What the g20 can be new Bretton WoodsCertainly not

Director since its inception in 1981, one of the "think tanks" influential Americans on international economic issues, Fred Bergsten has also worked in positions of high responsibility to the Treasury and the White House where he coordinated a number of international summits for the United States. On the eve of the G20, the expert believes that counter the protectionist temptations and devote at least 3 of GDP to fiscal stimulus in the different countries.

What the g-20 can be new Bretton Woods

Certainly not. Bretton Woods has been the opportunity for a huge reform of the international economic system. This time, in London, the focus will be on economic recovery after the global crisis. The objective, it seems to me, is to arrive at a broad international cooperation on four points: macroeconomic stimulus programs, the removal of barriers to free trade, the extension of the mandate and resources of the IMF to help the poorest countries and, perhaps, a few steps towards a new financial regulation.

Why is financial regulation not more priority in your eyes

Some may be the priority. I do not because if it is indeed important, it is also what is the less urgent today. The urgency is first linked to the budgetary plans which will revive the global economy or at least avoid an even more pronounced decline. The urgency is also curb new protectionist temptations that may not be that harmful. I also think that if too much attention is focused on the financial regulation, this makes the unequivocal message. For now, the goal is that financial institutions lend more. However, if we first focus on how we regulate this will send a contradictory message which may discourage. Governments must pay close attention to the calendar. We obviously need to reform financial regulation, but now, when we want that banks restore economic activity... There is a risk of complicating things.

There is talk of a supranational authority for financial services. Is this realistic

The risks are global but I do not think that the creation of a supranational authority is feasible. There is no legal framework for this. On the other hand, can set international standards for financial regulation that are ambitious and coherent. It will then be in each country to adapt to the more closely. The international community shall then monitor if it is well done.

The United States and most European countries differ on the importance of the stimulus effort to accomplish. How do you understand this controversy

I've talked with French Prime Minister to Washington the other day. It do not think that the differences are so great, and me not more. The main difference is in how to set recovery plans. Europeans take into account the automatic stabilizers that are most important in Europe, which is true. The Americans point out that this occurs automatically and that it does not represent a new effort. It is a difference of opinion on this which must rely. I understand that but I would stress that it is necessary that the remedy is tailored to the problem. In other words, the economic crisis appears today more severe in Europe and the United States, which calls to more resources to combat. This is true as well for fiscal policy to monetary policy. There is no doubt that the Federal Reserve has been more aggressive than the European Central Bank with its various programs. But, if you look at, it is China which is probably the more proactive both at the point of the view that monetary budget.

That is - what will be most effective in stimulus

It is difficult to say. In the United States, there are three types of measures: tax cuts, infrastructure projects and social subsidies. The idea was to diversify because, precisely, is not very well the answer to your question. Tax cuts are $ 250 billion and seek people with modest incomes who will probably need to spend this money. In the end, each country must find the equation that fits him but there must be an agreement from the international point of view on the level of ambition to have. I suggest that should rather aim plans which represent 3 of GDP. It should reach agreement on the objectives and targets, each then adapts. China, for example, spends 90 of its plan to infrastructure.

One of the ambitions of the g-20 is to increase the financial resources of the IMF. But it will structures and skills to accomplish its task

The IMF is improving and modernizing its assistance programs. They are not perfect, but it is the only true mechanism which provides real support to countries which have met with serious problems. Increase its substantial role is therefore a necessity.

At what maturity can countries expect to return to sustainable growth

In this crisis, what the rich countries which were most affected. The least affected, the Brazil, China, the India, continue to show positive growth. But the crisis is global and interconnections as countries are likely to recover roughly at the same time. Some will be faster than others, for example, China at the end of the first half. The US should recover in the second half of the year, Europeans probably next year.