and a half. >> good afternoon, welcome, everybody to the discussion on how to strengthen cooperation in

a fragmenting world. my name is julian, i'm both columnist at the financial times and provost in king's college in bam bridge and i'm delighted to be joined with truly wonderful talent as they say earlier and many are known to you all, on my far left carolyn atkinson, adviser in the obama administration and very long-time veteran of the global geopolitical scene and efforts to try and create global corporation. next to her via phone way, adviser to the is and cdd and who is also a veteran of global corporation and is particularly been involved in championing the voices of the known western world one might say. next to her is gugian, president of the iff and ferrerly of the

world bank. again, another senior in the institutions and on my immediate left, your right is dr. nancy lee who has very kindly stepped in for matthew who has unfortunately unable to join us today and having just been part of a really interesting report essentially graved the institution in terms of what they are doing and more importantly in terms of what they are not doing right now. and i say the issue about how to strengthen is very important because arguably there has never been a time in recent decade when cooperation was not badly needed given the scale of challenges be climate change and the fact, and you have seen the great reversal that came out

this morning about the growing pain being felt in the poorest countries in the world in the great divergence. we have rising trade friction and rising geopolitical friction and tech which is up-ending so many aspects of our economy, all of that is coming together to require more global cooperation and yet we also face with fragmentation and friction. and to my line, a lot of focus in world war ii era. of course, we are coming up to the 80th anniversary of that. a lot of the discussion which we will be touching on whether or not the institutions are fit for purpose, whether they need a revamp and whether they need to be essentially changed completely or not. the reality is that whatever you

think of the institutions and we will be discussing that in a moment from the back of the report, reality is that the post 1945 period in many ways is the encouraging story about global corporation and that's the point i spent a lot of myself thinking about because in my perch at cambridge university we had the archives and i spent some time recently reading through letters and wrote from paris in 1919 after world war i and before

world war i there was overwhelming belief among elite that free market capitalism and globalization was good and would only continue to spread and technological innovation would be good for everyone. and such with level of complacency or arrogance that the global elite totally failed to see that innovations were not benefiting many people and there was rising and social tension, rising anger geopolitical conflict and, of course, the failure to see that it's what led to world war i and more importantly failure to correct course led to dreadful decade and disintegration, not more

collaboration. in my mind the first question to ask right now before we go into details is are we sitting in 1945 or 1919? are we at a point in history, we are about to get more collaboration and rejuvenated institutions to drive that collaboration or are we about to say decline into more protectionism, nationalism, fragmentation and all the dreadful implications for that type before. i can start with you caroline because you have spent time traveling the world with the obama team trying to promote the vision of 1945. do you think we are at 1945 or 1919 right now? >> i don't think we are at 1945. i think that the election -- well, brexit and then the election of trump and then the movements in other parts of the world against the elites,

against globalization were change in the underlying conditions, there is not a mood. i wish there were but i don't think there is a mood for king freshly or taking -- using the political will towards cooperation. the other thing which is a bit more political perhaps and there's cloud hanging over the worlds really is what is going to happen in the u.s. election in november and that can make a big difference. i think something to say for the fact that the u.s. is probably going to be fine by the way putting aside the threat of violence and so on but for the rest of the world it really matters which position the united states is taking. is the united states closing in or opening up and trying to find

corporation. i don't think we are quite in 1919 because i think the elites are worried but i don't think we have seen the political will and the leadership to promote a 1945 not yet. >> right. vera, what do you think. i forgot to say a few housekeeping points if you wish to live tweak, please mute devices. if you want to ask questions and we will create plenty of time for questions later on, you can ask questions if you are online by the youtube chat and i believe there already a little thing in a few moments. anyway, that's giving you more time to think. [laughter] >> indeed. >> first of all, thank you and always grade to be at cdt.

>> like caroline, i don't think that we are in 1945. but i don't think we are in 1919 either and i think yesterday was increasing nationalism and we see that. i think there is a pleat breakdown in the u.s.. more people asking was there ever trust and maybe never really was one. but i think that there's a few bright spots and this is why i don't think we are necessarily in 1919. i think there's a global emerging society that is actually coming together and so it's -- it's maybe not the leadership that we will have expected and maybe that is part of the issue is that we always expect sort of, you know, money

conversation and 1919 or 1945 it was hedge money, there were clear leaders and we followed. i think it was a more complicated question and i think the good news is turmoil and some of it is good and we are asking the right questions, there's still an underlying and that's why we are here. there's still an underlying conversation around the laterallism, the fact that we need even when, you know, we have going the other direction. they are still struggling with partnerships. in some sense -- the question is what kind of partnerships we build. my sense is what we need to do is take the lessons like you said of what we didn't do between 1919 and 1945 and see if after the period we can actually get a face that is much better. >> absolutely, you make a very good point which, of course, the

