The first trading day after the Washington summit of the G20 summit of leaders of major developed and developing economies, there was no shortage of headlines saying that the outcome of the meeting - a 3500-word resolution on measures and principles to address the global economic crisis - had no beneficial effect on the markets.

An Associated Press story on November 17 quoted analysts, investors and media around Asia as saying that the summit had been "high on symbolism but low on action". The same day, AFP said that markets had shown "little enthusiasm for a vague pledge" emanating from the G20.

There were, of course, reasons other than the G20's not unreasonable failure to live up to the hype that it would be a "Bretton Woods II" for markets' poor performance, including a caution as key economic indicators were awaited from the US.

Naturally, a meeting that spanned just about six hours could hardly be expected to produce miracles, or even much in concrete terms. There was also what may be termed the Obama factor, with not a few hints that the real business will happen after the new US administration takes office. Further, any long-term effect of the G20 meeting will be apparent only after the group's finance ministers carry out the mandate given to them to deal with all the truly thorny issues of detail. In that respect, the G20 process is similar to what has been happening with European Union and eurozone processes to respond to the financial crisis. Heads of government outline the principal agreements, and it is up to finance chiefs to figure out the workings.

The decisions
For the record, the G20 - made up of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK and the US, plus the European Union as a member in its own right - agreed to use fiscal measures to stimulate demand; help emerging markets gain access to finance; expand the Financial Stability Forum to including emerging economies; reform the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; ensure that the IMF, World Bank and other development banks have sufficient funds; to not raise trade barriers over the next 12 months; work on restarting the Doha round of global trade talks by the end of 2008; establish supervisory colleges for major international financial institutions; review how compensation packages affect risk-taking; ensure credit rating agencies meet high global standards and provide greater disclosure; improve accounting standards; and that there be better disclosure on complex financial products.

Western leaders at the summit, from US president Bush through to European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, hailed it as a success.

"I don't think we could have predicted how productive this meeting was going to be," Bush said. UK prime minister Gordon Brown said that the G20 had provided a "route map" to economic recovery.

Other voices
But few could fail to notice the intrinsic significance of the meeting, which was that 12 countries in addition to the familiar G8 were at the table and being assertive about their presence and role.

China's foreign minister called the G20 meeting, which will have a sequel at the end of April 2009 when more concrete measures are to be spelt out, an important step towards "reform of the international financial structure". Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that the G8 was no longer relevant in today's globalised world, and said that the G20 meeting was historic for representing a seismic shift in global politics.

South African president Kgalema Motlanthe, whose country had been mandated to speak on behalf of the continent, was more cautious, saying that the reform agreed at the G20 meeting would require better representation for Africa in the international financial system.

There should be a "much more inclusive" governance structure for the IMF and World Bank and other relevant institutions so that developing countries were effectively represented, Motlanthe said.

When leaders at the summit go back to their offices, domestic reaction in most countries was less than enthusiastic; one of the few exceptions was Bush, if only on the grounds the few would bother to attack him as his political expiry date approaches inexorably.

Some market analysts were blunt. "In the midst of an emergency crisis, to have a statement that reads `we will co-operate with each other' is all but meaningless," AFP quoted Daisuke Uno, chief strategist at Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. He was speaking as it became clear that Japan was following, among others, Germany and the entire eurozone into recession. AP quoted Credit Suisse Japan analyst Shinichi Ichikawa as saying: "To put it harshly, there is little point in trying to figure out ways to prevent a disease once a patient is sick".

In an editorial comment, South Africa's Business Day said that the G20 summit was never going to yield a package of practical proposals to save the world from financial and economic crisis, and nor was it going to be a new Bretton Woods. For all that, the summit was more than just a public relations exercise.

"It's not much yet. But the Washington weekend could prove to be the beginning of a process that will help to make the world economy a more stable creature," the newspaper said.