The U.S. nominee for the World Bank presidency, South Korean-born physician Jim Yong Kim, is one of three candidates for the post, along with Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and former Colombian finance minister Jose Antonio Ocampo. According to Colin Bradford, the presence of several viable candidates—from different parts of the world—for the World Bank presidency means that the entire international community could have a say in selecting the next World Bank president, rather than the U.S. nominee being automatically confirmed. This change in the nominating process, says Bradford, is good for the Bank because it reflects growing demands for representation from emerging economies.
 

Video

• Change World Bank Nominating Process

As the G-20 Summit concluded in Brisbane, Australia on November 16th, it set a target to achieve an incremental jump in global GDP growth of 2 percent by 2018 and made commitments to creating a Global Infrastructure Investment Initiative (GIII) to address an estimated $5 trillion per year in infrastructure needs around the world. 

It is a valid policy idea to expose the gap between current and potential rates of economic growth to the public. That the Australians put the spotlight on this growth gap was the central achievement of their G-20 Summit in Brisbane. It is a contribution to the global effort to energize the global economy and generate both greater and smarter growth. The question is, will it work? 

The gap between potential and actual growth has more to do with the patterns and sources of growth than the rates of growth. It is certainly necessary to continue to use monetary and fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate, demand-driven growth, but it will not be not sufficient.  

The people-problem in global growth has to do with structural obstacles: market dynamics of globalization tend to increase income inequality; technologies can be labor displacing rather than labor absorbing; and the knowledge-economy requires technical skills that are more sophisticated than investment-driven industrialization.  

As a result, the focus is now on structural policies and reforms, an issue on which the OECD has been an international leader. OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria jointly released an OECD report with Australia Minister of Finance Joseph Hockey in February of this year. At the G-20 Summit in Brisbane, Gurria said that it was possible that the global growth effort by the G-20, which the OECD and IMF are monitoring, could “overshoot” the 2 percent target.  

Discussing structural reforms tends to “get in the weeds” quickly, since the details vary by each country’s circumstances—as made clear by Brisbane’s G-20 Action Plan. Going from the Brisbane G-20 Summit to regional, ministerial, and national agendas and actions becomes the next phase in this effort to boost global growth by shifting the patterns and sources of growth. 

A key component in closing the growth gap will be the aforementioned Global Infrastructure Investment Initiative. The GIII is the culmination of a long discussion involving the G-20, the World Bank, the regional development banks, the private sector and others on how to accelerate much-needed investment in infrastructure—globally, and on a scale that can make a difference, especially in an era of fiscal policy constraints.  

The relationship between private and public investment in global infrastructure and other global growth projects is tricky. Just because many governments face reduced flexibility with fiscal policy at the moment does not mean that the responsibility for infrastructure investment can or will or should be picked up by private investors, much less private financial institutions and markets. The public and private sector each have a vital role. One will not work without the other.

Yet rules and norms do have to be worked out to incentivize private investment in infrastructure. This work is well underway and embodied in the Brisbane GIII. Incremental investment in global infrastructure adds up over time, and prudent direction of financing toward the most impactful projects can be a big boost to global growth and directly have an impact on peoples' lives. This is the kind of people-oriented action G-20 leaders were looking for in Brisbane.

Setting incremental “reach goals” is not just a word game or publicity play. It has proven to be a means of mobilizing resources, policies and efforts by diverse actors to stimulate higher-order results than might otherwise have happened. Just engaging in projecting likely growth outcomes can set the bar too low. In fact, all global goal setting is meant to motivate and mobilize momentum for just such incremental efforts. 

Taken together, a combination of structural reforms, infrastructure investment and continued growth-oriented monetary and fiscal policies can make a real difference in boosting global growth. This combination makes the Brisbane target of an additional 2 percent of global GDP growth by 2018 a feasible, even if ambitious, goal.

2015 is a pivotal year. Three major workstreams among all the world’s nations are going forward this year under the auspices of the United Nations to develop goals, financing, and frameworks for the “post-2015 sustainable development agenda.” First, after two years of wide-ranging consultation, the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September will endorse a new set of global goals for 2030 to follow on from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that culminate this year. Second, to support this effort, a financing for development (FFD) conference took place in July in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to identify innovative ways of mobilizing private and public resources for the massive investments necessary to achieve the new goals. And third, in Paris in December the final negotiating session will complete work on a global climate change framework. 

These three landmark summits will, with luck, provide the broad strategic vision, the specific goals, and the financing modalities for addressing the full range of systemic threats. Most of all, these three summit meetings will mobilize the relevant stakeholders and actors crucial for implementing the post-2015 agenda—governments, international organizations, business, finance, civil society, and parliaments—into a concerted effort to achieve transformational outcomes. Achieving systemic sustainability is a comprehensive, inclusive effort requiring all actors and all countries to be engaged.

These three processes represent a potential historic turning point from “business-as-usual” practices and trends and to making the systemic transformations that are required to avoid transgressing planetary boundaries and critical tipping points. Missing from the global discourse so far is a realistic assessment of the political decisions and institutional innovations that would be required to implement the post-2015 sustainable development agenda (P2015).

For 2015, it is necessary is to make sure that by the end of year the three workstreams have been welded together as a singular vision for global systemic transformation involving all countries, all domestic actors, and all international institutions. The worst outcome would be that the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 are seen as simply an extension of the 2015 MDGs—as only development goals exclusively involving developing countries. This outcome would abort the broader purposes of the P2015 agenda to achieve systemic sustainability and to involve all nations and reduce it to a development agenda for the developing world that by itself would be insufficient to make the transformations required.

Systemic risks of financial instability, insufficient job-creating economic growth, increasing inequality, inadequate access to education, health, water and sanitation, and electricity, “breaking points” in planetary limits, and the stubborn prevalence of poverty along with widespread loss of confidence of people in leaders and institutions now require urgent attention and together signal the need for systemic transformation.

As a result, several significant structural changes in institution arrangements and governance are needed as prerequisites for systemic transformation. These entail (i) political decisions by country leaders and parliaments to ensure societal engagement, (ii) institutional innovations in national government processes to coordinate implementation, (iii) strengthening the existing global system of international institutions to include all actors, (iv) the creation of an international monitoring mechanism to oversee systemic sustainability trajectories, and (v) realize the benefits that would accrue to the entire P2015 agenda by the engagement of the systemically important countries through fuller utilization of  G20 leaders summits and finance ministers meetings as enhanced global steering mechanisms toward sustainable development.   Each of these changes builds on and depends on each other.

I. Each nation makes a domestic commitment to a new trajectory toward 2030

For global goal-setting to be implemented, it is essential that each nation go beyond a formal agreement at the international level to then embark on a national process of deliberation, debate, and decision-making that adapts the global goals to the domestic institutional and cultural context and commits the nation to them as a long-term trajectory around which to organize its own systemic transformation efforts. Such a process would be an explicitly political process involving national leaders, parliaments or rule-making bodies, societal leaders, business executives, and experts to increase public awareness and to guide the public conversation toward an intrinsically national decision which prioritizes the global goals in ways which fit domestic concerns and circumstances. This political process would avoid the “one-size-fits-all” approach and internalize and legitimate each national sustainability trajectory.

So far, despite widespread consultation on the SDGs, very little attention has been focused on the follow-up to a formal international agreement on them at the U.N. General Assembly in September 2015. The first step in implementation of the SDGs and the P2015 agenda more broadly is to generate a national commitment to them through a process in which relevant domestic actors modify, adapt, and adopt a national trajectory the embodies the hopes, concerns and priorities of the people of each country. Without this step, it is unlikely that national systemic sustainability trajectories will diverge significantly enough from business-as-usual trends to make a difference. More attention needs to now be given to this crucial first step.  And explicit mention of the need for it should appear in the UNGA decisions in New York in September.

II. A national government institutional innovation for systemic transformation

The key feature of systemic risks is that each risk generates spillover effects that go beyond the confines of the risk itself into other domains. This means that to manage any systemic risk requires broad, inter-disciplinary, multi-sectoral approaches. Most governments have ministries or departments that manage specific sectoral programs in agriculture, industry, energy, health, education, environment, and the like when most challenges now are inter-sectoral and hence inter-ministerial. Furthermore, spillover linkages create opportunities in which integrated approaches to problems can capture intrinsic synergies that generate higher-yield outcomes if sectoral strategies are simultaneous and coordinated.

The consequence of spillovers and synergies for national governments is that “whole-of-government” coordinating committees are a necessary institutional innovation to manage effective strategies for systemic transformation. South Korea has used inter-ministerial cabinet level committees that include private business and financial executives as a means of addressing significant interconnected issues or problems requiring multi-sectoral approaches. The Korea Presidential Committee on Green Growth, which contained more than 20 ministers and agency heads with at least as many private sector leaders, proved to be an extremely effective means of implementing South Korea’s commitment to green growth.

III.  A single global system of international institutions

The need for a single mechanism for coordinating the global system of international institutions to implement the P2015 agenda of systemic transformation is clear. However, there are a number of other larger reasons why the forging of such a mechanism is crucial now.

The Brettons Woods era is over. It was over even before the initiative by China to establish the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in Beijing and the New Development Bank (NDB) in Shanghai. It was over because of the proliferation in recent years of private and official agencies and actors in development cooperation and because of the massive growth in capital flows that not only dwarf official development assistance (concessional foreign aid) but also IMF resources in the global financial system. New donors are not just governments but charities, foundations, NGOs, celebrities, and wealthy individuals. New private sources of financing have mushroomed with new forms of sourcing and new technologies. The dominance of the IMF and the World Bank has declined because of these massive changes in the context.

The emergence of China and other emerging market economies requires acknowledgement as a fact of life, not as a marginal change. China in particular deserves to be received into the world community as a constructive participant and have its institutions be part of the global system of international institutions, not apart from it. Indeed, China’s Premier, Li Keqiang, stated at the World Economic Forum in early 2015 that “the world order established after World War II must be maintained, not overturned.”

