> but we do not have to apologize to our grandchildren for not -- where we don't have to apologize to our grandchildren for having them wear a mask outside. as america looks forward the next 20 years, their task of significant change lies in the small steps, by recognizing the power of our collective action, we can turn the tide. this is a blueprint for a better tomorrow. i tapestry woven from our collective action. it is a story of empowering individuals. together we have the power to weave the threads of change for a sustainable future. ♪ >> to watch this and all living entries, visit our website. next, the discussion on strengthening global development and financial cooperation.

among the speakers is caroline atkinson who previously served as deputy national security advisor for international economics under president obama. she joins other policy advocates to talk about the role of the world bank, enhancing the climate industry and the impact of climate change and global development. this runs an hour and a half. >> welcome to this discussion on how to strengthen the corporation in a fragmented world. my name is gillian tett. i am delighted to be joined with a truly wonderful cast or talent as they say to discuss this. on my far left, you're right is caroline atkinson. a longtime veteran of the global geopolitical scene.

next to her is vera songwe. a veteran of the global corporation and is involved in championing the voices of the non-western world. next to her is xian zhu. another luminary in the institutions. on my immediate left is dr. nancy lee who has kindly stepped in for a member but was unable to join us today. she has recently been part of an interesting report that grades the institutions in terms of what they are doing or not doing now.

i say that strengthening -- in a fragmenting world is very important. there hasn't been a time when cooperation was not more badly needed given the scale of challenges. be that climate change. some of you may have seen the report called the great reversal about the growing pains being felt in the poorest countries in the world. we have rising trade friction, rising geopolitical friction, and tech, which is upending so many aspects of our economy. all of it is coming together to require more global cooperation. we are also faced with a time of growing fragmentation and friction. to my mind, it is worth thinking about history. there is a lot of focus on the

post-world war ii era when the institutions were created. a lot of this discussion which we will be touching on about whether or not the institutions for the purpose, whether they need a revamp or need to be changed completely or not. whatever you think of the bretton woods institutions. this story is the encouraging story about global cooperation. there was a time when bretton woods emerged. when you had growing trade, collaboration and that unleashed remarkable growth which we have all benefited from in recent decades. there is another point in history which is not discussed

much which is 1919. that is a point that i have spent a lot of time thinking about. in my perch at cambridge university, we have the archives of john caines, which he wrote from paris after world war i. in a state of deep depression, driven by the fact that before world war i, there was an overwhelming belief among the global elite that free-market capitalism and globalization were good and would only continue to spread and that technological innovation would be good for everyone because it was good for the elite. in those days, tech innovation was electricity and the telegraph. such was the level of complacency or arrogance that the global elite failed to see that these innovations were not

benefiting many people and that there was rising social tension, anger and geopolitical conflict. the failure to see that is what led to world war i and more importantly, the failure to correct course after world war i in 1919 led to a dreadful decade and disintegration not collaboration. the first thing to ask right now is are we sitting in 1945 or 1919? are we at a point in history where we are about to get world collaboration and rejuvenated institutions to drive that collaboration, or are we going to see a decline into protectionism, nationalism, fragmentation, and the dreadful implications of that. lofty questions.

i will start with you caroline. you have spent time traveling the world with the obama team, trying to promote the vision of 1945. where are we now? caroline: i don't think we are at 1945. i think the election of brexit, the election of trump, and the movements in other parts of the world against the elites, against globalization were really showing a change in the underlying conditions. there isn't a mood about using political will toward cooperation. the other thing which is more political, the cloud hanging over a lot of the world really

is what will happen in the u.s. election in november. the u.s. is probably going to be fine either way, but for the rest of the world it matters which position the united states is taking. is the united states closing in or opening up and finding cooperation? i think the elites are worried but i don't think we have seen the political will or the leadership to promote 1945 yet. >> if you wish to live tweet, please live tweet using the hashtag, #cgdtalks.

