Using these sources, and your own knowledge, consider the extent to which global economic governance is effective.
Source A
The remarkable growth in the extent of international economic integration in recent decades has far outpaced the existing capacity for global economic governance. The intensification of globalization has increased the inadequacy of the institutions of global economic governance and their policies. This became especially apparent during the Global Financial Crisis, also known as the Great Recession, which began in 2008 and the destructive effects of which still continue. The crisis showed that contemporary national and international economic institutions could not achieve stability let alone other goals. In fact, some of the policies multilateral economic institutions have been commending during the last thirty years contributed to the contagion which spread globally from the US where the crisis began.
Source B
Key objections have been raised in national parliaments to the fiscal disciplines that the new, and spectacularly mis-named, "stability union" imposes on members of the eurozone, while the beefed-up financial backstop to halt further market contagion already looks pretty much dead in the water.
Nor is it just within the narrow confines of the eurozone that the financial crisis is testing multilateral solutions close to destruction. Who could in any case regard the vicious program of austerity measures prescribed by multilateral arrangements as any kind of solution?
Most shareholders in the International Monetary Fund, including Britain and the US, are balking at the idea of coughing up yet more money to bail out Europe's monetary union.
At the World Trade Organization (WTO), the director-general, Pascal Lamy, has warned of growing protectionist pressures as governments put national priorities before international ones. "We are in a vicious circle where crisis erodes the capacity of governance to co-operate even as the necessity of co-operation increases," he said. ...
Source C
The structure of international organizations no longer reflects the centre of global power. The power imbalance is not just a problem because it is inequitable. Growth in emerging markets and the slow resolution of the European debt crisis present different problems but their solutions are linked. If the IMF and World Bank respond to the demands of emerging markets for reforms, they will be better able to deal with European governments.
The IMF projects that the growth rates of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (or the BRICS countries) between now and 2017 will be effectively double that of the United States, France and Germany. These rising powers have called for reform of international economic organizations so that the distribution of power within them better reflects reality. They want to rewrite the rules to give emerging markets more voting power because votes in these organizations are tied to the size of a state's economy and revise the selection process for leaders of the IMF and the World Bank so that the process is based on merit rather than great-power preferences.
Source D
Since the Great Recession began, there has been no shortage of scorn for the state of global economic governance among pundits and scholars. Nevertheless, a closer look at the global response to the financial crisis reveals a more optimistic picture. Despite initial shocks that were more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, national policy elites and multilateral economic institutions responded quickly and robustly. Whether one looks at economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional resilience, global economic governance structures have either reinforced or improved upon the status quo since the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble. To be sure, there remain areas where governance has either faltered or failed, but on the whole, the global regime worked.