The economic, social and environmental imperatives of this moment are that the world’s people and the P2015 agenda require that all international institutions of consequence be part of a single coordinated effort over the next 15 years to implement the post-2015 agenda for sustainable development. The geopolitical imperatives of this moment also require that China and China’s new institutions be thoroughly involved as full participants and leaders in the post-2015 era. If nothing else, the scale of global investment and effort to build and rebuild infrastructure requires it.

It is also the case that the post-2015 era will require major replenishments in the World Bank and existing regional development banks, and significantly stronger coordination among them to address global infrastructure investment needs in which the AIIB and the NDB must now be fully involved. The American public and the U.S. Congress need to fully grasp the crucial importance for the United States, of the IMF quota increase and governance reform.  These have been agreed to by most governments but their implementation is stalled in the U.S. Congress. To preserve the IMF’s role in the global financial system and the role of the U.S. in the international community, the IMF quota increase and IMF governance reform must be passed and put into practice. Congressional action becomes all the more necessary as the effort is made to reshape the global system of international institutions to accommodate new powers and new institutions within a single system rather than stumble into a fragmented, fractured, and fractious global order where differences prevail over common interests.

The IMF cannot carry out its significant responsibility for global financial stability without more resources. Other countries cannot add to IMF resources proportionately without U.S. participation in the IMF quota increase.   Without the US contribution, IMF members will have to fund the IMF outside the regular IMF quota system, which means de-facto going around the United States and reducing dramatically the influence of the U.S. in the leadership of the IMF. This is a self-inflicted wound on the U.S., which will damage U.S. credibility, weaken the IMF, and increase the risk of global financial instability. By blocking the IMF governance reforms in the IMF agreed to by the G-20 in 2010, the U.S. is single-handedly blocking the implementation of the enlargement of voting shares commensurate with increased emerging market economic weights.  This failure to act is now widely acknowledged by American thought leaders to be encouraging divergence rather than convergence in the global system of institutions, damaging U.S. interests.

IV. Toward a single monitoring mechanism for the global system of international institutions

The P2015 agenda requires a big push toward institutionalizing a single mechanism for the coordination of the global system of international institutions.  The international coordination arrangement today, is the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation created at the Busan High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011.  This arrangement, which recognizes the increasingly complex context and the heightened tensions between emerging donor countries and traditional western donors, created a loose network of country platforms, regional arrangements, building blocks and forums to pluralize the architecture to reflect the increasingly complex set of agents and actors. This was an artfully arranged compromise, responding to the contemporary force field four years ago.

Now is a different moment. The issues facing the world are both systemic and urgent; they are not confined to the development of developing countries, and still less to foreign aid. Geopolitical tensions are, if anything, higher now than then.  But they also create greater incentives to find areas of cooperation and consensus among major powers who have fundamentally different perspectives on other issues. Maximizing the sweet spots where agreement and common interest can prevail is now of geopolitical importance.  Gaining agreement on institutional innovations to guide the global system of international institutions in the P2015 era would be vital for effective outcomes but also importantly ease geopolitical tensions.

Measurement matters; monitoring and evaluation is a strategic necessity to implementing any agenda, and still more so, an agenda for systemic transformation.  As a result, the monitoring and evaluation system that accompanies the P2015 SDGs will be crucial to guiding the implementation of them.  The UN, the OECD, the World Bank, and the IMF all have participated in joint data gathering efforts under the IDGs  in the 1990s and the MDGs in the 2000s.   Each of these institutions has a crucial role to play, but they need to be brought together now under one umbrella to orchestrate their contributions to a comprehensive global data system and to help the G20 finance ministers coordinate their functional programs.   

The OECD has established a strong reputation in recent years for standard setting in a variety of dimensions of the global agenda.  Given the strong role of the OECD in relation to the G20 and its broad outreach to “Key Partners” among the emerging market economies, the OECD could be expected to take a strong role in global benchmarking and monitoring and evaluation of the P2015 Agenda.  The accession of China to the OECD Development Centre, which now has over fifty member countries, and the presence and public speech of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang at the OECD on July 1^st, bolsters the outreach of the OECD and its global profile.

But national reporting is the centerpiece and the critical dimension of monitoring and evaluation.  To guide the national reporting systems and evaluate their results, a  new institutional arrangement is needed that is based on national leaders with responsibility for implementation of the sustainable development agendas from each country and is undertaken within the parameters of the global SDGs and the P2015 benchmarks.

V.   Strengthening global governance and G20 roles

G-20 leaders could make a significant contribution to providing the impetus toward advancing systemic sustainability by creating a G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council charged with pulling together the national statistical indicators and implementing benchmarks on the SDGs in G-20 countries.  The G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council (G-20 GSDC) would consist of the heads of the presidential committees on sustainable development charged with coordinating P2015 implementation in G-20 countries.  Representing systemically important countries, they would also be charged with assessing the degree to which national policies and domestic efforts by G20 countries generate positive or negative spillover effects for the rest of the world.  This G-20 GSDC would also contribute to the setting of standards for the global monitoring effort, orchestrated perhaps by the OECD, drawing on national data bases from all countries using the capacities of the international institutions to generate understanding of global progress toward systemic sustainability. 

The UN is not in a position to coordinate the global system of international institutions in their functional roles in global sustainable development efforts.  The G-20 itself could take steps through the meetings of G-20 Finance Ministers to guide the global system of international institutions in the implementation phase of the P2015 agenda to begin in 2016. The G-20 already has a track record in coordinating international institutions in the response to the global financial crisis in 2008 and its aftermath. The G-20 created the Financial Stability Board (FSB), enlarged the resources for the IMF, agreed to reform the IMF’s governance structure, orchestrated relations between the IMF and the FSB, brought the OECD into the mainstream of G-20 responsibilities and has bridged relations with the United Nations by bringing in finance ministers to the financing for development conference in Addis under Turkey’s G-20 leadership. 

There is a clear need to coordinate the financing efforts of the IMF, with the World Bank and the other regional multilateral development banks (RMDBs), with the AIIB and the BRICS NDB, and with other public and private sector funding sources, and to assess the global institutional effort as whole in relation to the P2015 SDG trajectories.  The G-20 Finance Ministers grouping would seem to be uniquely positioned to be an effective and credible means of coordinating these otherwise disparate institutional efforts.  The ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum and the Busuan Global Partnership provide open inclusive space for knowledge sharing and consultation but need to be supplemented by smaller bodies capable of making decisions and providing strategic direction.

Following the agreements reached in the three U.N. workstreams for 2015, the China G-20 could urge the creation of a formal institutionalized global monitoring and coordinating mechanism at the China G-20 Summit in September 2016. By having the G-20 create a G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council (G-20 GSDC), it could build on the national commitments to SDG trajectories to be made next year by U.N. members countries and on the newly formed national coordinating committees established by governments to implement the P2015 Agenda, giving the G-20 GSDC functional effectiveness, clout and credibility.   Whereas there is a clear need to compensate for the sized-biased representation of the G20 with still more intensive G-20 outreach and inclusion, including perhaps eventually considering shifting to a constituency based membership, for now the need in this pivotal year is to use the momentum to make political decisions and institutional innovations which will crystallize the P2015 strategic vision toward systemic sustainability into mechanisms and means of implementation.

By moving forward on these recommendations, the G-20 Leaders Summits would be strengthened by involving G-20 leaders in the people-centered P2015 Agenda, going beyond finance to issues closer to peoples’ homes and hearts. Systemically important countries would be seen as leading on systemically important issues.  The G-20 Finance Ministers would be seen as playing an appropriate role by serving as the mobilizing and coordinating mechanism for the global system of international institutions for the P2015 Agenda.  And the G-20 GSDC would become the effective focal point for assessing systemic sustainability not only within G20 countries but also in terms of their positive and negative spillover effects on systemic sustainability paths of other countries, contributing to standard setting and benchmarking for global monitoring and evaluation.    These global governance innovations could re-energize the G20 and provide the international community with the leadership, the coordination and the monitoring capabilities that it needs to implement the P2015 Agenda. 

As the MDGs culminate this year, as the three U.N. workstreams on SDGs, FFD, and UNFCC are completed, the world needs to think ahead to the implementation phase of the P2015 sustainable development agenda. Given the scale and scope of the P2015 agenda, these five governance innovations need to be focused on now so they can be put in place in 2016.

These will ensure (i) that national political commitments and engagement by all countries are made by designing, adopting, and implementing their own sustainable development trajectories and action plans; (ii) that national presidential committees are established, composed of key ministers and private sector leaders to coordinate each country’s comprehensive integrated sustainability strategy; (iii) that all governments and international institutions are accepted by and participate in a single global system of international institutions;   (iv) that a G-20 monitoring mechanism be created by the China G-20 in September 2016 that is comprised of the super-minister officials heading the national presidential coordinating committees implementing the P2015 agenda domestically in G-20 countries, as a first step;  and (v) that the G-20 Summit leaders in Antalya in November 2015 and in China in September 2016 make clear their own commitment to the P2015 agenda and their responsibility for its adaption, adoption and implementation internally in their countries but also for assessing G-20 spillover impacts on the rest of the world, as well as for deploying their G-20 finance ministers to mobilize and coordinate the global system of international institutions toward achieving the P2015 agenda.

Without these five structural changes, it will be more likely that most countries and actors will follow current trends rather than ratchet up to the transformational trajectories necessary to achieve systemic sustainability nationally and globally by 2030.

Ye Yu, Xue Lei and Zha Xiaogag, “The Role of Developing Countries in Global Economic Governance---With a Special Analysis on China’s Role”, UNDP, Second High-level Policy Forum on Global Governance: Scoping Papers, (Beijing: UNDP, October 2014).

Zhang Haibing, “A Critique of the G-20’s Role in UN’s post-2015 Development Agenda”, in Catrina Schlager and Chen Dongxiao (eds), China and the G-20: The Interplay between an Emerging Power and an Emerging Institution, (Shanghai: Shanghai Institutes for International Studies [SIIS] and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung [FES], 2015) 290-208.

Global Review, (Shanghai:  SIIS, 2015,) 97-105.