if you want to ask questions and we will create time for questions later, you can ask questions if you are online via youtube chat and there will be a thing in a few moments showing the other way that you can ask questions. >> thank you and always great to hear from you. i don't think we are in 1945, but i don't think we are in 1919 either. i think we are seeing increasing nationalism. there is a complete breakdown in trust. there are more people asking if there was ever trust. er trust and maybe never really was one. but i think that there's a few bright spots and this is why i there are a few bright spots and

i don't think we are necessarily in 1919. through is a global emerging society coming together. 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.

meetings for a joint conversation. >> they get to that point at this stage and are publicly committed to collaboration, but i think it's going to be hard for them to execute and that's why it's important to keep monitoring the changes and to take on the risks. one more thing the institutions are just too small. they need more capital, so i think that has to somehow sink into the political understanding. there is no better place to put n-uppercase-letter these institutions if you want it multiplied by the shareholders wanted to be leveraged. >> you think the u.s. and china is willing to put more capital

in these institutions? facing the backlash and china would say why would we put more capital unless we get more shareholder power? >> they needed to think out of the box if they are thinking of that purpose rather than to think what i can gain that probably would be better. if they say you can put more capital and still remain the same. why would we do that and

convinced the populations. [inaudible] there's a lot of constraint on the domestic politics rather than globally. i would have to review it. you can see that on the one hand and on the other hand.

[inaudible] do you see any scenario the treasury would agree to let china expand its footprint in the world bank or basically step up to the plate itself and put more money into the institutions? >> of course it's not the treasury as pointed out and is again it's a painful thing to say but i remember with the previous review that i at the white house that is something i along with other people dead and we kept trying to persuade we were on it it's to explain the

president really was behind this but then there was a twist about it where there was funding from ukraine and the whole thing was going to get attached and then within half an hour it wasn't attached to it anymore, so it's very hard to manage that kind of politics. as far as china having a bigger role, the u.s. position has been support as far as i'm aware has been a supportive more capital share for emerging markets that happen to represent their larger economies and as i said, the problem is more in europe. i want to put forth 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 and i think that's very hard whether it's climate change and country by country to do anything that's hard for the world bank and you do need to have countries themselves into political leadership wanting to come together and facilitated. it's a difficult conundrum wanting systemic stability and it needs to be regulation and a different way. we've somehow got to think about how india and brazil, south africa and poor countries which i just visited in china and all the countries can move together.

it illustrates that about whether it's top-down or bottom-up in terms of collaboration. climate change was a topic that people like myself in the great sort of media agreed to, but climate change was always presumed to be a natural area for global collaboration. it's turned into an area of often geopolitical strategic competition not collaboration. you look at the supply chain and things like that and there's much competition now, much finger-pointing.

do you see this as a topic that is going to energize or re-energize the cooperation of dreams and goals or expose challenges of getting that in place? >> a little bit of both. when you work in the development of systems, and the fact that they've clashed and everybody could afford a good solar panel at home and the president of the bank at the time because he was trying to go and the olympics were coming up and he put up a lot of money the productive

means. low and behold, and [inaudible] i think fast forward a few years later working on the claimant agenda and i see the secretary to get agreements and things and because he understands that there is i think it is essential that we have the united states and china on the table and those sort of ways of hope in the global space and i think those areas still around the world and this is one of the most important where we are still getting some collaboration. i am optimistic a little bit,

and slightly useful idea that we are going to raise the transition and they put in place compliance mechanisms. then they decided we want to do this cross-border out of europe and there they began into the noncompetitive practices and the united states now is about to pass its own. the interesting thing that is

happened with the congressional agreement across the aisle and almost no way in the document does it say it's going to be good for the climate it's going to make the united states more competitive so in some sense you would think it is policy, not climate. if we were able to sway the industrial policy part and bring people together there would be a little bit more conversation which would be building on this collaboration in china and the united states. >> to my mind a perfect example of how the world is changing not least because we put solar panels on the chapel at king's