groups of countries which you might call the global south but you hate that world, you will tell us why in a moment, were not present in either of those discussions in 1919 or 1945 and in many ways the power balance and balance of economic activity has changed dramatically which is creating precisely some of the government challenges we are dealing with today. we will come back to that in a moment but i would like to turn to jen and ask you, again, china was not part of the conversation in either of those moments in history. how do you assess the kind mood? do you think we are heading to post 1919 or 1945 more collaboration? >> first of all, i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i think regarding your question, i agree with the two speakers. certainly we are not in the 1945. at the same time i don't see

where yet into the foot of 1919 but increasingly -- we cannot do something and increasing risk, we probably conquer same situation like in 1919. .. ..

in my mind you still need to try to do things under the same global framework. following the same fundamental principles of eight market economy. you will probably find the ground for compromise. and then we can all move forward together. click i would say i would not reject the whole multilateral list approach as a general construct. we are seeing completely divergent trends in different spheres. if you look at nato he will see an alliance gathering force gathering members, getting stronger. on the other hand you see economic financial system which has been shocked when multiple

dimensions. the strength of it multilateral alliances dependent in part the nature of the threat that holds it together. the members of alliance are satisfied by the nature of the threat has changed dramatically. tagamet climate change and pandemic disease. unburden sharing the major emitters cannot agree have the burden should be shared. those excluded from decision-making and societies. not happy with the role they are playing. then we have gathering conflicts and we have a lot more conflict across the world.

civil wars. in the multilateral system -- make the institutions never really collaborated with each other in the first place. it's not as if we had a perfect system that was doing very well and now we have to try to regain it. all of this means we are talking about a major -- the system has to transform itself. not just evolve. so to me that is the court to ce challenge, it can evolve to the 21st century or not? because whatever happens when it has to be a new kind of multilateral. quirks who have authored a report looking at the

essentially trying to introduce some clarity as to whether they are living up to their missions or not. i asked you earlier backstage about what kind of grade that you would give them if you were in class. i sit optimistically at b and you said no, probably sc. [laughter] june to explain why it with the key elements of your report are in terms of what is going wrong? quick so we tried to do was take all of the agendas have been proliferating over the last two years and the debates in the g7, g20 and at what we need the multi- development banks to do. we tried to break that conversation down into identifiable reform items. we identified 28 we chosen 28 because they could be objectively assessed. we assess them across seven institutions. what we found was very uneven

performance across the agenda and across institutions. which is what makes it hard to grade up. i would say for bottom line road take from that report is if you look at the 28 items for the majority of those items, most of the multi- lateral development banks have not started implementing reform. we are very rich of the stage of talking about reform. that is why i would not go as high as a be at the stage. now to be fair the reform agenda has coalesced. obviously is going to take a while. we need to start looking at the institutions in terms of what they are doing. ask the question that raises is

who might actually drive or not? caroline i would like to ask you as someone who had the unenviable position of trying to sell the idea of multilateral reforms to the american voter in your previous job, do you think appetite in america to try to drive forward this type of multilateral reform at the moment? when you look at the institutions that you are so familiar with do you think it is possible to reform them? why celebrate, answer a bit. first of all, the american people, like people everywhere want to note they want their government and the institutions they support to do things for them. it takes explanation a global corporation isn't individual interest or the interest of the country. i think managing the irs sitting here at last week i guess put it

rather well it's in globalization is good in the sense that raising living standards. it helps people live a better life on average. but, the problem is that benefits are not evenly distributed. even more important from the benefits of think the cost of pain is unevenly distributed. people find more about pain this is an anthropologist. that was it issue that was ignored and ignored for obviously too long. i think the way it's being addressed now politically in the u.s. is a bit wasteful. give money to sing song to start a factory somewhere make people's lives better and that both domestic and globally. i think selling the reform

support to the american public is a little bit different from finding the leadership to sell it also to the rest of the world. and on reforming, armor 30 years ago began the u.s. treasury and the architecture we got bored with that analogy knocking things down and building things up. i think there is a problem rearranging chairs on the titanic i'm not so attracted to the idea of making small changes in the institution as i am thinking about how to generate political will and emerging societies and the major societies amongst the leadership as well as the people for global cooperation.