Colin I. Bradford, “Global Economic Governance and the Role International Institutions”, UNDP, Second High-level Policy Forum on Global Governance: Scoping Papers, (Beijing: UNDP, October 2014).

Colin I. Bradford, “Action implications of focusing now on implementation of the   post-2015 agenda.”, (Washington: The Brookings Institution, Global Economy and Development paper, September 2015).

Colin I. Bradford, “Systemic Sustainability as the Strategic Imperative for the Future”, (Washington: The Bookings Institution, Global Economy and Development paper; September 2015). 

Wonhyuk Lim and Richard Carey, “Connecting Up Platforms and Processes for Global Development to 2015 and Beyond:  What can the G-20 do to improve coordination and deliver development impact?”, (Paris: OECD  Paper, February 2013).

Xiaoyun Li and Richard Carey, “The BRICS and the International Development System: Challenge and Convergence”, (Sussex: Institute for Development Studies, Evidence Report No. 58, March 2014).

Xu Jiajun and Richard Carey, “China’s Development Finance: Ambition, Impact and Transparency,” (Sussex :  Institute for Development Studies, IDS Policy Brief, 2015).

Soogil Young, “Domestic Actions for Implementing Integrated Comprehensive Strategies:  Lessons from Korea’s Experience with Its Green Growth Strategy”, Washington: Paper for the Brookings conference on “Governance Innovations to Implement the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, March 30, 2015).

2015 is a pivotal year for global development; this fall is a pivotal moment. Meetings this fall will determine the global vision for sustainable development for 2030.

Three papers being released today—“Action implications focusing now on implementation of the post-2015 agenda,” “Systemic sustainability as the strategic imperative for the post-2015 agenda,” and “Political decisions and institutional innovations required for systemic transformations envisioned in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda”—set out some foundational ideas and specific proposals for political decisions and institutional innovations, which focus now on the implementation of the new global vision for 2030. This blog summarizes the key points in the three papers listed below.

Fundamentals for guiding actions, reforms and decisions

1) Managing systemic risks needs to be the foundational idea for implementing the post-2015 agenda.

The key political idea latent but not yet fully visible in the post-2015 agenda is that it is not a developing country poverty agenda for global development in the traditional North-South axis but a universal agenda based on the perception of urgent challenges that constitute systemic threats.

The term “sustainable development” by itself as the headline for the P-2015 agenda creates the danger of inheriting terminology from the past to guide the future.

2) Goal-setting and implementation must be effectively linked.

The international community learned from the previous two sets of goal-setting experiences that linking implementation to goal-setting is critical to goal achievement.  G-20 leader engagement in the post-2015 agenda and linking the success of the G-20 presidencies of Turkey (2015), China (2016), and Germany (2017) would provide global leadership for continuity of global awareness and commitment.

3) Focus on the Sustainable Development Goals must be clear.

Criticism of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as being too defuse and too detailed is ill-founded and reveals a lack of political imagination. It is a simple task to group the 17 goals into a few clusters that clearly communicate their focus on poverty, access, sustainability, partnership, growth, and institutions and their linkages to the social, economic, and environmental systemic threats that are the real and present dangers.

The Bretton Woods era is over. It was over before China initiated the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB). Never has it been clearer than now that maintaining a single global system of international institutions is essential for geopolitical reasons. For the implementation of the post-2015 agenda, all the major international institutions need to commit to them.

In a joint paper with Zhang Haibing from the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies (SIIS), we make five specific governance proposals for decision-makers: 

The implementation of the post-2015 agenda requires that nations internalize the SDGs by debating, adapting and adopting them in terms of their own domestic cultural, institutional, and political circumstances. It will be important for the U.N. declarations in September to urge all countries to undertake domestic decision-making processes toward this end.

2) Presidential coordination committees should be established.

To adequately address systemic risks and to implement the P-2015 agenda requires comprehensive, integrated, cross-sectoral, whole-of-government approaches.  South Korea’s experience with presidential committees composed of ministers with diverse portfolios, private sector and civil society leaders provides an example of how governments could break the “silos” and meet the holistic nature of systemic threats.

3) There needs to be a single global system of international institutions.

China’s Premier Li Keqiang stated at the World Economic Forum in early 2015 that “the world order established after World War II must be maintained, not overturned.” Together with a speech Li gave at the OECD on July 1st after signing an expanded work program agreement with the OECD and becoming a member of the OECD Development Center, clearly signals of China’s intention to cooperate within the current institutional system. The West needs to reciprocate with clear signals of respect for the increasing roles and influence of China and other emerging market economies in global affairs.

4) We must move toward a single global monitoring system for development targets.

The monitoring and evaluation system that accompanies the post-2015 SDGs will be crucial to guiding the implementation of them. The U.N., the OECD, the World Bank, and the IMF have all participated in joint data gathering efforts under the International Development Goals  (IDGs) in the 1990s and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the 2000s. Each of these institutions has a crucial role to play now, but they need to be brought together under one umbrella to orchestrate their contributions to a comprehensive global data system.

By engaging in the post-2015 agenda, the G-20 leaders’ summits would be strengthened by involving G-20 leaders in the people-centered post-2015 agenda. Systemically important countries would be seen as leading on systemically important issues. The G-20 finance ministers can play an appropriate role by serving as the coordinating mechanism for the global system of international institutions for the post-2015 agenda. A G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council, composed of the heads of the presidential committees for sustainable development from G20 countries, could become an effective focal point for assessing systemic sustainability.

These governance innovations could re-energize the G-20 and provide the international community with the leadership, the coordination, and the monitoring capabilities that it needs to implement the post-2015 agenda.

A clamor is rising against "short termism"—judging a company by its performance over the past quarter, rather than the past few years. BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink and Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine, for example, recently joined the Business Roundtable and others in decrying the strong pressures for short-term results exerted by daily stock traders and activist hedge funds. Critics claim that these pressures prevent executives from making long-term investments needed for sustainable corporate growth.

There are pressures on and incentives for corporate leaders to put the short term ahead of the long term, but not necessarily from activist hedge funds or stock trading. And some proposed remedies for short-termism would undermine the economic interests of shareholders.

The current attack on short termism is premised on the sharp increase in the average daily trading volume of stocks over the past few decades. The primary cause has been a relatively small group of day traders, including the notorious high-frequency traders who buy millions of shares and sell them a millisecond later. These traders care not a whit about corporate fundamentals or business plans; they are trying to exploit slight pricing anomalies that arise because of technical differences in securities markets. Thus corporate executives should not be pressured by higher daily trading volumes to avoid good long-term investment spending.

Critics of short-termism are even more alarmed about activist hedge funds that may lobby corporations to pay higher dividends, for example, or sell unprofitable divisions. They claim these funds push for a quick boost in corporate earnings in order to sell their shares for a quick profit.

The data do not support this uniformly negative view. Activist hedge funds display a broad array of strategies and time horizons. On average, they hold a company's stock for one or two years, according to various empirical studies. Yet according to a recent McKinsey study of 400 activist campaigns over the past decade, the median campaign was launched when the company was on the decline and led to higher shareholder returns relative to peers for at least three years.

To win proxy contests, activist hedge funds must persuade other shareholders to support the changes they advocate. The funds usually hold a relatively small percentage of a company's shares; the overwhelming majority are owned by institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension plans.

Activist hedge funds have won roughly half of the proxy contests they've entered, as institutional investors have carefully distinguished among long-term plans depending on a company's specific circumstances. These institutions backed activist campaigns to increase dividends at companies like Apple with huge hoards of cash. But they've also supported multi-year research programs of biotech firms like Amgen that have shown they can deliver.

To thwart the perceived threats of short-termism, critics have proposed measures that would reduce the legal rights and economic interests of all shareholders. Martin Lipton, a prominent opponent of activist hedge funds, has recommended that U.S. corporate law adopt a new norm—that corporate directors be elected to five-year terms, rather than the usual one-year term. Such long tenure, combined with existing anti-takeover defenses, would effectively insulate the leadership of chronically under-performing companies.

There is a better approach: Boards should measure and reward the efforts of corporate executives and portfolio managers by looking at the organization's performance over the past three years. At present, most firms distribute cash bonuses and stock grants on the basis of the prior year's results. This approach does encourage top executives to favor short-term results over long-term growth.

At the same time, the top executives at both public companies and asset managers should be required to retain for three to five years half of the shares they receive through stock grants and options. At present, these people can usually sell all their shares as soon as they vest or the options are exercised. This is an inducement for top executives and managers to push up the company's stock price for a few months so they can sell at a temporary high.

While there are reasonable concerns about corporate short-termism, their remedies should be narrowly tailored. Most of these concerns can be addressed by adopting longer periods for executive compensation. But we should not overreact to day traders or hedge funds by dramatically reducing the legitimate rights and financial interests of all shareholders.

By 2020, Millennials will comprise more than one of three adult Americans. It is estimated that by 2025 they will make up as much as 75 percent of the workforce.  Millennials’ desire for pragmatic action that drives results will overtake today’s emphasis on ideology and polarization as Boomers finally fade from the scene. Thus, understanding the generation’s values offers a window into the future of corporate America.

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais outline the cultural force of the Millennial generation on the economy as Millennials increasingly dominate the nation’s workplaces and permeate its corporate culture. Winograd and Hais argue that the current culture on Wall Street is becoming increasingly isolated from the beliefs and values of America’s largest adult generation. The authors also include data on Millennials’ ideal employers, their financial behaviors, and their levels of institutional trust in order to provide further insight into this important demographic.

Key Millennial values shaping the future of the American economy include:

• Interest in daily work being a reflection of and part of larger societal concerns.
• Emphasis on corporate social responsibility, ethical causes, and stronger brand loyalty for companies offering solutions to specific social problems.
• A greater reverence for the environment, even in the absence of major environmental disaster.
• Higher worth placed on experiences over acquisition of material things.
• Ability to build communities around shared interests rather than geographical proximity, bridging otherwise disparate groups.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Editor's note: This blog piece is based on findings from the new book Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean, which will be launched at a Brookings public event later today. A Spanish version of this post is available on the Inter-American Development Bank's website. 