college in cambridge which made them furious but as you say you start off providing support for the development of the solar panel energy in china which everyone thought was good. now you have dumping of solar panels in europe and financial times running pieces about how there are so many solar panels and so cheap that the germans gs apparently are using solar panels because there are so many floating around. you have furious manufacturing companies saying they can't compete and we might keep out solar panels from china. america which in many ways has kept them from china and is trying to build its own a solar panel industry and is faced with a very nasty choice that it can

either go green quickly or cut its dependence on the supply chain. it can't do both. it's not collaboration in any way whatsoever. >> what do you make of that? to do a really good study of that recent happening like new products emerging and what with willlegitimate a state of suppor product going beyond that and

then your panels because back in china you can see they make cars and the interesting way they are priced. do you think that will be big and on the other hand, these days the position would be unfair competition. you are doing these policies

too. so i think you really need some objective and rational analysis to say where will be the bottom line [inaudible] >> 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? >> no i don't think it is. >> the traditional trade policy approach to subsidies was that

it created external harm and no benefit. but as we just heard, we have domestic subsidies that create external positive benefits first in terms of simply reducing emissions by major emitters in a second, in terms of reducing the cost of the carbon transition for other countries and i think you're right to bring up the wto so what this means to me the whole set of subsidy rules needs to be changed to incorporate the dollars and externalities. they can't be ignored and we can't afford the same kind we did in the past. >> you shook your head at the idea. >> i don't think it is them. we all know that the major

powers have not appointed the judges that need to sort of add adjudicate the cases and enhance but i think if you look at the last meetings where they had agreements, 60% of the women in the areas make their living off the fisheries and we have unfair competition. all these countries come together and rely on an industry we haven't looked at for a very long time.

many of the consensus but it's a daily moving on and the digital agenda being able to democratize that conversation. the shareholders create them into the capital increase for the system that's where we need to find the weaknesses the phrase the coalition of the willing you need to create a spe for countries to agree on something because not everybody is agreeing on them and i very

much like nancy's point. overcapacity and clean energy is different from overcapacity and the traditional things and there should be a recognition somehow of that benefit. it's a difficult for everybody to think about the externalities. >> to put solar panels on the roof of the chapel and even more grateful the actual power has risen so dramatically and we expect it to keep rising that we've created a system in and out of new panels as they get cheaper and more effective. did you upgrade the solar panels in a way that is so beneficial. but it's hard to find a solar

panels that don't come from china right now which is both good and bad. on that lowbrow point, are there any questions? question over there and over there. please keep your question or comment short and if you wish to address it to one person in particular, please do send questions. do we have some questions? >> my question goes to the point that nancy made and the issue of being in the private sector and parenthetically using the capacity to make two plus two equal five. as you know it's geared up for trying to bring together the

development banks to work together. i'd like to know what you can do or what should be done to make that more effective because having 50 different guarantees from as many institutions let's simplify guarantees to the sector that can actually leverage does anyone else want to jump in? >> this is one of the reforms that had been done and for transparency one of the reviewers but i think what they've done is put together the 20 different guarantees they had in the institution. the next step that we would like to see is we would like for the

sharing of the guarantee offering so that what normally happens is towards the end of the year some have run out of guarantees into some still have samanta the project is to wake up for the next cycle if we have one global platform then you wouldn't need that. so the first part is done, and great job for the world bank. >> i know them. i've talked to them. but it's not done yet. a question there and there and then we can go online.

the roads to o'hare were blocked and there are migrants. this morning tesla laid off 10% of its workforce. it's a very heartfelt and i think that what we are in the process, what we are seeing is a turn and words not only in the u.s. but also in china as well so how can you have multilateral institutions when we haven't gotten our own houses in order. i live a few blocks from where the convention center is in chicago this july but i do think it is quite a difficult. i was fascinated that president biden went to the g7 to get a statement this past weekend.