part of that is what is the threat? the threat is real on climate, on conflicts, may be on disease although i think everyone wants to forget about that now. and on migration which is another looming question. the threats are there and connecting those threats with actions government can take and can only take because they are global threats was a huge challenge but that's what leaders need to be due. >> i would like to ask you carolyn says we should not be out rearranging the chairs on the titanic. running with the finer details of organizations in some ways. as a big report from the committee that says we should not be ripping apart the

organization. we should try to be more effective. very thoughtful report which i commend. but slightly a case of turkey for christmas you're not going to get the community saying that the for the park the brick and wood organization. i'm curious from your perspective do you think we should keep the institutions as they currently stand? or is it time to engage in significant reform look at things like shareholder ratings and things like that and relative power? up to difficult question to answer in my own view is probably over 80 years the institution is established there probably better off without them at all. the same time a situation is

involving serious reform. particularly in one of the institutions which it worked for for a long time. you can see a different attempt to reform it partly because of complexity. partly because of the interest from different stakeholders or the staff. you also think where will it be? because i remember last year, here where we heard her change the leadership again. staff and colleagues told me on through restructuring. basically they state relatively

stable. that really went to shaken institution. also you need a lot of support from insiders. knowing these stakeholders and the shareholders but the other thing i must say and even went i was there we talk a lot about how we work together. we are having the approach or products will be interesting. and then both sides can collaborate with each other. otherwise again i think hopefully with climate change and other things and the new leadership could do better. mostly i suspect marketing. >> the report and it doesn't point out the same issues around government implementation, accountability applies to private sector as well as the public sector. that is certainly true when it

comes it questions like debt relief in questions like that. i like to bring you in and ask you, bruce mckinney tell us why you hate the word global south journalist like myself tend to test run a lot. one thing that unites everyone in the structure divided world is disdain for the media. you can all agree it's the medias fault reason the wrong term i think language matters right now and how does that play in into the underlying problem around the brecon would organization? >> i think two things. language is part of identity. language is essentially and fundamentally your understanding of the perception the other has a view. once the first entry of inter- action or engagement i am very happy in the green room it was

actually blue is the green room those actually blue. [laughter] and i sort of froze up but she said to say don't have any questions and i said naïve give me the opportunity out so i hate the word global south that all new. that is the whole point. the rest of the world has aspirations we should have aspirations of prosperity and then we have of ourselves. i'm not writing a report on some regulation that uses geography that essentially is counterintuitive the idea of emerging is what we want. the tension to your first question is maybe we can emerge but maybe not too much.

then there may be some tension. and i really believe emerging societies. it gives even i think, are all in that fight together. it's a multiple bolt collaboration. you are charged as individuals about it. it's the idea you can come out have your initial endowment to change your thought. >> finally it just to pick up a little bit, i was playing with the idea of the other date rather than have that meetings we should have the iis, i am a s smeeting so we bring the private sector. one of the things we are clearly seeing is today, a lot of discussions we are having air about how we get.

we don't have it in the room. even when we are trying to do structuring that is why they're taking so long. we bring them in the room early enough. what we have seen as the markets have opened and the markets have retaken countries looses to shoot when the market opens to them, then we go. there's an a symmetry if we had the private sector in the room not let's write a nice report and leverage you guys to come it later but bring them in the room at the beginning. maybe that is the new world. i think of three legate world and every report we write we talk about private sector bringing in more. i think the idea of not having them almost officially at the table. cooksey to fight in the language

question fascinating. partly because i did trade as a anthropologist i strongly agree with you the words we wait frame the way we think. the fact we have gone from third world countries to developing world countries to emerging markets to know you are saying emerging societies which is let's focus just on finance is fascinating. i am curious what does that mean in terms of government of the institution? do you see white and more powerful voice on behalf of the emerging societies to make them more effective? if you indicated earlier that may be part of the problem as to why collaboration is not breaking down the difference in the past. it is no longer just a game run by the g7. cooksey report talks exactly as you said governance and implementation.

one of the issues they identify in the report is kind of a consensus decision-making. in the end we don't measure things and no one is accountable or not measure what needs to be measured in the accountability structure that's want to have them. so the idea for example in the agreement of the imf. but would be more -- having a little bit more say in the conversation. i think that needs to be broadened. it's a much wider set of ministers if that is how we were to end up. it is to be able to have in the room enough inclusion that when you are writing the policy, the person is immediately there to say no. because what we have seen today

as it's already in the agreement since 19205 we cannot change it. we are stuck with articles of agreement for which we were never correct. this is the fundamental problem. and so yes, you can walk and you can eat too but only within this line they draw. >> that is the tension we are facing today and unfortunately there's some more things outside then there are inside. >> you asked whether 1919 is eight relevance he was decrying the fact essentially the victor of world war i were drawing up all of these rules and essentially very punitive systems for people who did not have a seat at the table are going to live with the consequences of this and the parable is very different but the point about not having a seat at the table and live by

the rules being sent by someone else almost always stirs up trouble for the future. particulate when those rules are punitive in many ways. >> i want to push back a bit on two issues. one is are the rules punitive? or for whom are they punitive when and why? the point of the rules and they are not bad at all was cooperation would support everyone supporting everybody else. financing the countries that got into trouble we tried to bridge their finances until they could get more money elsewhere. and with also sort of outlaw or push against the neighbor policy. they are against countries trying to steal market share from one another or from through trade restrictions.