The myth of Sisyphus represents in Greek mythology a metaphor for pointless and interminable efforts. Sisyphus was condemned by Zeus to push a huge boulder up a steep hill. Every time he was close to reaching the top, the boulder was made to roll back down the hill and to the starting point, so that Sisyphus had to start all over again, in perpetuity.    

This metaphor may sound familiar to countries rich in natural resources. In many of these countries, citizens have hoped for generations that the revenue derived from extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) would translate into concrete benefits. Instead, rents from extractive industries have frequently been misused, either through wasteful state spending or public and private corruption. In many countries, heavy dependence on revenues from extractive industries has produced economic and political distortions. Also, revenues are all too often centralized at the national level, leaving local communities to wonder about the benefits of hosting extractive industries.

Overcoming the ‘Resource Curse’

The good news is that there are countries that have found a way to overcome the so-called "resource curse." In Norway, for example, the revenue deriving from the extractive industries supports a majority of government investment in education and health, as well as the pension system. While many resource-rich states can make the same claim, what makes Norway unusual is that it has been able to do so while minimizing corruption, mitigating economic distortions and ensuring efficiency in government spending at the same time.  

How did Norway do it? A look at the Natural Resources Governance Index (NRGI), developed by the Natural Resource Governance Institute, provides a possible explanation: by strengthening governance in the extractive sector. This implies establishing a robust legal and regulatory framework, agile mechanisms to promote transparency and disseminate information, effective safeguards and rigorous controls, and an overall institutional environment that is business-friendly and conducive to greater accountability in the public sector. And this is not a phenomenon unique to Norway, but it is replicated in other countries with large extractive sectors, such as Australia, Botswana and Canada.

Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin American and the Caribbean are at a crucial juncture in their effort to strengthen governance in the management of natural resources. On the one hand the above-mentioned NRGI, which measures the quality of extractives governance in 58 resource-rich countries, shows that among the eleven world leaders in quality of extractives governance, more than half are countries from the region (Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and Peru). This is especially good news if one considers that Latin America and the Caribbean is the main source of metals at a global level, and that it holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. Latin America and the Caribbean are also remarkable because many countries have managed to develop large extractive sectors while at the same time avoiding the secessionist conflicts over extractives that plague resource-rich countries in other regions of the world.

On the other hand, Latin America still has to resolve some important issues. Overall, the region still falls short on rule of law and corruption measures in comparison to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Social conflicts related to the exploitation of natural resources remain a sensitive issue in the region, especially when extractive industries operate in territories where indigenous communities have a significant interest and presence. Citizen demands regarding the control and mitigation of environmental impacts by governments and corporations are increasing, especially in terms of land use and conservation of water resources and forests. And many Latin Americans are increasingly demanding good governance and transparency in state spending.

Transparency is Key to Improving Governance

The recent IDB book Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB, 2014), edited by Juan Cruz Vieyra and Malaika Masson, analyzes these challenges, particularly in light of recent initiatives to strengthen transparency in the governance of natural resources in the region.

The book focuses on two main themes. The first is on how best to improve governance in the extractives sector, especially in a way that promotes inclusive growth and takes into account the concerns of citizens. The key to this is governance mechanisms that include checks and balances to ensure that the needs of local communities are taken into account. The second theme of the book is a focus on evaluating concrete governance proposals, which include improved legislation, licensing arrangements, contracting procedures, and fiscal regimes. Underlying these two themes is a strong argument in favor of strengthened government capacity to produce, use, and disseminate accurate and timely information about the extractive sector.

The book identifies transparency as a key tool to improve the quality of governance in the extractive sector. This is not an easy task, because effective governance of this sector requires states to manage across a complex set of policy domains. Transparency is part of the solution to this problem by making data available to a wider set of stakeholders. This allows for improved coordination inside of government and helps civil society and the private sector to make informed contributions to public policy and hold governments accountable. For example, Colombia, through its Maparegalías initiative, is putting all the information about how money from extractive industry royalties are being spent, community by community, with everything placed online on an interactive map for easy access. But to make the most out of transparency, states need to address shortfalls in human capacity to use newly available data effectively in the public sector. This is particularly true at the sub-national level in many Latin American and Caribbean countries. Ultimately, as transparency improves and governments use data to operate more effectively and efficiently, citizen trust and confidence in the ability of the public sector to manage the wealth produced by extractive industries will improve. 

The findings of the book point towards two key challenges for governments related to designing and implementing transparency initiatives:

1. Governments need to make data more easily available and more accessible to stakeholders. This includes addressing the quality and timeliness of information. It also means improving the ease of use of data, both in terms of the formatting of data and navigability of the platforms that present it.
2. Governments need to be creative about soliciting feedback from stakeholders in the extractive sector. It is not enough to merely present data to the public. Governments should actively seek out input from citizens. This will ultimately mean investing in public and private capacity to analyze available data so that stakeholders can make informed contributions to governance.

These recommendations present the best way for governments in Latin America and the Caribbean to emerge from the paradoxical Sisyphean trap that resource abundance has all too often posed.

The authors are grateful to Pablo Bachelet, Juan Cruz Vieyra, Francesco De Simone and Martin Walter for their comments. 

Event Information

During the past decade, an abundance of wealth in minerals and hydrocarbons in Latin America and the Caribbean has translated into substantial revenues and macroeconomic growth. However, operations in the extractive sector have also led to significant challenges, such as corruption, negative social outcomes and environmental impacts.

On November 4, the Latin America Initiative and Energy Security Initiative at Brookings, with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), hosted a discussion on governance and institutional capacity in the extractive sector in Latin America and the Caribbean, drawing on findings from the publication Transparent Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean, published by the IDB. Edited by Malaika Masson and Juan Cruz Vieyra, the book presents transparency as a central element to bolster governance quality and state legitimacy in the context of an increasingly demanding citizenry.

 Join the conversation on Twitter using #LatAmResources

Audio

• Transparent Governance in Latin America’s Extractive Industries

Publicly traded companies in the U.S. provide their shareholders with a voice on who runs the company.  But corporate governance is not like a political democracy where voters usually choose between two candidates.   The company's slate of directors is typically the only one presented to its shareholders who have a limited choice - vote for the company's slate or withhold their votes. 

Recently, however, the director election process has begun to become more democratic. This is happening gradually on an individual company basis under Delaware law, and not by a federal rule applicable to all publicly traded companies. 

In the United States, the traditional rule is that a company's current board nominates its slate of directors for the next annual election.  Then the company foots the bill to prepare and solicit proxies for this slate from all the company's shareholders, typically mailing them ballots.

Although shareholders may nominate their own candidate to be a director, they must bear the entire expense of preparing and distributing proxy materials to all the company's shareholders.  For large publicly traded companies, this expense is so high that it effectively prevents most shareholders from making director nominations (unless someone is waging a proxy fight for control).

In an effort to help even the playing field, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2010 adopted the "proxy access" rule, which would have allowed certain shareholders to nominate less than a majority of a company's directors.  Then these shareholder nominees would have to be included in the company's proxy materials along with its slate of proposed directors.  However, the SEC rule was struck down by the DC Court of Appeals on procedural grounds. 

While the SEC has not proposed a revised proxy access rule, Delaware law now permits companies chartered in that state to adopt a bylaw authorizing shareholder nominations (the charters of most large American companies are registered in Delaware because of its favorable corporate laws).  Thus, Delaware law now provides a mechanism for a large company to allow proxy access under conditions acceptable to that company and its shareholders.

On February 6 of this year, General Electric led the way by adopting a bylaw allowing shareholders to nominate a few directors if these shareholders held at least 3 percent of the company's voting shares for at least three years.  Given the size and prominence of General Electric, it is a signal event – many companies should follow suit.

More broadly, this 3+3 approach of General Electric is being advocated by officials at New York City's

pension plan (NYCers), which holds over $160 billion in assets.   NYCers has submitted "advisory" shareholder resolutions to 75 public companies in which it holds shares.   While these resolutions are not binding on the company, they carry significant weight if approved by a substantial majority of voting shareholders.

In response, Whole Foods has proposed to allow director nominations by shareholders owning at least 9 percent of their shares for at least 5 years.   After a series of complex legal moves, the SEC has declined to permit Whole Foods to exclude the 3+3 proposal because the company is making a different proposal on the same subject.

The SEC's non-decision, together with General Electric's dramatic move, reopens the debate on the pros and cons of proxy access.  Here are some of the key arguments and counterarguments.

• Company officials worry that proxy access will lead to special interest groups hijacking boards for their own purposes.   But shareholder advocates say that the hijacking scenario is unlikely because of the 3 percent ownership threshold and the need to garner over 50 percent of shareholder votes for their nominees.
• Company officials believe that shareholders would be confused if there were more than one set of directors nominated in the same proxy materials. But shareholder advocates can show how proxy materials can be easily understood by clearly separating company and shareholder nominees.
• Shareholder advocates believe that proxy access is likely to increase constructive engagement between company directors and their large institutional shareholders. But company officials are concerned that proxy access will disrupt the election process and lead to dissension among directors.
• Shareholder advocates point out that in countries like Australia and United Kingdom that do have proxy access, it is used sparingly by large shareholders. But company officials emphasize that the U.S. is a much more adversarial society, with more aggressive tactics by activist hedge funds and others.

We cannot resolve these arguments and counterarguments on proxy access in the abstract.

Instead, though actions of companies like General Electric and shareholders like the New York City pension plan, we will be able to examine the actual effects of various methods and conditions for shareholders to nominate directors.  Let’s see what happens on the ground.

Stock buybacks are an important explanation for both the concentration of income among the richest households and the disappearance of middle-class employment opportunities in the United States over the past three decades. Over this period, corporate resource-allocation at many, if not most, major U.S. business corporations has transitioned from “retain-and-reinvest” to “downsize-and-distribute,” says William Lazonick in a new paper.