is everything shifting in terms of responsibility, does anyone else find that curious? >> it's been for quite a while the case that as leaders meet, they talk about what's on their minds when the g7 started, what's on their mind with problems with exchange rates and so on, but for example after russia the little green men went in 2014 and there was enough after the airplane was shot down over ukraine there were statements and sanctions and g7 statements negotiated to show, to demonstrate that all the countries agreed with that political position and this is quite in keeping with that. resignation that the world bank grappling with what used to be

economic and now politics on the left. we have a question there so while we get the microphone there let's get your question and then we will go online. >> i was administrator as the deputy secretary in the reagan years. a couple of things. as attractive as the distribution concepts are, i think we should not wait for that to happen to work on the many other things we are talking about. i think it's very appealing this idea that somehow you could have some agreements about industrial policies and we go way back in

the 80s when we did that with foreign aid. is that gone forever were what is happening to this? >> the political controversy. it was so much it has reemerged with another name. i can't remember what the name is but the categories for the most part are very similar so once again it is an assessment of the various aspects of doing business, regulatory aspects, tax aspects.

i agree with you i always found it useful which of course. we found it useful to figure out which countries were helping themselves by creating a receptive business climate. >> would you like to comment? >> let me share interestingly they anecdote of the indicator. when i was in the world bank and much later each year when the indicators are enough not only china, but india and others they have to explain for the public what happens. so the sort of very intensive

dialogue between the management of bank and special government like china we deserve much better but interestingly other emerging markets and indicators push even at a local level your from world bank. where can we improve. so we can do better than our neighbor. it's interesting. you can see both and the educators can push and also see from the national interest they do not want to explain. >> to share the power for the

geopolitics. >> i am a representative from liberia. every way you go, congress has some sort of bad reputation if you will. i was listening and can't help but wonder if we need a new framework for the global cooperation to the existing ones that we do have. what we are seeing is more regional frameworks that are being used to strengthen the regional cooperation.

then you have east africa and others. where they frameworks or natural holistic competitions to take over so we are competing in thed bumping heads. i want to know where we are headed from that perspective. thank you. >> who would like to take up the issue of whether we need regional briefings? 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 collaboration. i think then the question is the regional collaboration as a prosperity generating kind is it

integration into the good competition or building a wall against the rest of the world and that is the big question. >> i would also add there's no substitute for strengthening the voice of emerging societies. one set of proposals in terms of creating the governance for the challenges is in the committee report. in my mind this is the time to expand to include representation to the poorest countries.

i think that's doable. i think they have to have a seat at the table when the g20 deliberates on this and it seems to me there should be some kind of standing body in the g20 with representation from the countries that monitors progress to sloping these global challenges. they set up the financial stability board when it was clear they needed to collaborate with financial stability issues and of the same thing could be done. you still maintain your individual boards at the multilateral development banks but you have to have some kind of entity that is looking at progress on these. do we need new institutions? i think in some areas we do.

and let me mention the financial stability board. one of the things that came out of the crisis was the whole sort of banking and sometimes in washington for the world bank and imf we are so afraid of creating anything new but i think that there is law in the local currency institution and the private sector also i go back to that end of the and the institutions are already operational and extremely effective. my sense is we do need to bring them in and use them as well and not necessarily keep seeing them as competitors of the institutions. i think they would actually

reinforce the performance and provide some of the governance. >> we have some online questions. >> we have questions online one is from ashley with malaria no more uk and with the rise of the geopolitical tensions what strategy can be employed to safeguard against the international development efforts to ensure it reaches the most in need, and maybe one more. this is directed at the panel overall. the guarantees against the capital is the sole amount of the liability that the guarantees are called. >> that might be one of her you

perhaps. >> there's a multilateral pool. the poorest countries in the world have no access to market and the most efficient and effective way of getting resources in either space we are not seeing the kind of tensions unfortunately though because of the difficult economic environments in the last ten years. in the last ten years we had a some of the worst crisis and my sense is if we believed in the mandate we are not --

