Istanbul - The cooperation between governments may have been credited with holding off a second Great Depression in the world economy, but the future of global economic talks remains far from a settled matter. By all accounts the economic crisis of the past year has accelerated a shift in the balance of power from wealthy countries, which were mired in deep recessions, to emerging powers that have led a global recovery.
It was less than two weeks ago that leaders of the Group of 20 (G20) - a bloc that includes major advanced and developing countries - declared their group the primary forum for economic talks in future.
The decision served as a nod to the growing clout of China, India and Brazil, which have grown relatively fast despite the global recession. China's economy is set to expand 8.5 per cent this year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
But while the G20's emergence represented a major victory for the developing world, it left many unanswered questions that have stoked tensions between developing and industrial powers.
Wealthy nations still want to stick together: Finance ministers of the Group of Seven (G7) came together on Saturday in Istanbul and pledged to continue meeting in future.
Meanwhile the United States has reportedly proposed a Group of Four (G4) bloc made up of the US, China, Japan and the 16-member eurozone in order to improve cooperation on currency imbalances.
Developing countries, who meet as the Group of 24, on Saturday asked for their own permanent seat at the G20 table. Then there are economists, such as Harvard University's Niall Ferguson, who have repeatedly sought a G2 made up only of the United States and China.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner brushed off the debate, telling reporters that the important message major powers are trying to get across is that they will cooperate more closely in future. But he acknowledged there were still some uncertainties.
"There were no G-innovations today," he quipped after the G7's meeting this weekend.
Aside from the unresolved "G" question, the chief problem is how to reform the world's two biggest financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which have been holding their annual meetings in Istanbul this week.
The IMF itself has been given major new responsibilities to safeguard the world economy. The G20 in April tripled its lending resources to 750 billion dollars and last month gave it a new monitoring role to help the major powers keep their economies more in balance with each other.
Developing countries remain hugely under-represented in both the IMF and World Bank, and their calls for a fundamental shift in voting rights are getting louder.
Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega argued Sunday that the two institutions were "ill-prepared to face the challenges" of the current economic crisis and that changes in its structure "were long overdue."
A 2008 agreement that would give developing countries about 43 per cent of the voting shares in the IMF has yet to be implemented. The G20 last month pledged a further shift of at least 5 per cent by 2011, which would bring their share to about 48 per cent.
The G20's pledge was endorsed by the IMF's steering committee on Sunday. But it has yet to satisfy developing countries, which are demanding a 7-per-cent shift that would give them an equal say with the industrialized world.
The US and Europe have also long had an informal agreement under which an American leads the World Bank and a European leads the IMF. Emerging powers are desperate to end the practice.
"A 5-per-cent quota shift is shameful. This is a mini-facelift when heart surgery is needed," said Bernice Romero of development agency Oxfam. "Rich countries are still making decisions for the rest of the world."
The details of any IMF reform will have to be hammered out in the coming year, but Europe especially is resisting giving up its overly generous influence over the institution. Belgium currently has more votes in the IMF than Brazil.