Under retain-and-reinvest, the corporation retains earnings and reinvests them in the productive capabilities embodied in its labor force. Under downsize-and-distribute, the corporation lays off experienced, and often more expensive, workers, and distributes corporate cash to shareholders. Lazonick’s research suggests that, with its downsize-and-distribute resource-allocation regime, the “buyback corporation” is in large part responsible for a national economy characterized by income inequity, employment instability, and diminished innovative capability.

Lazonick also challenges many of the notions associated with maximizing shareholder value, an ideology that has come to dominate corporate America. Lazonick calls for a decrease, or even a ban, in stock buybacks so companies will be able to use these funds to finance capital expenditures but more importantly to attract, train, retain, and motivate its career employees. And some of the funds made available by a buyback ban can even flow to the government, he argues, as tax revenues for investments in infrastructure and human knowledge that can underpin the next generation of innovation.  

Downloads

• Download the paper

How to react to presidential candidates who are running, in part or wholly, on their experience in private business?

It’s impossible for anyone to come into the White House with all the skills required to be a good president. We can know that key traits include intelligence, both cognitive and emotional; self-confidence; and decisiveness. Also needed are the ability to communicate; to listen and learn; to delegate; to recognize problems–and a sense of humor and humility.

Candidates’ stands on the issues are critical in primaries and in the general election, but I suspect that the views of many independent voters–whose ranks are growing–may not be as intensely held as those of partisan voters.

Given Americans’ widespread frustration with traditional politicians, it is understandable why a few candidates with at least some business experience have entered the fray. Having run a business exposes one to how government affects the private sector, which is the engine of economic growth and drives improvements in living standards.

But running a private-sector business is very different from heading a federal government that employs millions, and that takes in and spends trillions, while also dealing with a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues, many of which demand immediate attention. These things require dexterity–and the combined challenges are ones that no business ever comes close to dealing with. (Probably the closest experience to the presidency is running a large state. But even then, no governor has had to confront the range of foreign policy challenges facing the president.)

A critical difference between running a business and government is that CEOs can usually make sure that their orders are carried out; and if they’re not, those who didn’t do their jobs can be fired. Imagine a president tried working with Congress that way. “My way or the highway” won’t cut it.

One might think that military leaders would face the same problem, but successful generals, especially in recent times, have had to develop and hone political skills as well as knowing how to fight. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower is now regarded as a good president not only because of his military experience but because he also was a politician-administrator while commanding allied forces during World War II. George Washington had both a military and business background, but he was a politician too–and the government he oversaw wasn’t much larger than his (substantial) private business.

Some 2016 voters will cast ballots based on particular issues. But for others, particularly those who believe this country is on the wrong track, a candidate running on his or her business background in an effort to stand out from the pack is not likely to have the qualifications most important to being a successful president.

In our latest 21st Century Capitalism initiative paper, "What must corporate directors do? Maximizing shareholder value versus creating value through team production," author Margaret M. Blair explores how the share value maximization norm (or the “short-termism” malady) came to dominate, why it is wrong, and why the “team production” approach provides a better basis for governing corporations over the long term.

Blair reviews the legal and economic theories behind the share-value maximization norm, and then lays out a theory of corporate law building on the economics of team production. Blair demonstrates how the team production theory recognizes that creating wealth for society as a whole requires recognizing the importance of all of the participants in a corporate enterprise, and making sure that all share in the expanding pie so that they continue to collaborate to create wealth.

Arguing that the corporate form itself helps solve the team production problem, Blair details five features which distinguish corporations from other organizational forms:

1. Legal personality
2. Limited liability
3. Transferable shares
4. Management under a Board of Directors
5. Indefinite existence

Blair concludes that these five characteristics are all problematic from a principal-agent point of view where shareholders are principals. However, the team production theory makes sense out of these arrangements. This theory provides a rationale for the role of corporate directors consistent with the role that boards of directors historically understood themselves to play: balancing competing interests so the whole organization stays productive.

Downloads

• Download the paper

In a new paper, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck argue that the laws and rules that shape corporate and investor behavior today must be changed. They argue that Wall Street today is trapped in an incentive system that results in delivering quarterly profits and earnings at the expense of long-term investment.

As Galston and Kamarck see it, there’s nothing wrong with paying investors handsome returns, and a vibrant stock market is something to strive for. But when the very few can move stock prices in the short term and simultaneously reap handsome rewards for themselves, not their companies, and when this cycle becomes standard operating procedure, crowding out investments that boost productivity and wage increases that boost consumption, the long-term consequences for the economy are debilitating.

Galston and Kamarck argue that a set of incentives has evolved that favors short-term gains over long-term growth. These damaging incentives include:

• The proliferation of stock buybacks and dividends
• The increase in non-cash compensation
• The fixation on quarterly earnings
• The rise of activist Investors

These micro-incentives are so powerful that once they became pervasive in the private sector, they have broad effects, Galston and Kamarck write. Taken together, they have contributed significantly to economy-wide problems such as: (1) Rising inequality, (2) A shrinking middle class, (3) An increasing wedge between productivity & compensation, (4) Less business investment, and (5) Excessive financialization of the U.S. economy.

So what should be done? Galston and Kamarck propose reining in both share repurchases and the use of stock awards and options to compensate managers as well as refocusing corporate reporting on the long term. To this end, these scholars recommend the following policy steps:

• Repeal SEC Rule 10-B-18 and the 25% exemption
• Improve corporate disclosure practices
• Strengthen sustainability standards in 10-K reporting
• Toughen executive compensation rules
• Reform the taxation of executive compensation

Galston and Kamarck state that the American economy would work better if public corporations behaved more like private and family-held firms—if they made long-term investments, retained and trained their workers, grew organically, and offered reasonable but not excessive compensation to their top managers, based on long-term performance rather than quarterly earnings. To make these significant changes happen, the incentives that shape the decisions of CEOs and board of directors must be restructured. Reining in stock buybacks, reducing short-term equity gains from compensation packages, and shifting managers’ focus toward long-term objectives, Galston and Kamarck argue, will help address the most significant challenges facing America’s workers and corporations.  

Downloads

• Download the paper

Event Information

In July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a far-reaching and still-controversial piece of legislation that was intended to reduce the odds of a repeat of the worst financial crisis in generations.  Five years later, is it working as hoped? Did it go too far—or not far enough? Are there parts that should be revisited? What remains on the U.S. and global financial-stability to-do list? 

On July 8, the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy hosted a conversation with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to address those and other questions about financial stability and the economy.

 Follow the conversation at @BrookingsEcon or #DoddFrank

Video

• Dodd-Frank at 5: A conversation with Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew
• Secretary Jack Lew on Dodd Frank
• Secretary Jack Lew on the $10 bill
• Secretary Jack Lew on Greece
• Secretary Jack Lew on China

Audio

• Dodd-Frank at 5: A conversation with Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150708_dodd_frank_lew_transcript

In 2005, billionaire hedge fund manager Eddie Lampert acquired a large portion of Sears Holdings, the parent company of Sears and Kmart, among other brands. In 2008, Lampert reorganized the company into 30 autonomous business units that would operate like independent businesses, with their own IT contracts, marketing officers, and most importantly, annual financial statements. The idea was that having each unit compete for resources would drive better decision-making and boost profits overall. The exact opposite happened. The divisions turned against one another, making decisions that benefited their divisions at the expense of others. In the year after Lampert’s acquisition of Sears, the company thrived, but two years later, profits tanked, the share price plummeted, and hundreds of stores were closed. As Jillian Popadak explains in a new paper about corporate culture and firm value, erosion of corporate culture may be to blame.

It’s not the case that decentralization is always bad—some large technology companies take this approach—but in Sears’s case, the reorganization changed the norms and culture for employees, dis-incentivizing collaboration at the expense of the overall firm. Popadak notes that former Sears employees speak to this: they said the change created a “warring-tribes culture” that lacked cooperation, and “the result was confusing to the customer.” Media accounts tell a similar story. Accounts detail managers cutting floor staff to save money, intense rivalries over the space in the weekly circular, resulting in nonsense product combinations, and a paltry one percent investment in capital expenditures. Popadak argues this is an example of how important implicit norms can be when they are working to create value at the company. When the explicit emphasis on performance was introduced, it “overpowered the implicit values to collaborate, satisfy the customer, and not act selfishly.”

How can you tell if a firm’s culture creates long-term value, or even measure something so seemingly unquantifiable? Popadak argues that while corporate governance measures are designed to change the explicit rules at a company, the culture is a set of implicit rules that govern employee behavior: the expectations employees have about what it takes to be successful at the firm. In her paper, Popadak collected millions of reviews from job sites like Glassdoor.com, Payscale.com, and CareerBliss.com by year and firm, and then used the text of the reviews to create measures of firm culture based on six categories: adaptability, collaboration, customer-orientation, detail-orientation, results-orientation, and integrity. She then assessed how these measures changed when a firm underwent a governance change.

Popadak writes of this graphic, “The figure shows that firms with stronger shareholder governance exhibited statistically significant increases in results-orientation but decreases in customer-orientation, integrity, and collaboration in the year following the governance change.” In the short term, a move to results-orientation boosts sales growth and payout in the short term, but in the long term, there are “significant declines in intangible value, customer satisfaction and brand value.” Ultimately, Popadak concludes that sacrificing corporate culture for short-term payoff may not be worth it.

The leaked information in the Panama Papers from the law firm Mossack Fonseca has captured the headlines for weeks and will continue to do so as further names are exposed. The scandal has placed Panama in the limelight and provided an unprecedented glimpse into the world of hidden money and tax avoidance. To understand its broader context, it is vital that we distinguish between legal corruption, like that exposed by the Panama Papers, and illegal corruption, like that exposed by the Unaoil scandal. Governments must seize the moment to take decisive action against both.  

The U.S., the U.K., and a range of other countries will announce commitments to combat corruption at the Anti-Corruption Summit on May 12, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron as a game-changing event. The question is whether these commitments will deliver concrete actions that target the most costly kinds of corruption that flourish globally today.  