i think those values are still fine. the ims and world bank -- part of the problem is unlike some of the un institutions their voting shares are by country wait. weight.then there is a particulr problem which you referred too. those voting shares do not represent the way the world is now. they adjusted it would not actually help the voice of africa very much. it would diminish the voice of europe. voices in the u.s. would not change very much. there are few emerging asia you would change. i do not know that it would satisfy the demands of many of the emerging societies. it would certainly be a big step forward. that's politically very, very hard. that is partly why and we have

not talked about the proliferation of less formal and you could say may be less well governed but they feel they need. obviously we know about the g7 start off as the g5, then they g7 it was for a while the g8 she was an aggressor against ukraine. and then they were pushed out. but it was an attempt has actually led by the u.s. it was an attempt to bring in countries though were in trouble and beating this apartment felt they were not getting their voices heard. and so for the first time you had the leaders finance ministers of india, brazil, south africa, other countries

and i think that was very important for those countries. but of course is 20 it's more than 20. but it is not all of the countries. so you are always going to have the pressure i think. >> i just want to get in the little bit. you are a treasure and they in e sympathize we spent a lot of that's our time from the development side coming to you guys. and we both agree that the end almost every conversation. and then we say good luck in congress or that is what i'm referring to. so essentially the whole development system at some point goose. the rule at some point just to the point where it is something external to what we are all agreeing to do. some digs the colleagues at the treasure you feel sorry for them because you know they agree with you.

you cannot move the dial. >> that's what i'm talking about. it's even on things we agree on. >> mean the financing? quickset is the issue. they may have changed that problem per quickset is a growingprotectionism in the essy popular -ism. i am curious. do you see anything that's going to stop the drift towards growing into fragmentation and rivalries in tension right now? >> even the tension the political tension as such it's hard to turn around. the makeup players could have some sort of open dialogue.

this agree for example national policy i remember years ago when i was -- in the mainstream economy. industrial policy is not something you should move forward. but now these look at the economy. they tried to do more. my own view is the industrial policy is not magic. handle it in a public or taxpayers money into something you never know that is successful. i think working with these you think others need to help good quality eventually they can have

a constructive dialogue rather than tension. and overwhelm them. >> very powerful speech from the managing director of the ims. came out the astonishing figures the new analysis the imf more than 2500, 2500 policy interventions took place last year to support industrial policies inside national countries. 2500. the china, the eu, the u.s. accounted for almost half of the total. which is very striking for the other thing that's really astonishing some of you may have seen the last economic outlook modeled what what happened if you had a new cold war based on the voting block of the united nations phallic brushes issue of

ukraine. the ship they stop trading with each other you could have a decline in global gdp growth of around seven percentage points. very significant. new research shows trade growth between economies in different blocks have flowed by 2.4 percentage points more then to rate among those that are more closely aligned. so, even before you start modeling a scenario you could be absolutely unimaginable i cannot imagine during two modeled that type of outlook, even just five years ago we are going back to 1919 with that kind of outlook. even before he got into that situation we were already seeing signs of this growing fragmentation and drift. i am curious i would like to ask you, in europe's scorecard looking at the brick and wood's institutions, do you see any sign they are speaking up effectively or counteracting this and drive toward more

protectionism industrial policy and things? give antenna projection at school? i think you do, you really do. >> i would back up a second. in sort of address the question why do they behave the way they do? which i think we'll get to your question. they are not judged by outcomes the outcomes they support through their activities. i would suspect most of the people in the audience have no idea what is in the corporate scorecards of various development payouts. [laughter] they are judged by the volume of their own finance. so that they don't have much of an incentive to collaborate. if the shareholders, particularly the large

shareholders want lock solid aaa it rated institutions and there are shareholders are also not keen to come forward regularly with their capitol. so, it is not really a surprise is institutions function is to try and maximize their own finance with their their capitol constraints. and not take a whole lot of a risk. particularly with the private sector. now is an answer to your question what you would want is to take unique tools that these institutions have. have them combine them in a way that allows them to reduce risk at the same time they share risk. so they have toolset policy and institutional reform tools. it addresses a question of how to use industrial politics because essentially as you say every industrial policy. they have a lot of information they could used to help the private sector they have a lot

of institutions and they have a lot of ways to bring this to be able to convene the public and private sectors together. after all their other grouted every country they have relationships with both the of c and private sector. but that is not what they do but they don't do it internally across institutions. if they were able to bring those tools together improve information flows, share knowledge about what works in terms of policy and institutional development. they have eight unique capability to actually mobilize more private finance.