>> i can briefly respond. the independent group report sort of divided those reforms into three buckets and one was as i mentioned before to sort of bring the public and private safety institutions together and a second to change the mix of instruments and third is to use the concessional finance more efficiently. so that is an example of an instrument which can be cattle to figure countries that already have market access so that's relevant to both the software sn issuances of governments as well

as mobilizing private finance so if you have a guaranteed the argument is that. they would completely disagree with that. that's the argument. so it is a general proposition apart from the score and i think you can make a strong argument that in many cases it is much more efficient in catalyzing finance demonstrate loans and this is for countries that have market access and need help with the terms of their borrowing.

>> it's quite. >> not many people are wrong and guaranteed [inaudible] and to promote the guarantees to say you use these resources and dollar for dollar i think my counterpart rather than using that as a guarantee should be

there. >> from the eisenhower fellowship to talk about the impact of the multilateral banks and the question is how can we change how they impacted measure is it going to be a thing of the articles because we want to talk about real impact and what are the banks doing to grow the global economy to reduce those tensions. >> big one. who would like to provide the answer? >> maybe i can start by 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 at the country level so part of the problem is that much of the lending is driven by individual project by project so the results framework but nobody knows what's happening. the first answer to your question they have to decide what outcomes are that they want to prioritize and to set some targets or decided the measuring outcomes at that level and then collectively measure outcomes so perfectly a question of the

individuals measuring outcomes and also a question of everyone measuring the same thing. if you did that, you could then for outcomes across countries you could aggregate a measure. but they get kind of laptop in the problem of trying to figure out how much and versus other actors, so because of that you have scorecards which talk about the overall country outcomes, but then talk about particularly outcomes that are attributable so one of the issues is they should worry less about attributions and more about whether the outcomes are actually achieved and they

should decide on priorities based on what the countries prioritized. using theory analysis to influence the prioritization. one area where there has been impact and it's closer it's a gender conversation and i don't think they claim credit. it's really caring for a long time and making sure then he went to the economics and governance and the more that was

being said and done in every project and all of the people had begun to realize there was no economics and exclusion. maybe we can attribute it directly but i think there was something there it's way better than years ago and if that is the achievement we should measure. >> that is a lovely note to end. it would have been almost unimaginable ten or 20 years

ago. i take away several key points and one is geography and balance and voice is critical and that needs to change and the institution was set up when the world is very different and sooner or later we need to recognize the current institutions do not reflect that properly. a second in the public and private sector it was assumed that they got things done and were trusted. it's hard to say that with a straight face and the reality is there needs to be a change in the sector to try to reflect that shift.

we don't even say developing countries anymore but it's about emerging societies it's not so much multilateralism. but again it captures the fact that we are with new structures to reflect this fast changing world. the fourth point is none of you seem to think we are living in 1919 right now. none of you seem to think we are living in 1945 either. maybe 56 is a better option. i like that one. but where are we going on these crossroads that makes it a very valuable that we've had at these different reports coming out.

it also means that this week the discussion is going on to the rest of the year and it's going to be particularly critical as to where we go next debate is so so contributing to that debate even in the face of national parliaments. [applause]

announcer: next house lawmakers present articles of impeachment against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas to the sete ea article was eventually

dismissed on constitiol grounds. we will show you the tals a player of the centraflr, then said it majority leader chuck schumefoowing dismissal of charges. in leromeland security secretary mayorkas gives testimony one day after his trial. unce this montu.s. supreme court hears oral argumentatiowith her fo resident donald trump as presidentialunitagainst criminal prosecution for his ovturn the 2020 election to results. we will have live cover the oral argument thursday, april 25 beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. announcer: if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime on c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates,

and other events feature markers that guide you to highlights. these point of interest markers appear on the right side of your screen when you hit play on selected years. this will makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated in washington d.c. scroll through. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of gernment. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with a 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. announcer: comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. nouncer: