Bringing Balance to the Force? A Comparative Analysis of Institutionalisation Processes in the G20’s Mutual Assessment Process and the EU’s Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bringing Balance to the Force? A Comparative Analysis of Institutionalisation Processes in the G20’s Mutual Assessment Process and the EU’s Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure

AU - Rommerskirchen, Charlotte

AU - Snaith, Holly

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Events from 2008 onwards have bought the old consensus on the sound money and finance paradigm (the ‘Great Moderation’) into bold relief. One manifestation of this crisis of belief is the increased focus on global imbalances, institutionally reflected in the creation of the Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) at the G20 level and subsequently the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) at the European Union (EU) level. Comparing both newcomers to international macroeconomic policy coordination, this article analyses four features that shape (and we show, institutionalise) the process of paradigm contestation: presence, position, promotion and plausibility. We argue that although initially the G20’s MAP scored higher in terms of presence, position and promotion, it is the EU’s MIP, which heralds a more substantial shift in macroeconomic management. Collectively, both indicate the increased prominence of global imbalances as the subject of inter- or supranational management, and a broadening of the notion of necessary or legitimate economic governance.

AB - Events from 2008 onwards have bought the old consensus on the sound money and finance paradigm (the ‘Great Moderation’) into bold relief. One manifestation of this crisis of belief is the increased focus on global imbalances, institutionally reflected in the creation of the Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) at the G20 level and subsequently the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) at the European Union (EU) level. Comparing both newcomers to international macroeconomic policy coordination, this article analyses four features that shape (and we show, institutionalise) the process of paradigm contestation: presence, position, promotion and plausibility. We argue that although initially the G20’s MAP scored higher in terms of presence, position and promotion, it is the EU’s MIP, which heralds a more substantial shift in macroeconomic management. Collectively, both indicate the increased prominence of global imbalances as the subject of inter- or supranational management, and a broadening of the notion of necessary or legitimate economic governance.

KW - G20

KW - global imbalances

KW - Macroeconomic policy

KW - stability and growth pact

KW - the EU

KW - the IMF

U2 - 10.1080/13563467.2017.1371121

DO - 10.1080/13563467.2017.1371121

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85047356471

SN - 1356-3467

VL - 23

SP - 391

EP - 406

JO - New Political Economy

JF - New Political Economy

IS - 4

ER -