB.

[Any readers wishing to post comments are referred to the Seeking Alpha version.]

Most international summit meetings are long on photo-opportunities and short on substance.   There was a great danger that last Thursday’s G-20 meeting in London would be merit comparison to the failed World Economic Conference of 1933, which was also held in London.   This one, however, did have genuine substance.   

Nobody reads the communiques, or listens to the press conferences of leaders or finance ministers. But here is the substance:

Top of the list of accomplishments was expansion of IMF resources. The new SDR allocation was perhaps the most noteworthy and unexpected decision: those observers who have proposed such a step in the current international crisis, or in past international crises, have usually been dismissed as pipe-dreamers (John Williamson, Dani Rodrik, George Soros, Joe Stiglitz…). In addition, there seems to have been some forward movement on international regulation of the financial sector, as the Europeans wanted. Although President Obama acquitted himself well overall, the failure to achieve agreement for coordinated additional fiscal stimulus, as the Americans wanted, was probably the greatest shortcoming of the meeting.

I believe the G-20 meeting will be remembered historically, but not primarily for the above reasons. It will be remembered as the occasion on which primary emphasis shifted from the G-7, the global steering group that until now has had a monopoly on real economic decision-making power, to the G-20. Of the various substantive ways in which developing countries could and should have been given more representation in recent years, the shift to the G-20 is the first one to have actually taken place.

The members of the G-20 are meeting in Washington on November 15 to discuss reform of the global financial system.  The first thing to say about the calls for a “new Bretton Woods” is that they overreach, in the sense that it is very unlikely that any changes in the structure of the international monetary or financial system will or should, at this point in history, come out of multilateral discussions that are big enough to merit comparison with the first Bretton Woods. Certainly we are not talking about fixing exchange rates, as the 1944 meeting did.

Detour for an anecdote.  In mid-1998, when the crisis that originated in Southeast Asia had reached its one-year anniversary without abating, President Bill Clinton decided to give two important speeches.   He wanted to call for a new Bretton Woods.   His economic advisers (including both at Treasury and in the White House) advised him against this, on the grounds that one should not call for something as portentous as a new Bretton Woods when one was not likely to have proposals substantive enough to merit the name.   Soon after the (successful) speeches, British PM Tony Blair called for a new Bretton Woods.    Clinton asked his advisers, “How come Blair got to call for a new Bretton Woods when you wouldn’t let me do it?”    Our answer was along the lines, “Blair’s Treasury Secretary, Gordon Brown, doe s not necessarily have his interests aligned with his boss, in the way that Bob Rubin does.   So Brown had less incentive to stop Blair from saying something foolish.”   The big irony of the story is that Brown today is himself leading the move for a “new Bretton Woods.”

Even though the effort is virtually certain to fall short of a true “Bretton Woods 2,” it is worth taking the opportunity to consider what changes – whether more ambitious or less — might be made at the multilateral level to improve the functioning of the system.

Changes in government policy at the national level have already been radical in many countries, compared to anything that would have been imagined a short time ago:
• central banks’ extension of credit to institutions and under terms not contemplated in the past,
• governments’ buying up bad assets and recapitalizing, taking over,, or otherwise transforming troubled banks and financial institutions),
• agencies guaranteeing deposits (without limit) and money market funds, and so on.

Some of these steps can be done at the purely domestic level (US takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); others require cooperation between a small number of countries (rescue of Fortis by Benelux countries); but others arguably require multilateral agreement, and thus are candidates for a modest “Bretton Woods.”

•  The International Monetary Fund has been given the task of outlining what a new Bretton Woods would look like – appropriate since the IMF is one of the original Bretton Woods institutions (along with the World Bank).
      o An Early Warning system is almost certain to be high on its list. But it already developed early warning indicators, after the East Asia crisis of 1997-98, and they haven’t been much help.
      o Now that the financial crisis is spreading to small economies like Iceland, transition economies in easternmost Europe, and poor countries like Pakistan, the IMF country rescue programs will get back in the saddle.
           This time around, however, the Fund has more competition (including from the ECB, the Gulf countries, China, and Sovereign Wealth Funds), and partly for that reason will probably demand less conditionality from the borrowing countries.    Also the Fund will have to turn to newly-wealthy countries like China to help finance  new facilities and programs.
              • Bill Rhodes has proposed that the Fund facilitate expansion of currency swap arrangements, to allow emerging markets to have the same access that has been made available to developing countries.
              • Michael Bordo and Harold James have suggested that the Fund could manage reserve assets of the new surplus countries; but it is not clear why the latter should want it to.
          The Contingent Credit Lines (CCL) – which were launched by the IMF with some fanfare in the aftermath of the 1997-98 East Asian crisis but were never attractive enough to attract a single client country — are back now, in the form of  new Short-Term Lending Facility.  The idea has always been that countries that have followed blameless policy (or as far as we can come to that in the real world), as judged by pre-crisis criteria, should be able to borrow large amounts from the Fund very quickly when faced with global contagion, without the usual conditionality.    Brazil and Korea look like two countries that had done most things right in recent years (flexible exchange rates, high level of reserves…) and have nevertheless since September seen international investors disappear.    The IMF has responded appropriately, with CCL-type loans that are multiples of country quotas.  
          Only a small number of countries qualify for having followed “blameless policy.”  Morris Goldstein suggests that the larger class of countries that have now been hit by forces beyond their control — the US-originating financial crisis — be helped by a revival of a long-ago IMF loan window, the Compensatory Financing Facility.
• The problem is that the money that the IMF is now able to offer is not only small relative to global capital markets (the IMF has long been used to that circumstance), but also small relative to the countries’ own reserves or to the no-condition funds that the Federal Reserve has now offered them through swap lines.   To expand such facilities, the IMF needs more funding.  Where will it come from?  Sovereign Wealth Funds and central banks in East Asia and Gulf countries.   But that in turn requires giving these countries much greater political representation than they currently have in the Fund.
              o There has been a loose one-year campaign to suggest guidelines for the operations of Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves, to “regulate” them.  But benefits of the SWFs may be more widely appreciated now than a year ago, in the context of the current crisis.   
              o The IMF, just as all the multilateral economic institutions, has moved far too slowly to give added representation to the newly important developing countries such as China, Brazil, Korea, India and Mexico – representation at least in proportion to their economic role, to say nothing of population.
                  A big part of the problem is that larger quotas and voting shares for these countries would have to come to a substantial extent out of Europe’s share.
                  In a fair world, Europe would also give up its stranglehold on the Managing Directorship (especially after the performance of the recent incumbents, who have appeared less interested in their jobs than in domestic politics back in their home countries or in putting new meaning into the phrase “foreign affairs”).  The same goes for the U.S with respect to the World Bank presidency.

