Updated at Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 15:46  |  Source : Reuters

Capital taxes, currency controls and curbs and home-tailored bank regulation: after decades of spectacular financial globalisation, the world economy and investment horizon may be turning more local and unpredictable.

As 2009 draws to a close, one of the many legacies of the credit bust has been the expansion of global economic governance from a Group of Seven club of rich nations to a Group of 20 that recognises emerging economic powers.

Many experts say this change — formalised this year during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in September — may well have far-reaching implications for assumptions about global economic policymaking and financial volatility in the years ahead.

At the very least, they argue, it is probably wise not to assume continued adherence to principles such as freely-moving cross-border capital, the primacy of market disciplines and floating currencies and world standards on financial regulation.

With the credibility of the old "Washington consensus" — advocated mainly by the United States and Britain — hobbled by the recent credit meltdown, the emerging economic giants appear emboldened in pursuit of alternative policy strategies.

China continues to face down western pressure for greater exchange rate flexibility and Brazil last month felt confident enough to impose taxes on foreign investment.

Other G20 members such as Russia, Indonesia, South Korea are also studying measures to stymie speculative hot money streaming from zero interest rate zones of America, Europe and Japan —tidal flows that risk destabilising emerging economies with new asset bubbles, inflation and economic distortions.

Whatever the "correctness" of these moves, there is clearly a growing diversity of views on how the world should be managed.

Even top policymakers acknowledge the need for a switch away from "one size fits all" prescriptions given the glaring contradictions apparent right now.

"Perhaps the primary lesson from history is for countries to cooperate in making assessments that distinguish their situations," said World Bank President Robert Zoellick, writing in the Financial Times this week.

"The G20 had better put asset price bubbles and new growth strategies on its agenda," he added. "Otherwise, the solutions of 2008-09 could plant the seeds of trouble in 2010 and beyond."

More local, less global

For investors attempting to navigate the shifting sands, there is good reason to assume a more volatile and idiosyncratic investment climate over the coming years.

Avinash Persaud, chairman of Intelligence Capital and of the UK-based Warwick Commission of economists and lawyers on financial reform, said there is already a retreat from global to more local approaches.

"We're no longer in a flat world — walls are being built up and countries are running strategies that rely less on the international world," he said, adding this was made possible after many emerging powers rejected dependence on international capital after the 1990s Asia crisis and built up their surpluses and reserve buffers instead.

"The important thing is not to view this as crazies overseas doing something odd. This is part of a general change and, for developing countries, it's not without reason," said Persaud.

A full gamut of regulatory reform has been accelerated by this credit crisis -- host country banking regulation, selective capital controls, so-called living wills for global banks.

But the elevation of the G20 has also elevated the diverse arguments of the emerging powers into these debates.

Trade or finance?

A question for many economists is whether a retreat of global finance can happen without a big retreat in global trade.

Jim O'Neill, chief global economist at Goldman Sachs, said he remains bullish on the global growth outlook but feels 2010 will be a "highly unpredictable" year and tricky to manage.

"The centre of gravity is changing," he said.

"Coming back from China recently, I find myself wondering for the first time in my career whether in 10-15 years we will even have a floating exchange rate system. It's just not obvious to a lot of big developing countries that floating exchange rates are as useful as we in the West assume," O'Neill added.

And after more than two years of turbulence, financial markets are bracing for structurally higher volatility than was the norm leading up to the credit crunch in 2007.

As an example, Wall Street's Vix index, a measure of stock market volatility used widely in global risk models, remains at almost twice the average levels of the four years prior to the crisis despite the powerful stock market rally this year.

There may be many reasons for that elevated risk level but the consensus on global policymaking may well be a big factor.

"The bigger countries at the top table — India, China, Russia, Brazil — are not big fans of free international capital flows," said Persaud. "Neither are the French and Germans for that matter. Three or four countries formed the dominant thinking in G7 — but not necessarily within in G20."