so that is why you often hear the private sector saying that, the institutions are that way. >> that's competition, basically essentially under the point of why have the i at the table at these meetings? make it sort of a joint conversation. >> yes. the heads of the mdbs get that point at this stage and are publicly committed to collaboration but i think it is going to be really hard for them to execute and that is why it's important to keep monitoring the changes and for

shareholders to be clearer about the institutions they want to take on. one more thing. the institutions are too small, they need more capital. that has to somehow seep into the political understanding. there is no better place to put capital than in these institutions if you want your capital to be multiplied by shareholders and leveraged. >> in practical terms, you think the us and china is willing to forecast these institutions, the us is facing a populist backlash in china recently would say why put capital and unless we get a higher shareholder power? >> the need to think out-of-the-box, more strategically thinking of

development putting capital for that purpose rather than to think the world i can change from the capital increases how they are doing that but i am not so sure that could happen because with china, i was a representative of of china one of the years, never dreamed of one day the second or third shareholder but now, you can put more capital in the war band or the institution and remain the same. why we do that, really access to meet our population. similarly with capital increase, shareholder, they are fading a domestic agenda and include more money to benefit with insurer the voters while taxpayers, there's a lot of

this on domestic politics rather than the global way that you think institutions are more ahead with more capital. the other thing you just said last year, this report, i will have to review it, you see on the one hand you need a special balance sheet for development and on the other hand we want to remain as already, that is a cover to do things like that because even in the blue communities and people no longer talk about it, every one says we want to do that, we need a lot of cash on the balance sheet, cannot use that for the wrong purpose. >> do you see any scenario where treasury would agree to either let china expand its footprint in the imf or

basically step up to the plate and put more money into institutions? >> it is not the treasury, it's congress. and i know that it is a painful thing to say but i remember with the previous review, i and the white house, something i cared about, a lot of people did, tried to persuade christine log guard that we were on it and really trying, to explain the president was behind this and the president was behind it but there was the twist if i remember one time when there was funding for ukraine, the imf thing was going to get attached to it and within half an hour it wasn't attached anymore so it is very

hard to manage that kind of politics. as far as china having a bigger role, the us position has been in support as far as i am aware of more proto-share or capital share for emerging markets that represent larger economies and as i said the problem is more endurance but i want to put forward a slightly different angle which is what we really need for global cooperation is to think how countries and countries leadership can cooperate on the big global problem. whether it is climate change, it's hard for the institutions that deal with country by country to do anything for the world bank to do things on a regional basis and hard for the

imf and you need to have good countries themselves, political leadership want to come together and with that facilitated by the institutions but it is a difficult conundrum, like regulating banks, central banks want systemic stability. every individual bank needs regulation in a different way, we've got to think how india and brazil and south africa and poor countries and china and all of the countries can move together. >> it in their national interests. >> climate change illustrates that tension, whether it is top-down or bottom-up in terms of collaboration. climate change was a topic that people like myself in the media

agree to but it was always presumed to be a natural area for global collaboration. in fact it has turned into an area of often geopolitical strategic competition, not collaboration. looking at supply chains around tech and things like that and there's as much competition as actual collaboration, as much finger-pointing as any attempt to create cooperative solutions. what do you make of it at the moment? as a topic that is going to energize or reenter john the cooperation dreams and goals or expose challenges of getting that in place? >> a little bit of both. when you are working in the

development systems, the rest of the ifc and to this day, prices have crashed so everybody can afford a silicon home. 10 or 20 years ago, china was still, the president of the bank at the time was trying, the olympics were coming up so put a lot of ida money into, actually with the belief that it was a productive investment, in the global common good, lo and behold on top of that, whether china should have either for that.

but fast forward a few years later working on the climate agenda and i see john kerry going to china to get agreements and things and because he understands it is essential that we have the united states and china on the table and raise of hope in the global space in those areas still around the world, this is one of the most important where we are getting some collaboration and there is room to go forward so i'm optimistic a little bit, but then we have the common bond mechanism as they are now known, in europe, and a little bit slightly youthful idea which was to say we are going to raise

resources, for the green transition, europe is the first continent or region that put in place compliance mechanisms and training systems so that was great, and across border out of europe and they have begun noncompetitive practices, and the interesting thing that is happening because it is going to be a congressional agreement across the aisle, no way is this going to be good for the climate, it will make the united states more competitive, $120 billion more. they think that again is

industrial policy, not climate. if we were able to sway the industrial policy part and the climate part and bring more people together there would be a little bit more of a climate which would be positive and building on this collaboration in china and the climate space. >> i agree with you, but if you look at senate panels, one of the most gross examples of how the world is changing at least because we recently put solar panels on the chapel at king's college in cambridge which made the right wing press in the uk furious but you started off providing support for the development of a nascent solar panel industry in china that everyone thought was good, the industry exploded, now you have

