One can say that this crisis has revealed systemic failures in the mechanism of distribution of wealth in the world economy. Many of the symptoms of the current global crisis show that the expansion of the existing system has reached its natural limit, which in turn requires its principal modernization. Into question were put its basic components.

At a theoretical level it is still an open question the current capacity of the model. Some elements of anti-crisis measures of a few Western countries also cause some skepticism among the analytics, which could exacerbate existing problems, which after some time later may lead to a repetition of the crisis in the global economy. In this context, the global crisis has become the catalyst for many global processes.

As a clear trend it can be noted the transition to the multilateral format of participation of countries in addressing key global issues and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms.

Among these mechanisms can be noted “G-20”. The leading Western economies, triggering the crisis, because of the extensive global connections have come to realize that the most urgent economic problems without the participation of major developing countries will be ineffective.

Initially, to combat the global financial crisis it was planned to convene an extraordinary meeting of the “G-8”. The format of the “Big Eight”, were there not present China, Brazil, India, South Korea and several other countries, by its very nature could not be an adequate platform for a global response to the urgent problems of the world economy. As a result, the most suitable for this purpose was the format of "G-20" - a forum that arose at the level of finance ministers and central bankers in 1999. “G-20” includes 19 countries plus the European Union, which covers 90% of world GDP and two thirds of the world, including developing countries.

The crisis has become the point that accelerated the emergence of this mechanism. However, its full institutionalization poses several questions concerning the concept of this mechanism. The first range of issues affects the alignment of the system of global economic regulation and definition of tasks of the new structure. Struggle with a crisis should not become the main focus of the “G-20”. Second set of issues is associated with solving the problems of transition to a new model that takes into account social, environmental and economic factors, as well as a place that “G-20” should have in the system of global institutions. The logic of these processes contributes to further approval of new centers of economic and political decisions. Also enhances the role of developing countries as active participants in forming approaches to key issues in the global economy.

Crisis brought back on the agenda of many countries issues of the active role of state structures in the economy. This concerns, first of all, the U.S., Western countries and some countries of the former Soviet bloc. These countries had simply had to increase the role of the state, which assumed the stabilizing functions through the growth of government spending to support the private sector.

Thereby there were challenged the basic concepts of neo-liberal free market, which defined the global economic and intellectual development of recent decades. Governments have taken a significant package of anti-crisis measures through solid increase of the budget deficit, external and internal debt.

Politicians went to a radical increase in budget deficits and overall government debt in order to support the banking sector and begin implementation of programs to stimulate economic growth and consumption. Thus, Chinese bailout package was $ 600 billion in infrastructure and social projects. According to experts, worldwide on anti-crisis measures have been spent more than $ 5 trillion. It significantly increased budget deficits. For example, in the 2009 fiscal year ended on September 30, the state budget deficit of the U.S. reached the astronomical figure of $ 1.4 trillion. In October of 2009 agency Moody's warned that if after 3-4 years the U.S. does not reduce the deficit to sustainable levels, they will lose the highest rating of AAA. In Western countries, members of the club OECD, national debt rose to 100% of their total GDP, whereas before the crisis, it did not exceed 70%. Budget deficit in the G-20 countries on average increased from 2 to 10% of GDP.

It should be noted that the national debt and budget deficits have become an acute problem for many countries. The situation, which recently hit Dubai and Greece, underlines the threat posed by the growth of budget deficits. The problem of state debt is no longer a problem of individual countries and has become a threat hanging over the entire world economy. Japan's national debt rose to a record for the economically important countries, 200% of GDP. Not much better things are in the UK and the USA. As a result of a global recession, the aggregate debt of the "G-20" will grow from 80% to 120% of GDP. This means that further borrowing is virtually impossible. The observed decline in allocations to further minimizing the state economic stimulus package in the medium term could lead to the fact that the global economy will encounter a significant liquidity problem and tightened credit conditions. There will be less liquidity, which consequently affect the slowing of investment activity in developing countries with slowing economic growth.

The issue of restoring pre-crisis economic growth in the medium term is also associated with the level of consumption in the world. The consumer, especially the U.S., during the time of crisis has increased the debt. In addition, households in the United States and other developed countries have suffered great losses as a result of the crisis: the decreased level of their wealth and savings. As one knows, in these countries, households through investment funds are among the main investors in the capital market. But if the welfare of households is undermined, then they cease to invest in funds, and funds, in turn, stop investing in the economy.

However, against the background of the crisis China has become a key country. Particularly noticeable were growth rates of the Chinese economy. In a situation when the world economy went into a minus 3.5% in its development, the economy of "Celestial Empire" has increased by 8.9%. There have accelerated the process of moving China to Olympus of GDP. It is expected that already in 2010 China will be the 2 nd economy in the world. In addition, China has moved in other directions of foreign economic activity. The crisis created favorable conditions for Chinese companies’ access to natural resources on a global scale. Beijing began to actively promote its currency RMB as an international means of payment. Despite the extensive criticism from the U.S. and Europe, China managed to have his own on the issue of revaluation of the yuan.

There has markedly increased the role of China in the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, the People's Bank of China has a number of swap agreements with central banks in the Asia-Pacific region. This may be the initial phase of the transfer of format of bilateral economic relations with traditional U.S. dollar and euro on the Chinese RMB. De facto Yuan has already been used as a reference currency in a number of deals between China and Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand, and Hong Kong, issued the first bonds denominated in yuan. It should be noted that the growing economic power of China, which has accelerated in the background of the crisis may result in the medium term to the reformatting of the world economic space. As a result, it is possible that the PRC in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific region will play a crucial role on many key issues on the global economy.

In general, the global financial and economic crisis has become a kind of "litmus test" for the prevailing economic views, both in theory and practice. This crisis has shown that some key components of this model have reached its historical and technological limits and the qualitative changes are needed for further economic growth. The financial crisis and the subsequent recession have contributed to creating an environment in which outstanding issues could lead to another crisis. This is evidenced by the fact that although huge financial injections of countries (anti-crisis measures), especially in developed Western countries, helped neutralize the crisis and the emergence of some shoots of economic recovery, but they still have not brought about these countries in the steady growth trend. There are reports that the anti-crisis measures in some countries, on the contrary, exacerbated the economic situation. In these circumstances, as the locomotive of global growth, a historic chance fell to developing countries which through active involvement in addressing global issues can greatly enhance its role and become the driving force that can lift the global economy of the current crisis.

Nodir Jumaniyazov, Ph.D
Expert of the Center for Political Studies