One Good Book

The Case for International Institutions

What if global powerhouse institutions actually did their jobs pretty well during the Great Recession?

National Journal
Nancy Cook
See more stories about...
Nancy Cook
July 11, 2014, 1 a.m.

What if glob­al power­house in­sti­tu­tions, which people love to hate in a knee-jerk way, ac­tu­ally did their jobs pretty well dur­ing the Great Re­ces­sion? That’s the premise of The Sys­tem Worked: How the World Stopped An­oth­er Great De­pres­sion (Ox­ford Uni­versity Press, 2014), a coun­ter­in­tu­it­ive book from Daniel Drezn­er, a pro­fess­or of in­ter­na­tion­al polit­ics at Tufts Uni­versity, as well as a pro­lif­ic tweeter and fre­quent con­trib­ut­or to The Wash­ing­ton Post.

While try­ing not to sound too Pol­ly­an­naish, Drezn­er makes the case that the G-20, the In­ter­na­tion­al Mon­et­ary Fund, the World Trade Or­gan­iz­a­tion, the Bank for In­ter­na­tion­al Set­tle­ments, and oth­er such groups helped to lessen the blow to the glob­al eco­nomy in­flic­ted by the worst U.S. fin­an­cial crisis since the Great De­pres­sion. They ac­com­plished this by co­ordin­at­ing policy, re­writ­ing rules, and en­sur­ing that trade re­mained strong even as mar­kets tanked throughout the de­veloped world. “Com­pared to sim­il­ar crises of this mag­nitude in the past, the world eco­nomy did not suf­fer as big of an eco­nom­ic hit, and growth re­sumed more quickly than ex­pec­ted,” Drezn­er writes in the open­ing chapter.

(Lorenzo Gritti)Spe­cific­ally, he ar­gues that glob­al in­sti­tu­tions re­acted quickly and staved off a worse fin­an­cial crisis by im­ple­ment­ing new bank­ing reg­u­la­tions, known as Basel III, to en­sure that banks kept more cash on hand. The IMF helped to nudge ne­go­ti­ations between cap­it­al im­port­ers and ex­port­ers to keep trade go­ing. The G-20 sup­planted the G-8 as the primary eco­nom­ic for­um, al­low­ing more coun­tries to par­ti­cip­ate in key in­ter­na­tion­al de­cisions. And the WTO, IMF, and Or­gan­iz­a­tion for Eco­nom­ic Co-op­er­a­tion and De­vel­op­ment jumped in and did a good job of mon­it­or­ing eco­nom­ic trends.

These achieve­ments, Drezn­er con­cludes, trump any break­downs in glob­al gov­ernance in the last few years, such as dis­agree­ments over fisc­al aus­ter­ity or the failed Doha trade talks (in­ter­na­tion­al ne­go­ti­ations that stalled when rich­er coun­tries dis­agreed with de­vel­op­ing ones, primar­ily over ag­ri­cul­tur­al sub­sidies). “Look­ing for per­fec­tion in glob­al gov­ernance is the en­emy of find­ing the good,” Drezn­er main­tains, giv­ing him­self some wiggle room in his ana­lys­is of how well the sys­tem worked.

That key caveat al­lows Drezn­er to draw his con­trari­an con­clu­sion that the glob­al gov­ernance sys­tem func­tioned post­crisis; it also lends the book less of a con­tro­ver­sial sweep than his thes­is first im­plies. It’s a bit like giv­ing props to Con­gress in 2013 when law­makers man­aged to pass a bill at the last minute to stave off massive tax hikes and spend­ing cuts. The bar is so low for co­oper­at­ive policy-mak­ing now, in­ter­na­tion­ally or do­mest­ic­ally, that any move­ment is cause for cel­eb­ra­tion. “The ques­tion is not wheth­er glob­al gov­ernance has been flaw­less, but wheth­er it has been good enough in sup­ply­ing the ne­ces­sary policies and pub­lic goods,” Drezn­er says.

With­in these nar­row para­met­ers, Drezn­er of­fers a thought­ful and con­tem­por­ary ana­lys­is of glob­al gov­ern­ing sys­tems and their un­der­ly­ing polit­ics. The book isn’t ex­actly a beach read, but it still con­tains im­port­ant takeaways for D.C. poli­cy­makers in today’s hy­per­crit­ic­al, hy­per-par­tis­an cli­mate. Drezn­er wants read­ers to ques­tion the con­ven­tion­al wis­dom that noth­ing works glob­ally or oth­er­wise. This “power­ful bi­as” to­ward neg­at­iv­ity, as Drezn­er calls it, can blind people to mo­ments of in­ter­na­tion­al suc­cess, such as the one that fol­lowed the Great Re­ces­sion. And a per­man­ent sense of pess­im­ism can feed in­to a false sense of nos­tal­gia for the good old days. Drezn­er’s point? Those golden days nev­er truly ex­is­ted, nor will they in the fu­ture — so why not cel­eb­rate the smal­ler vic­tor­ies and mo­ments of co­oper­a­tion?

What We're Following See More »
LOUD “BLACK LIVES MATTER” CHANTS RING OUT
Mothers Of The Movement Endorse Hillary Clinton
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

A coalition of mothers whose children lost their lives in high profile cases across the country, known as the Mothers Of The Movement, were greeted with deafening chants of "Black Lives Matter" before telling their stories. The mothers of Sandra Bland, Jordan Davis, and Trayvon Martin spoke for the group, soliciting both tears and applause from the crowd. "Hillary Clinton has the compassion and understanding to comfort a grieving mother," said Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin. "And that's why, in the memory of our children, we are imploring you — all of you — to vote this election day."

SOUTH DAKOTA GIVES HER CLINCHING DELEGATES
Clinton Officially Democratic Nominee for President
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

With the South Dakota delegation announcing its delegate count, Hillary Rodham Clinton is officially the Democratic nominee for president, surpassing the 2383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton is expected to speak at the convention on Thursday night and officially accept the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many People Protested in Philly Yesterday?
7 hours ago
THE ANSWER

About 5,500, according to official estimates. "The Monday figures marked a large increase from the protests at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where even the largest protests only drew a couple of hundred demonstrators. But it’s a far cry from the 35,000 to 50,000 that Philadelphia city officials initially expected."

Source:
NO BATTLEGROUND STATES LEAN TRUMP
NY Times’ Upshot Gives Clinton 68% Chance to Win
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Only a day after FiveThirtyEight's Now Cast gave Donald Trump a 57% chance of winning, the New York Times' Upshot fires back with its own analysis that shows Hillary Clinton with a 68% chance to be the next president. Its model "calculates win probabilities for each state," which incorporate recent polls plus "a state's past election results and national polling." Notably, all of the battleground states that "vote like the country as a whole" either lean toward Clinton or are toss-ups. None lean toward Trump.

Source:
HOLCOMB IS A FORMER TOP AIDE
Indiana Lt. Gov. Tapped to Run for Pence’s Seat
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

On the second ballot, the Indiana Republican Party's Central Committee tapped Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb as their nominee to succeed Gov. Mike Pence this fall. "Holcomb was a top aide to former Gov. Mitch Daniels and Sen. Dan Coats and a former chairman of the state Republican Party."

Source:
×