less dumping of solar panels in europe, the financial times running pieces about how there are so many solar panels and so cheap that germans are apparently using solar panels as fencing because there are so many solar panels floating around, furious german manufacturing company saying they can't compete, brussels saying we want to keep out solar panels from china, you have america which is artie kept out solar panels from china trying to build its own solar panel industry faced with the nasty choice that america can either go green quickly or depend on the chinese supply-chain, can't do both. it is not collaboration in any way whatsoever. xian zhu, what do you make of that? >> i refer to risks by the treasury secretary yellen, one

of her main concerns in meetings with the chinese consulate is overcapacity, the panels in the wind power, now i think electric vehicles, we need someone to do a really good study of that, like fuel products emerging, and what would be a legitimate space of support, what profit is beyond that and because in your food and your panels and wind power and evs of been so cheap, because back in china you can see this industry even domestically are so competitive and lower pricing to survive,

even something like huawei that make cars and they are priced as low as $20,000 and domestically even these cars will be imported because they try to export and that will be baked in the car market globally but on the other hand china would be that, unfair competition, you guys are doing enough for policy too. you really need some objective and rational analysis to say where would be the bottom line for industrial policy? otherwise i don't think that will be very useful. that is what i think.

we need to do things for countries like europe, china, and the us. >> of course the body that was supposed to be driving forward that kind of mutual perspective was the wto. would any of you care to comment on whether the ipo is dead? >> i don't think it is. the traditional trade policy approach was that it created external harm and no benefits. but as we just heard we have domestic subsidies that create external positive benefits in terms of reducing emissions by major emitters and second in

reducing cost of the carbon transition for other countries. what this means to me is the whole set of subsidy rules need to be changed for positive externalities. they can't be, we can't deploy the same kinds of subsidies we did in the past. >> the ratio is not dead but needs major surgery. you shook your head at wto being dead. >> i don't think it is dead. some of the major powers have not appointed the judges the need to adjudicate the big cases and i think if you look at the last meetings of the wto where they have agreements, 23

african countries, women in coastal areas make their living off of ships and fisheries and we have unfair competition with boats across the world and the fact that the wto could come up with an agreement that countries were able to come together and see if we agree on this, shining the light on in industry we haven't looked at for a very long time for which a lot of people make their livelihood they could ecosystem depends on fundamentally. my sense again with many of this, a lot of big things need to be working but daily moving on is happening and the agenda is moving now, the agenda, being able to upsize that conversation so i wouldn't say

dead. our shareholders create them and don't leave the increase, to put judges in the wtos. that's where we find the weakness. >> maybe you need to allow international agreements or unfortunate residents but coalitions are willing. you need to create space for countries to agree on things even if not everybody is agreeing on-demand i like nancy apodaca about overcapacity and clean energy is very different from overcapacity in some of the other traditional things, shipbuilding or something and there should be a recognition somehow of that benefit. that goes to how difficult it

is for everybody to think about externalities. >> someone had to put solar panels on the roof of a chapel, very grateful the price has fallen and even more grateful that the actual power of the solar panels, the efficiency of solar panels has risen so dramatically and we expected to be rising and we've created a system where you can swap in and out new panels as they get cheaper and more effective like upgrading your iphone, you upgrade your solar panels in a way that is very beneficial. very hard to find solar panels that don't come from china right now which is both good and bad. on that lowbrow point, let's do any questions, question over there and over there. be courteous to identify yourself and please keep your question or comment short and if you wish to address it to one person in particular please indicate that and anyone

watching online please send questions, do we have questions? okay. >> my question is to the point nancy made, bringing in the private sector, the capacity of development banks, 2+2 = 5. as you know, there's the cop 28 task force which is geared at bringing together the banks to work together to leverage up again the peace. i would like to know what you think should be done to make that more effective. having 50 guarantees from as many institutions, the world bank has 20.

guarantees to the private center that can leverage up financing and i have a proposal to set up a company to do $50 in financing the. . >> do you want to take that one? >> this is one of the reforms that has been done. one of the reviewers of the new guarantees, what they have done is put together the 20 guarantees they had under one umbrella. the next step we would like to see would be media sharing so what normally happens is some countries run out of guarantees and some still have them and the product has to wait for the next cycle where if we had one global platform, you wouldn't

need that. >> the first part is done and great job from the world bank. >> i've talked to them, it's not done. it is talked about but it is not done yet. >> as far as being done. wonderful english-language, launched a thousand sins. we have a question next and we will take a question there and go in line. >> i have a comment into question. on my way here i was late because the roads to o'hare airport were blocked. when you get to the airport there are migrants sleeping there. this morning tesla laid off 10% of its workforce. i think globalization is a hard sell.

