Browse full survey responses from each expert by selecting their name below:
The overall ranking represents the average of all responses provided by the expert — detailed responses to each dimension are provided below. Note that some participants provided their evaluation for a few dimensions only.
Progress towards the Brisbane Growth Strategies has not been encouraging. My quantitative assessment reflects the fact that, while my expectations were, admittedly, not high, failure to follow through on commitments in a meaningful way could undermine the credibility of the system and weaken commitment to international cooperation. I view this as a risk going forward, as cyclical positions of key economies diverge (U.S. and euro zone) and others grapple with significant adjustment challenges (e.g., China).
Paradoxically, the one bright spot is sovereign debt restructuring. The Greek debacle has shown just how far key policy makers are from grasping the importance of debt sustainability, but the IMF has shown its willingness to "grope" its way through the fog of uncertainty towards a sensible position on unsustainable debts.
Some progress seems to continue to be made, largely reflecting the institutional momentum of the process. Questions can be asked, however, whether the right issues are being addressed (shadow banking?) or are we like generals fighting the last war.
I cannot discern any significant progress on improving governance of the development agenda. I view the Addis Ababa conference as not only a distraction but counterproductive: the multiplication of goals and targets demonstrates that the process was a bureaucratic exercise rather than a thoughtful attempt to identify the obstacles to economic and social development and prioritize actions to overcome them. Based on conversations with others and not first-hand knowledge, the World Bank is less effective today than it was a decade or more ago; it will take a decade to regain its position.
No significant progress has been made (on multilateral basis), while local or regional trade restrictions continue (e.g., between MERCOSUR members). On the other hand, it isn't clear what the appropriate metric should be: the absence of regional arrangements that undermine multilateral approaches?
The China-U.S. agreement says it all. That being said, it is easy to agree on something in principle; another matter to implement it in practice. Nevertheless, the Sino-American deal creates enormous momentum for Paris and sets a higher bar than would otherwise be the case.
Estimates between 85% and 100% represent the ability to withstand the pressures of a severe, unanticipated major shock to the world economy, preventing sustained unemployment or inflation. International agreements are effective. Key institutions have strengthened their governance and accountability and have the tools and resources required to perform effectively.
Estimates between 80% and 100% represent the ability to withstand the pressures of a severe shock to the world economy and to prevent sustained unemployment or inflation.
Estimates between 70% and 84% reflect some progress that inspires confidence in the stability of the world economy against large-scale shocks Conditions are conducive to inclusive global economic growth.
Estimates between 60% and 79% reflect conditions that inspire confidence and that are conducive to growth.
Estimates between 55% and 69% indicate a level of progress sufficient to inspire confidence in long term, sustainable balanced growth, but with non-negligible risks to the world economy if confronted by shocks.
Estimates between 45 and 54% represent stagnation in progress or regression, with low to negligible developments in international discussions or a lack of displayed interest. Public documents exclude mention of the topic or pay minimal due to the issue, with little to no developments in stability or growth.
Estimates between 40% and 59% indicate a level of progress sufficient to inspire confidence in the long term, but with non-negligible risks to the world economy if confronted by shocks.
Estimates between 30 and 44% represent a level of regression sufficient to cause concern for the direction of long term growth. Conditions have not yet worsened significantly, but the global economy shows signs for concern.
Estimates between 20% and 39% represent some regression, pointing to non-negligible risks to the stability of the world economy if confronted by large-scale shocks.
Estimates between 15% and 29% represent some regression that instills concern for the stability of the world economy against large-scale shocks. Indications suggest insufficient progress and conditions unfavorable to long term growth.
Estimates between 0% and 14% represent major regression towards a fractious and chaotic international system, with significant risks to the stability of the world economy. Multilateral negotiations are at a standstill, and key institutions lack the tools and resources to perform effectively.
Estimates between 0% and 19% represent major regression toward a fractious and chaotic international system, with significant risks to the stability of the world economy.