Why the G20 must address symptoms, not just causes

I found myself nodding in profound agreement with this statement made by one blogger at the G20 blogger's workshop. Daniel Kaufmann, who blogs on corruption and global governance, said:

If Germany continues to deny the need for fiscal expansion than that may have far more negative implications for developing countries than anything else we are discussing. This maybe more important than anything we are talking about for developing nations in particular.

Indeed, efforts to brace the impact of the crisis on the developing world -- increased aid and providing larger IMF loans etc. -- are imperative, but such measures address only the symptoms, not the cause, of the global financial crisis. The obstinacy of Germany and France in relation to stimulus spending is troubling. If there is inadequate stimulus to get the global economy moving, then where is the money for supporting the poorest countries going to come from?

Paul Hilda (shown in photo right) UK campaign director for Avaaz.com, the world-wide citizen's advocacy group said: "My concern about stimulus is that such spending seems likely to go into projects that will further degrade the environment."

Paul believes that more time -- six months or so -- was needed to define and orchestrate the appropriate kinds of stimulus spending.

My own hope is that a commitment to break ground on long-term infrastructure projects -- particularly public transportation networks serving urban areas -- could provide the kind of stimulus that would be environmentally prudent. Moreover, various such needed infrastructure plans -- plans for new train corridors and subway routes -- are on the drawing boards in city halls around the world.