•  The G-8 has been increasingly handicapped in recent years by virtue of its obsolete membership.
      o The G-7 still retains some relevance, in its role as self-appointed steering committee for world governance. After all, this financial crisis did not start in the developing countries, as it did those of 1982, 1997 and 2001.
     o But the G-7 cannot discuss the spread of the crisis to developing countries without Korea, Brazil, Turkey, India and Mexico at the table.  It cannot discuss central topics such as global current account imbalances, or the need for exchange rate adjustments, or coordinated global fiscal expansion, or requests that surplus countries fund rescue programs,  without China and Saudi Arabia at the table.     Thus it is appropriate that the G-20 is the group that has been invited to to the November 15 summit in Washington to discuss the new Bretton Woods.   
     o  Coordinated fiscal expansion is the most likely substantive macroeconomic policy outcome of the G-20 meeting.
      
• A probable substantive structural outcome from talk of the need for a bold new multilateral initiative is that there could be a “Basel III” to replace the “Basel II” agreement.
      o It would make capital requirements on banks countercyclical, rather than what has turned out to be procyclical, i.e., destabilizing, under Basel II. (Ironically economists at the BIS in Basel probably deserve credit for being the observers, in addition to Charles Goodhart, who most accurately warned of the procyclicality before the crisis.)
      o A Basel III could also replace the option of self-regulation of banks (under which they could choose their own Value At Risk models) with external regulation.    Dan Tarullo, who could have a  major role on the Obama team, offers some ideas .
      o The highly capable chairman of the Financial Stabilty Forum, Mario Draghi, assures us that already this year substantial progress has been made in such important areas as reducing conflict of interest on the part of credit-rating agencies.
      o International guidelines for guaranteeing deposits (possibly reinstating a ceiling, such as $100,000, after the crisis has passed) should perhaps be coordinated, to avoid flight of the sort that Ireland’s European partners experienced.

• Other possibilities:
      o A more ambitious reform would be to try to agree on guidelines to extend prudential regulation from international banks to non-bank financial institutions, since the latter were such a serious part of the problem in 2008 that many either failed or were bailed out, against all expectations.
      o More radically, regulation of this sort not just agreed multilaterally but carried out multilaterally, rather than at the national level, by the BIS (which now includes major emerging market countries) or a new agency.
      o The IMF, Financial Stability Forum, and other institutions will vie to lead the effort.
      o Other proposals, many of which could be attempted at the national level, but would optimally be coordinated internationally:
           A securities transactions tax, harmonized internationally, to raise revenue in a way that satisfies the public’s understandable feeling that the financial sector, which created this financial crisis, should not benefit from the solution.
           Executive compensation reform (especially in the financial sector).   Options-based bonuses have not been implemented in the incentive-compatible way that the corporate finance theorists anticipate  d, and have instead encouraged inordinate risk-taking.  One possible solution is to discourage compensation by options, in favor of restricted stock.    Another is to regulate corporate governance so as to insure that the CEO’s buddies don’t comprise the committee that determines his or her compensation.
         Regulation of the “originate to distribute” model of mortgage lending. Mortgage-Backed Securities were a useful innovation, but were carried too far.  The banks or mortgage brokers that originate a mortgage loan should be required to reattain a certain slice of each one (some have suggested 1/5), before selling the rest on, so that they have an incentive to monitor the creditworthiness of the borrower.  
           Regulation of Collateralized Debt Obligations.   Perhaps it is enough to raise capital requirement on the holders.  Perhaps something more drastic is required. 
           Regulation of certain derivatives, particularly Credit Default Swaps.  Perhaps it would be enough to standardize CDSs and set up a central clearing house, as many observers have suggested.
           But there is a danger that derivatives regulation could do more harm than good, e.g., a ban on futures markets or short-selling.
  o At the other end of the spectrum, one should consider the possibility that doing nothing might in the end be better than undertaking fundamental reforms in the international financial system, if the latter were driven by clumsy politics.

[To anyone wishing to post a comment:  I recommend you go to the RGE version of this post.]