Unfortunately, the world often engages in “summitry” filled with communiques, calls for coordination and exchanging information, or creating another toothless generic initiative, which offer media and photo opportunities that fulfill particular political objectives for some leaders. Let us see if it’s different this time.

Mossack Fonseca, and its home country Panama, are just a couple nodes in the vast and complex set of “enablers” of corruption and tax evasion around the world.     

For those seeking secret shelters and corporate shells, the mighty U.S. (which unsurprisingly doesn’t feature much in the Panama Papers) is one of the world’s most appealing destinations: Setting up a shell corporation in Delaware, for instance, requires less background information than obtaining a driver’s license. As seen in the chart below, this opacity, coupled with the size of the U.S. as a haven, means that it has been ranked the third most secretive jurisdiction among close to 100 assessed by the Financial Secrecy Index. Panama is 13th.

Figure 1: Financial Secrecy Index 2015 (Select jurisdictions, from the Tax Justice Network)

Source: The Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

This graph depicts the top 40 worst performing jurisdictions as well as four select better performing jurisdictions (right of dashed line). The Index combines a qualitative secrecy score based on 15 indicators and a quantitative measure of a jurisdiction's share in global financial services exports. 

And the U.K. is an important enabler of corruption: It has stood by as its offshore jurisdictions and protectorates operate as safe havens for illicit wealth, which the Panama Papers make clear. The British Virgin Islands, for example, were the favored location for thousands of shell companies set up by Mossack Fonseca.  

The Panama Papers speak only indirectly to core aspects of today’s global corruption challenge, which are neither about Panama nor taxes. We ought to view the resulting scandals in a broader light, and recognize the immense, complex webs of corruption that increasingly link economic and political elites around the globe.

Grand corruption

The most powerful figures who engage in high-level or “grand” corruption are hardly running scared following the Panama leak. These figures include kleptocrat leaders as well as oligarchs who wield enormous influence on government affairs. Often, these players interact and collude, forming high-powered public-private networks that make the traditional notion of corruption as an illegal transaction between two parties look like child’s play.

Corruption in these elite networks far transcends the unethical behavior of the typical tax avoider, as it involves the abuse of power to accumulate power and assets, often via the direct plunder of public resources, asset stripping, or large-scale bribery. The multi-billion-dollar scandal embroiling the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras illustrates the complexity of colluding networks, and how grand such corruption can inflict political and economic damage of historical proportions on a country. 

The oil sector provides many more illustrations of grand corruption. Few company officials may have been more relieved by the Panama Papers leak than those at Unaoil, whose own scandal had just erupted. Unaoil is an “enabler” company incorporated in Monaco that bribed and influenced government officials in various countries on behalf of multinational companies vying for lucrative procurement contracts. While overshadowed by the Panama leaks, the Unaoil case is at least as emblematic of the challenges in tackling global corruption. For instance, it shows the deeply ingrained practice of Iraqi government officials seeking bribes for the award of contracts and the willingness of companies to provide them.

Corrupt elites, including those embroiled in the Unaoil scandal, often use structures like shell corporations and tax havens (along with real estate and other investments) to hide their ill-gotten funds. However, even if the Panama Papers leak prompts more scrutiny on illicit financial flows and the reform of these opaque financial structures, grand corruption will continue in many locations.  It is noteworthy that the political fallout has been concentrated in relatively well-governed countries that do have accountability and anti-corruption systems in place, as illustrated by the resignations of the prime minister of Iceland, the industry minister of Spain, and the head of Chile’s Transparency International chapter. 

In sharp contrast, President Vladimir Putin brushed off the leaked Russian information as a Western anti-Putin conspiracy; in China, discussion and dissemination were muffled by media censorship; and, in Azerbaijan, exposure of details on President Aliyev’s family mining interests will hardly dent his hold on power. While reforms leading from the Panama leaks will hopefully deter tax dodgers and unethical corporations and individuals from hiding dirty assets, powerful corrupt leaders will continue to enjoy impunity.

Legal corruption and state capture   

The Panama Papers shed a sliver of light on the type of corruption that is perhaps most damaging and difficult to tackle: legal corruption and state capture. Around the world, powerful economic and political elites unduly influence laws and policies, shaping the rules of the game for their own benefit, or what has been called the “privatization of public policy and lawmaking.” This generates huge rents for the elite, increases their power, and exacerbates a country’s political and economic inequality.

Resource-rich countries provide many illustrations. In Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, and Venezuela, for example, political elites have used state-owned resource companies to serve patronage agendas, often—though not exclusively—through legal means.

In many industrialized countries, an example of state capture is the tax system itself. It is in the interest of elites to safeguard a worldwide network of secret offshore companies and tax havens as places to hide wealth—whether acquired legitimately or illicitly. The evidence on tax avoidance from the U.S. is telling: According to Zucman, since the 1950s the effective rate of corporate tax has decreased from 45 to 15 percent, whereas the nominal rate has only decreased from 50 to 35 percent. And U.S. companies make full use of foreign tax havens: According to a new Oxfam report, the top 50 American multinationals reported in 2008 that 43 percent of their foreign earnings came from five tax havens, accounting for only 4 percent of the companies’ foreign workforces. Further, Bourguignon reports that federal tax rates on the richest Americans fell by 15 percent between 1970 and 2004.

Risks of legal corruption in the U.S. run high because private money can so easily sway public affairs. Following the 2010 Citizen United ruling by the Supreme Court, private funds from deep pockets increasingly dominate the conduct of electoral campaigns. The avenues for private money to influence public officials may widen further, if forms of bribery traditionally considered illegal become legalized. A forthcoming Supreme Court decision could make it legal for public officials to receive gifts and other benefits from private individuals (potentially overturning the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor for doing exactly that).  

Upfront, there are no easy solutions, especially because powerful decision-makers benefit from this status quo. But there is the opportunity, and public pressure, to reform.  As mentioned, the cause of tackling corruption often attracts token gestures, and David Cameron’s announcement of a new global anti-corruption agency could be at high risk of falling into this category. Rather, countries like the U.S. and U.K. must take firm action to reform their own practices, and push for the same from their partners such as the U.K. crown dependencies and overseas territories, the European Union and G20 members, and the recipients of overseas aid.

First, take legal corruption and state capture seriously. 

Transparency can be one game changer, especially if it addresses the channels of influence through which policy becomes “privatized.” Disclosures of campaign finance contributions, conflicts of interests, assets held by (and tax returns filed by) politicians and public officials, and parliamentary deliberations and votes can all discourage abuse and reveal hidden networks at play. Encouragingly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently issued their first salvo, the report “Financing Democracy,” focusing on a few selected case studies, and as a next step it should be empowered to develop standards and carry out assessments on political finance for all OECD countries.

Transparency will only help if citizens can actively scrutinize and engage with their governments. Civic space is under attack in many jurisdictions, with activists and journalists facing intimidation, prosecution, or worse. Securing rights of expression and assembly should be the business of any international actor concerned with anti-corruption or economic governance. For instance, when considering funding requests from governments with weak records on protecting civil society—like Angola and Azerbaijan—the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as well as donors like the U.S. should prioritize civic accountability as well as broader transparency reforms.

Furthermore, grand corruption will not decline without more effective prosecutions and other sanctions that target bribe-takers, as well as the facilitators and middlemen of corruption, be they lawyers, accountants, or fixers like Unaoil. Of course, law enforcement authorities should also remain vigilant against bribe-paying companies; and governments—including OECD members implementing to varying degrees the OECD foreign bribery convention—would do well to emulate the active enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in this regard. But bribe-takers and facilitators have not faced sufficient scrutiny and sanction.

Second, get rid of shadowy corners.

Lessons yielded by recent events from the 2008 financial crisis to the Panama Papers suggest that major global players should not allow large corners of the global economy to escape scrutiny. The U.S. and the U.K. (with its offshores), should heed the calls for dismantling secrecy and tax havens. Seeds of effort, such as the U.S. government’s decision to require banks to know the identities of the individuals behind shell companies, are now coming to light, but broader efforts, including legislation, will also be required.  

Beneficial ownership transparency should become standard operating procedure, with governments following the example of the U.K., the Netherlands, and others in setting up public registries, and joining the movement toward a global registry. In the case of resource-rich countries, establishing sector-specific registries may be the right place to start. This practice is now mandated by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

Within the extractive sector, home country governments should subject commodity traders to payment disclosure requirements when doing business with governments and state-owned companies. Governments of countries like Switzerland, the U.K., and Singapore that are home to corporate actors shoulder significant responsibility, especially in the current era of low commodity prices, when traders are entering into profitable new deals with cash-strapped resource-producing countries. Shining light in dark corners like these will render them less susceptible to abuse.

Third, prioritize transparency and scrutiny when public resources are allocated.

Whenever a government allocates resources for exploitation, it ought to do so in a fully transparent fashion. The Open Contracting Partnership has made great strides in defining a gold standard for such reporting, including guidance on issues such as open data, corporate identifiers, and beneficial ownership reporting.

Natural Resource Governance Institute research on oil and mining sector corruption shows that multiple types of high-value allocations require scrutiny and contract disclosure. These include the allocation of exploration and production licenses, but also on export, import, or transport rights, which have been associated with corruption in countries such as Indonesia, the Republic of Congo, and Ukraine. And most of the oil sector cases prosecuted under the U.S. FCPA have arisen around the award of service contracts, a segment of the oil industry where the Unaoil and Petrobras scandals also took place. Transparency should be the default setting for any transactions that allocate public resources. Further scrutiny is also needed on the abuse of (mis-)managed exchange rate regimes that generates rents for the few and creates major economic distortions, such as currently in Nigeria, Venezuela, and Egypt.

Concrete impact will also require a major attack on impunity since transparency and freedom of expression are necessary, but insufficient. And governments including those of the U.S. and the U.K. should adopt reforms to address legal corruption and various forms of opacity—whether addressing the capture by money in politics or the “dark corners” among oil traders headquartered in Geneva and London. 

An ambitious commitment to tackling corruption and impunity is not only needed now, but demanded by societies, as events in Brazil and elsewhere show. This is a potentially “game-changing” global moment to make real progress.  

