Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

G20: The case for Australia

Reading Time: 2 mins

In Brief

Just what is World Bank President Robert Zoellick up to? He attended the G20 meeting in Brazil over the weekend, only to argue that this is the wrong grouping and should be replaced by a more exclusive gathering. To say the least, this is an unhelpful intervention, not just for Australia (which would be excluded from the Zoellick group) but also for the urgent need to address the current world situation.

Zoellick's attitude ignores the time-consuming negotiations of a decade ago which gathered a consensus around the G20 membership. A cynic might say that it just looks like a spoiling strategy to leave the anachronistic status quo in place, with G7 plus a few ad hoc new recruits who are allowed to sit in on the old club.

The problem with the Zoellick proposal is that it starts with the G7. The G7 is lopsided.


  • A
  • A
  • A


  • A
  • A
  • A

It includes Italy, for example, thus giving gross over-representation to Europe. Zoellick’s proposed group also includes South Africa. This might seem a good idea because it gives geographic representation to Africa. But it adds nothing to the group’s ability to confront the financial crisis or future international macro coordination. And if geographical balance is the criterion, then it’s hard to see why all three North American countries have a place at the table.

A better starting point is to ask, ‘who is likely to make the best contribution to an informed and constructive discussion?’ You don’t need to hear the European viewpoint from four separate voices. You do need countries which can contribute to a wide-ranging debate on how to reform the current failed system. Countries with robust domestic economies, strong and sophisticated financial sectors and well-functioning regulatory experience would be a help around the table. A track record of fresh outward thinking, active participation in the international economic debate, and deep involvement in regional economies would also be a plus.

These are attributes Australia brings. We might even cast aside modesty and remind Zoellick that Australia demonstrated a better understanding of the 1997-8 Asian crisis than the G7 countries. And, if we wanted to be less polite, we might ask why he doesn’t ‘stick to his knitting’ and concentrate on the World Bank’s job? We might recall his role in promoting preferential bilateral trade pacts, to the detriment of the conceptually-superior multilateral system. And we might explore a governance issue: ‘On whose behalf is he talking?’

Cross posted from the Lowy Interpreter

One response to “G20: The case for Australia”

  1. The commodities boom has deflated, I don’t see significant growth for Australia in the future with a lack of a varied economy. Although, it’s workforce is quite educated, the lack of a diversified economy will only continue to hurt the Aussies. High wages will also hurt itself in the global marketplace, where there are just as skilled of employees willing to produce more for less. Retail has begin to flat line and a number of large consumer retailers have withdraw itself from the Australian market partly due to competition and lack of robust profit.

    The weak AU $ will also continue till global growth comes back in the future, however, AUS can not sustain itself with the free fall of it’s commodity prices.

    So I don’t see this as a case for AUS at all, at least in the near term.

Support Quality Analysis

The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.