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