This piece is also available in Spanish and French. 

La fuite des informations du cabinet juridique Mossack Fonseca dans l’affaire des « Panama Papers » a fait et fera la une des journaux pendant des semaines à fur et à mesure de la révélation de nouveaux noms des personnes impliquées. Le scandale a placé le Panama sur le devant de la scène et a donné un aperçu inédit du monde de l’argent caché et de l’évasion fiscale. Afin de mieux saisir le contexte général, il est important de faire la distinction entre la corruption légale, révélée par l’affaire des « Panama Papers » et la corruption illégale, exposée par le scandale Unaoil. Le moment est venu pour les gouvernements de prendre des mesures radicales contre l’une et l’autre.  

Les États-Unis, le Royaume-Uni et plusieurs autres pays annonceront leurs engagements pour lutter contre la corruption lors du sommet anticorruption le 12 mai, dont le Premier ministre David Cameron affirme qu’il changera la donne. La question est de savoir si ces engagements se traduiront par des mesures concrètes à l’égard des types de corruption les plus coûteux qui, aujourd’hui, se prolifèrent à l’échelle mondiale.  

Malheureusement, le monde s’engage souvent dans des  sommets, riches en communiqués, en appels à la coordination et à l’échange d’informations. Parfois, ces sommets mettent en place une initiative inefficace supplémentaire : donnant l’opportunité de créer et promouvoir des articles et photos qui servent les objectifs politiques précis de certains leaders politiques. Voyons si ce sommet sera diffèrent.

Au-delà du Panama

Le cabinet juridique Mossack Fonseca et son pays respectif, le Panama, ne sont que deux éléments dans le vaste et complexe ensemble de « facilitateurs » de la corruption et de l’évasion fiscale à l’échelle mondiale.     

Pour ceux qui sont à la recherche de refuges discrets et de sociétés-écrans, la puissante nation des États-Unis (qui sans surprise n’apparaît pas beaucoup dans les Panama Papers) est une des destinations les plus attrayantes du monde : par example, dans l’état du Delaware la loi requiert  moins de documents pour établir une société-écran que pour obtenir un permis de conduire. Comme on le voit dans l’illustration ci-dessous, c’est cette opacité, conjuguée à la taille du refuge qu’offrent les États-Unis, qui met le pays à la troisième place des juridictions les plus secrètes parmi une centaine évaluée par l’indice d’opacité financière (FSI). Le Panama est à la treizième place.

Illustration 1 : Indice d’opacité financière 2015 (Juridictions sélectionnées, d’après le réseau pour la justice fiscale)

Source : Indice d’opacité financière du Réseau pour la justice fiscalehttp://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

Ce graphique présente les 40 juridictions les moins performantes ainsi que quatre juridictions choisies pour leurs meilleurs résultats (à droite des pointillés). L’indice présente un score de secret qualitatif basé sur une quinzaine d’indicateurs et une mesure quantitative de l’importance d’une juridiction dans les exportations de services financiers à l’échelle mondiale. 

Le Royaume-Uni est un important facilitateur de corruption : il n’a engagé aucune action contre ses juridictions et protectorats d’outre-mer qui servent de refuge aux richesses illicites, comme le démontrent clairement les  « Panama Papers ». Les Iles Vierges britanniques, par exemple, est le lieu préféré  de milliers de sociétés-écrans établies par Mossack Fonseca.  

Au-delà des refuges fiscaux 

L’affaire des « Panama Papers » ne concerne qu’indirectement les aspects essentiels de la question de la corruption mondiale, qui ne sont liés ni au Panama ni à la fiscalité. Nous devons envisager les scandales suscités sous un angle plus large et reconnaître les immenses et complexes réseaux de la corruption, qui lient de plus en plus les élites économiques et politiques mondiales.

La grande corruption

Les puissants individus qui s’engage dans la corruption à haut niveau, c’est-à-dire la corruption à large échelle ne sont pas inquiétés par l’affaire des « Panama Papers ». On trouve parmi ces individus des dirigeants kleptocrates ainsi que des oligarques qui exercent une influence majeure sur les affaires gouvernementales. Souvent, ces acteurs interagissent et s’associent, en formant des réseaux public-privé très puissants qui font passer pour un jeu d’enfant la définition traditionnelle de la corruption comme étant une transaction illégale entre deux parties.

Dans ces réseaux élitistes, la corruption excède largement le comportement immoral du fraudeur type, puisqu’elle utilise l’abus de pouvoir pour accumuler biens et pouvoir, souvent par le pillage direct des ressources publiques, la confiscation d’actifs ou la corruption à grande échelle. Le scandale à plusieurs milliards de dollars qui touche le géant pétrolier Petrobas au Brésil illustre la complexité de ces réseaux d’entente, et les moyens avec lesquels, la corruption à large échelle  peut provoquer des dégâts politiques et économiques d’ampleur historique dans un pays. 

Le secteur pétrolier offre de nombreux example de corruption à large échelle. Les dirigeants de la société Unaoil, dont un scandale similaire a récemment fait surface,  ont sans doute été soulagés par l’affaire des « Panama Papers » Unaoil est une société monégasque  « facilitatrice » de droit qui a versé des pots-de-vin et influencé des responsables gouvernementaux dans différents pays pour le compte de compagnies multinationales se disputant de juteux contrats d’approvisionnement. Bien qu’éclipsé par l’affaire du Panama, le cas d’Unaoil est aussi emblématique les enjeux inhérents à la lutte contre la corruption mondiale. Il illustre par exemple la pratique fortement enracinée des responsables gouvernementaux irakiens qui demandent des dessous de table en échange de l’attribution de contrats, ainsi que l’empressement des entreprises à verser ces pot-de-vin.

Les élites corrompues, notamment celles qui sont impliquées dans le scandale Unaoil, utilisent souvent des structures telles que les sociétés-écrans et les paradis fiscaux (et les investissements immobiliers ou autres) pour dissimuler leur biens mal-acquis. Toutefois, si l’affaire des Panama Papers incite à plus de vigilance sur les flux financiers illicites et engendre la réforme de ces structures financières opaques, la corruption à large échelle se poursuivra dans nombreux endroits.  Il est à noter que les retombées politiques se sont concentrées dans des pays relativement bien gouvernés, qui ont instauré des systèmes anticorruptions et de responsabilisation, comme en témoignent les démissions du Premier ministre islandais, du ministre de l’industrie espagnol et du dirigeant de la section chilienne de Transparency International. 

En revanche, le président Vladimir Poutine a balayé d’un revers de la main les fuites d’information sur la Russie, les considérant comme une conspiration occidentale contre sa personne. En Chine, le débat et la diffusion de ces informations ont été étouffés par la censure des médias ; en Azerbaïdjan, la révélation des détails concernant les intérêts miniers de la famille du président Aliyev ne menace guère sa mainmise sur le pouvoir. Il est à espérer que les réformes découlant de l’affaire du Panama dissuaderont les fraudeurs ainsi que les entreprises et les particuliers aux pratiques immorales de dissimuler leur argent bien mal acquis. Toutefois, les dirigeants corrompus continueront à bénéficier de l’impunité.

Corruption légale et captation de l’État   

Les Panama Papers ont mis en lumière le type de corruption qui est sans doute le plus dévastateur et le plus dure à contrecarrer : la corruption légale et la captation de l’État.  Partout dans le monde, de puissantes élites économiques et commerciales influencent indûment les lois et les politiques, en redessinant les règles du jeu pour leur propre bénéfice, un phénomène aussi connu sous le nom de « privatisation de la politique publique et des lois ». Une pratique qui génère des revenus exorbitants pour les élites, renforce leur pouvoir et exacerbe les disparités politiques et économiques d’un pays.

Les pays riches en ressources naturelles fournissent de nombreux exemples. En Angola, en République démocratique du Congo, au Nigéria et au Venezuela, par exemple, les élites politiques ont utilisé des sociétés publiques exploitant les ressources naturelles pour servir leur népotisme, souvent - mais pas uniquement - par des moyens légaux.

Dans beaucoup de pays industrialisés, le système fiscal est en lui-même un exemple de captation de l’État. Il est dans l’intérêt des élites de conserver un réseau mondial de sociétés offshore et de paradis fiscaux secrets pour pouvoir dissimuler leur patrimoine - qu’il ait été acquis légitimement ou non. Les preuves d’évasion fiscale aux États-Unis sont révélatrices : selon Zucman, depuis les années 1950, le taux réel de l’impôt sur les sociétés a été réduit de 45 à 15 pour cent, alors que le taux nominal est seulement passé de 50 à 35 pour cent. Et les sociétés américaines font un usage optimal des paradis fiscaux à l’étranger : d’après un nouveau rapport d’Oxfam, les 50 plus grandes multinationales américaines ont rapporté en 2008 que 43 pour cent de leurs revenus réalisés à l’étranger provenaient de cinq paradis fiscaux, représentant seulement 4 pour cent des effectifs étrangers de ces sociétés. En outre, Bourguignon rappelle que les taux d’imposition fédéraux des Américains les plus riches ont diminué de 15 pour cent entre 1970 et 2004.

Le risque de corruption légale aux États-Unis est important, l’argent privé pouvant très facilement influencer les affaires publiques. Suite à l’arrêt Citizen United rendu par la Cour suprême en 2010 [qui permet la participation financière des entreprises aux campagnes politiques], les fonds privés issus de poches bien garnies dirigent de plus en plus les campagnes électorales. Les moyens par lesquels l’argent privé influence les représentants publics pourraient encore se multiplier, si les formes de corruption traditionnellement considérées comme illégales devenaient légales. Selon une décision en instance de la Cour Suprême, il pourrait désormais être légal pour les responsables publics d’accepter les dons en nature des particuliers (ce qui pourrait annuler la condamnation d’un ancien gouverneur de l’État de Virginie accusé précisément de ce délit).  

Quelles mesures prendre ?     