what we are seeing is turning inwards not only in the us but also in china as well. how can you have multilateral institutions when we haven't gotten our own houses in order? its 1966, maybe that is because i live a few blocks from where the convention center is in chicago this july. i have a specific question which is i was fascinated that president biden went to the g7 to get a statement about what went on in israel this we can. the g7 is an economic institution, and obscurity institution. is everything shifting in terms of responsibility, anybody else find that curious? >> caroline. >> it has been for quite a while the case that as leaders meet, they talk about what is on their minds. when the g7 started, what was

on their minds was problems with exchange rates. after russia went into ukraine in 2014, an airplane was shot down over ukraine, statements of sanctions, g7 statements negotiated to show, to demonstrate that all of those countries agreed with that political position in this is in keeping with that tradition. >> world bank's risk of geopolitical risks that used to be financial, economic, now geopolitics. through the air corp. and i like forum. you've got the microphone. why don't we take your question over there and we will get your question. >> i was the deputy secretary

during the reagan years a long time ago now. a couple things. one, attractive as the share redistribution concepts are, i think we should not wait for that to happen to work on the many other things we are talking about. it is very appealing this idea of how you could have some agreements about industrial policy, perhaps a pipe dream, mixed with an agreement in the 80s when we did that with foreign aid. my particular question, i am not familiar with all the details but doing business at the bank was very helpful. is that gone forever? what is happening to this?

>> the doing business index mired in controversy. >> i need to ask about that. it was very much such -- it has reemerged with another name. i can't exactly remember what the name is. the categories are for the most part very similar. once again, is there an assessment of various aspects of doing business, contract enforcement aspects, and i agree with you i always found it was very useful, and challenging corporations that use that data to assess the business environment it is useful to figure out which countries are helping themselves by creating a receptive business partner. >> would you like to comment?

>> an interesting anecdote, indicator, when i was in world bank, not happy about being in china much later, when each year the indicators, emerging market, not only china but india and others, last year they have to explain properly. very intensive dialogue or interactions in the management of that, the national government, wide is rated like this but interesting glee more recently, the government of china is an indicator to push

the neighboring environment at a local level. the provincial government, how about indicators, and next year the competition we can do better than our neighboring provinces. it is very interesting. so you see those as an indicator and a push for a better environment and also national interest that they pulled out in place. >> the magical power of incentive for geopolitics. and we get questions. >> i am a representative from liberia and parliament, all the things congress can do. everywhere you go congress has

some stuff, i was listening to this. and the framework we are in, the role of cooperation or transients, the ones we do have but what we see is more regional frameworks being used to strengthen regional cooperation, and also the union in africa and others so those types of frameworks, national competition, so that we are not really collaborating but always competing. i want to know where we are

from their perspective, thank you. >> who would like to take up the issue of whether we need regional briefings? >> i would say we have some global problems so we need multilateral and global institutions but on the way to reaching global solutions, it can be useful to have regional collaboration. is the regional collaboration our prosperity generating kind, is it integration and good competition or is it more building a wall against the rest of the world and that's the big question. >> i would also add and this is consistent with what caroline said.

there's a forum where there is no substitute for strengthening the voice of emerging society. one set of proposals in terms of creating governance's fitful purpose for global challenges is in the community report. but this is the time to expand to include representation from the poorest countries. that is doable and they have to have a seat at the table when they deliberate on this and it seems to me there should be a standing body and the g 20 with representation from these countries that monitors

progress with global challenges. they set up the financial stability board when it was clear that it crossed regulatory authority friston -- financial stability issues with the same thing being done, you still maintain your individual boards with multilateral banks but you have to have some kind of entity looking at progress on global issues. >> online questions. >> do we need new institutions, in some areas we do. and the financial stability board, one of the things that came out of the 2008 crisis was the committee on banking, a new institution, so when we sit in

washington we are so afraid of creating anything new and everything has to come into position but there is room, one of the things we are talking about is local currency institution. in the private sector i go back to that, institutions that are already operational and extremely effective and we need to use them as well. and keep seeing them as competitors of institutions. on the contrary they would reinforce the performance and provide the governance we are missing. >> we have some online questions i believe. >> a few questions online. one is from ashley, this is for vera.

