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 supra-national management, and a broadening of the notion of necessary or legitimate economic governance.
|Journal||New Political Economy|
|Early online date||7 Sep 2017|
|Publication status||Published - 4 Jul 2018|
- macroeconomic policy
- global imbalances
- stability and growth pact
FingerprintDive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- School of Social and Political Science - Senior Lecturer - International Political Economy
Person: Academic: Research Active