En Bref, Il n’y a pas de solutions simple  et directe, d’autant plus que les décideurs tirent profit de ce statu quo.  Mais l’opportunité de réforme et la pression publique sont actuellement présentes. Comme nous l’avons évoqué, la question de la lutte contre la corruption entraîne souvent des mesures symboliques et l’annonce par David Cameron d’une nouvelle agence mondiale anticorruption pourrait très bien tomber dans cette catégorie. Les pays comme les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni devraient plutôt prendre des mesures concrètes pour réformer leurs propres pratiques et pousser leurs partenaires à faire de même, qu’il s’agisse des dépendances de la Couronne et des territoires britanniques d’outre-mer, de l’Union européenne et des membres du G20 ou des bénéficiaires d’une aide internationale.

Premièrement, il faudrait prendre la corruption légale et la captation de l’État au sérieux 

La transparence peut changer les règles du jeu, particulièrement si elle s’attaque aux réseaux d’influence par lesquels la politique se « privatise ». La divulgation des contributions financières aux campagnes électorales, des conflits d’intérêts, des avoirs détenus par les hommes politiques et les responsables publics (et de leurs avis d’impôts), des délibérations et votes parlementaires sont autant de moyens d’éviter les abus et de révéler les réseaux cachés qui sont à l’œuvre. La publication récente de la première salve de l’Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques (OCDE) est encourageante : son rapport « Le financement de la démocratie », s’attache à quelques études de cas. La suite logique serait d’habiliter l’organisation à développer des normes et mener des évaluations sur le financement politique de tous les pays de l’OCDE.

La transparence ne sera utile que si les citoyens peuvent mener un examen attentif de leurs gouvernements et dialoguer avec eux.  L’espace civique est en danger dans de nombreuses juridictions où les activistes et les journalistes sont la cible d’intimidations, de poursuites, voire pire. Garantir la liberté d’expression et de réunion devrait être l’affaire de tout acteur international concerné par la lutte contre la corruption ou la gouvernance économique. Par exemple, lors de l’examen des demandes de financement de gouvernements ayant un piètre bilan en matière de protection de la société civile - comme c’est le cas de l’Angola et de l’Azerbaïdjan - la Banque Mondiale et le Fonds Monétaire International, ainsi que les donateurs comme les États-Unis, devraient privilégier la responsabilisation citoyenne et des réformes de transparence plus ambitieuses.

En outre, la corruption à large échelle ne s’évincera pas en l’absence de poursuites ou d’autres sanctions efficaces contre ceux qui se laissent corrompre ou contre les facilitateurs et les intermédiaires de la corruption qu’ils soient avocats, comptables ou entremetteurs comme Unaoil. Bien sûr, les autorités chargées d’appliquer la loi doivent aussi rester vigilantes vis-à-vis des sociétés qui versent les pots-de-vin et à cet égard, les gouvernements - notamment les membres de l’OCDE instaurant, à des degrés divers, la Convention de l’OCDE sur la lutte contre la corruption - feraient bien d’imiter la mise en œuvre effective de la loi américaine sur la corruption dans les transactions à l’étranger (FCPA). Mais les individus corrompus et les facilitateurs n’ont pas été suffisamment surveillés et sanctionnés.

Deuxièmement, il faudrait se débarrasser des zones d’ombre.

Les leçons tirées des événements récents, de la crise financière de 2008 à l’affaire des Panama Papers, indiquent que les principaux acteurs internationaux ne devraient pas permettre que de vastes fractions de l’économie mondiale échappent à un examen attentif. Les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni (et ses territoires d’outre-mer) devraient répondre aux appels à mettre fin à l’opacité et aux paradis fiscaux.  Quelques premières tentatives  émergent, telle que la décision du gouvernement américain demandant aux banques de révéler l’identité des individus se cachant derrière les sociétés-écrans. Des mesures plus ambitieuses seront toutefois nécessaires, ceci comprend des dispositions législatives.  

La transparence sur la propriété réelle doit devenir une procédure opérationnelle standard, avec des États qui suivent l’exemple du Royaume-Uni, des Pays-Bas et d’autres pays qui ont établi des registres publics et soutiennent le projet d’un registre mondial. Quant aux pays riches en ressources naturelles, un bon point de départ serait d’établir des registres spécifiques au secteur. Cette pratique est maintenant imposée par l’Initiative pour la Transparence dans les Industries Extractives.

Au sein du secteur extractif, les gouvernements des pays d’accueil devraient soumettre les négociants de matières premières à des exigences de divulgation des paiements lorsqu’ils font affaire avec les gouvernements et les entreprises publiques. Les gouvernements de pays comme la Suisse, le Royaume-Uni et Singapour, qui abritent des acteurs du monde de l’entreprise, ont une lourde responsabilité, particulièrement dans le contexte actuel de faible prix des matières premières, où les négociants concluent de nouveaux contrats profitables avec des pays producteurs de ressources à court d’argent. Eclaircir telles zones d’ombre les rendra moins vulnérables aux abus.

Troisièmement, il faudrait donner la priorité à la transparence et au contrôle lors de l’allocation de ressources publiques.

Lorsqu’un gouvernement attribue des ressources pour l’exploitation, il doit le faire de façon tout à fait transparente. L’initiative Open Contracting Partnership a fait de grandes avancées dans la définition d’une norme de référence pour de telles informations, notamment en matière d’orientation sur les questions de l’ouverture des données, des identificateurs des sociétés et de la propriété réelle.

Les recherches sur la corruption dans les secteurs pétrolier et minier menées par le Natural Resource Governance Institute montrent que de multiples allocations à forte valeur nécessitent un examen attentif et une divulgation du contrat. Elles comprennent l’attribution des permis d’exploration et de production, mais aussi des droits d’exportation, d’importation ou de transport, qui ont été associés à la corruption dans des pays comme l’Indonésie, la République du Congo et l’Ukraine. La plupart des affaires liées au secteur pétrolier et portées devant les tribunaux dans le cadre de la FPCA aux États-Unis ont surgi à l’occasion de l’attribution de marchés de service, un segment de l’industrie pétrolière qui concernait également les scandales Unaoil et Petrobras. La transparence devrait être le « paramètre par défaut » de toute transaction allouant des ressources publiques. Il est nécessaire d’exercer un contrôle supplémentaire des régimes de taux de change mis en œuvre et abusifs, qui génèrent des revenus pour quelques-uns et engendrent des disparités économiques majeures, comme c’est le cas actuellement au Nigeria, au Venezuela et en Égypte.

Pour espérer un impact réel, il faudra aussi s’attaquer frontalement au principe d’impunité, puisque la transparence et la liberté d’expression sont certes nécessaires, mais insuffisantes.  Et les Etats, y compris les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni, devront adopter des réformes pour lutter contre la corruption légale et l’opacité sous toutes ses formes, que ce soit en s’attaquant à la mainmise de l’argent en politique ou aux « zones d’ombre » entourant les négociants pétroliers installés à Genève et Londres. 

Un engagement ambitieux à lutter contre la corruption et l’impunité n’est pas seulement une nécessité actuelle, mais aussi une revendication de nos sociétés, comme l’ont montré les événements au Brésil et ailleurs. Ce pourrait être le moment décisif de faire de réelles avancées à l’échelle mondiale.  

This piece is also available in English and Spanish. 

Capitalism has provided unprecedented wealth and prosperity around the world, but a growing community is raising concerns about whether the promise of the capitalist system to achieve a more shared and durable prosperity can be achieved without systemic changes in the way for-profit corporations are governed and managed. The change in public opinion has become evident among workers, consumers, and investors, as well as through new policies enacted by elected officials of both parties: more than ever before, the public supports businesses that demonstrate positive social change and sustainable development. These new attitudes have begun to take root in corporations themselves, with a growing community of investors, business leaders, and entrepreneurs expressing a fiduciary duty to create value not only for shareholders but for society. However, businesses and investors seeking to harness these opportunities face significant institutional and normative barriers to achieving their goals.

In a new paper, the co-founders of non-profit B Lab, Andrew Kassoy, Bart Houlahan, and Jay Coen Gilbert, write about this overarching culture shift, the importance of and impediments to effective impact governance and impact management to make this shift meaningful and lasting, and how a rapidly growing community of responsible businesses has overcome these barriers, is maximizing its social impact, and is creating pathways for others to follow. The impact and growth of the B Corp movement will be maximized not only through increased adoption by business leaders, but also through the unique roles played by research institutions, the media, policy-makers, investors, and the general public. With enough support, this movement may soon transform shareholder capitalism into stakeholder capitalism, in which businesses can more easily live up to their potential to create a more shared and durable prosperity for all. 

This paper is published as part of the Center for Effective Public Management’s Initiative on 21st Century Capitalism. It is one of more than a dozen papers written by academics and practitioners about the changing role of the corporation and the importance of improving corporate governance. The authors of this paper are the co-founders of B Lab, a nonprofit organization that oversees the certification of B Corporations, and a major subject of this paper. The perspectives put forth in this paper are solely those of the authors, based on their professional expertise in this area.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Major changes in geopolitics, political economy, and energy markets are altering the global energy landscape. A potential nuclear deal with Iran has raised the possibility of new supplies coming online, and ongoing political gridlock in Iraq has hampered the country’s ability to expand supply. The U.S. energy boom is increasingly viewed as a long-term phenomenon, while a prolonged crisis in Ukraine threatens to impact Russian gas supplies to Europe.

How will the political developments in Iraq and Iran affect oil supply? What will be the impact of the Ukraine crisis on Europe, Russia, and China? How will these shifts help shape the energy markets of tomorrow?

Read the paper online: Brookings Doha Energy Report 2014

The 2014 Doha Energy Forum convened prominent industry experts and policymakers from Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the United States for an in-depth dialogue on the rapidly changing global energy landscape. Based on the Forum’s plenary and roundtable sessions, this paper from the Brookings’ Doha Center and Energy Security Initiative reflects much of the discussion and debate around these changes. It also outlines the complexity of today’s energy markets and the geopolitical factors that set them in motion.

Downloads

• English PDF
• Arabic PDF