with the rise of geopolitical tensions globally, what strategies could safeguard against the politicization of international the government efforts to ensure that aid reaches those, and maybe one more, directed at the panel overall, the charge guarantees against capital at the full amount of potential liability. how is this a more efficient use of capital and using loans? >> one for you and the first question. >> a controversial item, it does i think the poorest countries in the world on the markets and the most efficient effective way of getting

resources to the poorest countries and in either space, we are not seeing the geopolitical tensions, unfortunately because of difficult economic environment for shareholders has been going down. the last 10 years we had those and my sense is if you really believed in the core mandate, it is poverty reduction and it is not going up. >> who would like to take the second question? >> i can briefly respond. on the broad reform agenda related to mobilizing private finance, independent experts, part of the panel for that report, divided those reforms

into three buckets, one was as i mentioned bringing public safety to the institutions together and the second was change the mix of instruments related to guarantees and the third is to use concessional finance and much more efficiently than the transaction by transaction. so on guarantees, that is an example of an instrument that is very catalytic for countries that have market access. the last thing for both the sovereign issuance in governments as well as mobilizing private finance. if you have a guarantee the argument is you score that guarantee when you assess the contingency commitment based on probability of the guarantee being called, not the full

value of the exposure. that's a more efficient way to use your capital, it's controversial and if the financial officers examine it, they would disagree with her that, that's the argument but the general proposition apart from scoring, guarantees you can make a strong argument that guarantees in many cases are much more efficient in catalyzing finances and straight loans from mbds themselves and this is for countries that have market access and need help with the terms of their borrowing, not so much access. >> quite a hot potato. >> i guarantee not many people are wrong and taking the wall bank tracker guarantees the support as though potential,

however, never developing that, whatever other reason or one of them is internally sensitive. when the country is on the record and the premolar of guarantees, and risk people, you need resources and dollar for dollar for guarantees, my counterpart, rather i want to direct power from you rather than using that as a guarantee for the chain of changes and the incentive should be there otherwise guarantee should be in the air and that's the platform. >> exactly. we are almost out of time, time for one last question, last question if you can keep it brief.

>> i am from here, the eisenhower fellowship. my question is talk about the impact of the multilateral banks and the question is how can we change how impact is measured? is it going to be agriculture? we talk about real impacts, what are the banks doing to grow the global economy to reduce tensions? >> pick one. would like to provide the answer. >> if i could briefly -- a logical place to start would be to choose those activities in any given country which are directed at a set of outcomes and measure outcomes, part of

the problem is much of mdb lending is driven by individual products so there are frameworks with individual projects but nobody knows what is happening and the first answer to your question is the mdbs themselves have to decide what outcomes they want to prioritize, set some targets or decide on measuring outcomes that moment and collectively measure outcomes across mvps so partly it's a question of individual measuring outcomes but also everyone measuring the same thing. if you do that, you could then throw outcomes across countries and aggregate measures but actually what happens is mvps

get kind of wrapped up in the problem of trying to figure out how much of a given outcome can be attributed to them versus other actors. so because of that, you have mvp scorecards which talk about overall country outcomes but also talk particularly about outcomes that are attributable, they should worry less about contribution and whether the outcomes are actually achieved, and they should decide on priorities based on what the country has prioritized it, using their analysis of climate change to influence prioritization of climate related investments. >> comments on that? >> one area where maybe there

has been impact, it is closer to the agenda conversation, and they don't claim credit. the whole gender inclusion conversation is carried by the mvp for a long time. and the development goals. gender is good economics and politics, more is being done and projects, and there's no economics and exclusion and for the work the mvps did. if you look at the national

level numbers, better than 15 or 20 years ago and that is the achievement we have as individuals. >> >> 10 or 30 years ago. [applause]. >> very wide-ranging, very ambitious conversation, wide-ranging ambitious set of issues and agendas. several key points. one is geography and balance and voice is critical and that needs to change. the institution was set up at the time when the world was very different and sooner or later and hopefully sooner we need to recognize the change

and institutions that don't reflect that properly. the relationship to the public and private sector need to change because it was assumed governments would get things done and were trusted. they work hard to change that with a straight face. the reality is there needs to be a change in the private sector to reflect that shift, the third point is the language is very important, the point that we can no longer say third world country, almost stated as flares, we don't say developing countries anymore or emerging markets, about emerging -- i hope the idea is not so much about multilateralism but plural letter realism, captures the fact that we are groping

new structures and new languages to reflect the fast-changing world. the fourth point is happily none of you seem to think we are living in 1919, unhappily, none of you think it is 1945 either. 1966 is a better option. i like that one. but where are we going, that is a sense of a crossroads which makes it valuable that we have different reports coming out, your report trying to brave institutions. it also means this week the discussion is going on for the rest of the year at the annual meeting, will be deeply critical as to where we go next. for all of you who wrote the report and contributing to the debate trying to turn it into

central policy even in the face of national parliament i just say good luck. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaib conversations] >> today on c-span, the house is back r neral speeches at 10:00 eastern followed by legiate business at noon. members are contiin to take legislation in response to iran's airstrikes against israel the past wean the senate returns at 11 a.m. eastern am eastern to resume consideration of a bill to reauthorize section 702, and warrtls surveillance outside the us. the impeachment trial for mend security secretary alejandra mayorkas.