美联储抢走8国峰会风头

    本周有两件大事——在北爱尔兰召开的八国集团（G8）峰会和美联储（U.S. Federal Reserve）的货币政策会议。各位读者觉得经济政策圈子和市场会更关心哪一个呢？应该是前者，但实际情况可能是后者更受关注。了解个中原因将大大加深我们对当今世界的认识。

    G8峰会本应是本周最重要的经济焦点。毕竟，这样的峰会并不经常召开，尤其是和美联储举行会议的频率相比。参加G8峰会的都是各个强国的最高领导人，而且他们最初在会上碰面时都认为与会者对全球经济有着同样的看法，至少其中七个成员国的领导人是这么想的。

    但眼下，应该怎么样和可能怎么样总会存在差别。说到可能性的话，从全球经济的角度出发，本次峰会就可能没有美联储会议那么重要。

    造成这种局面的部分原因是历史经验。正如英国首相戴维•卡梅伦前几天所说，G8峰会倾向于发表冠冕堂皇的宣言，最终却总是不了了之。因此，他明智地决定选择“目标适中的计划”，也就是不那么冠冕堂皇、但更有可能产生实效的东西。

    然而，就实质性经济成果而言，经过这样的精明调整之后，G8峰会的目标仍有可能落空。

    世界经济（特别是西方国家）一直增长乏力，金融市场再次陷入震荡，毫无疑问这需要更好地协调全球政策。但目前的成员结构让G8无法取得实质性进展。（二十国集团（G20）虽然在囊括系统性新兴经济体方面要好得多，但实际情况证明它过于庞大，而且设计不完善，不能一直有效地发挥作用。）

    同时，另外两件大事可能成为本次峰会的主要议题，而在这两个问题上已经出现了分歧。

    与会领导人可能会针对叙利亚的重大人员伤亡探讨对策，同时就该地区地缘政治局势的变化交换意见，他们也应该这样做。在这一点上，部分G8成员国甚至在本次峰会召开前就已经出现了重大政治分歧。

    本周，欧洲和美国真正启动了贸易谈判，从中期角度而言这也很重要。但双方过早地摆出了一些姿态，从而对这项令人鼓舞的工作产生了不利影响。

    Of two big events occurring this week -- the G-8 Summit in Northern Ireland and the policy meeting of the U.S. Federal Reserve -- which do you expect will attract more attention in economic policy circles and markets? It should be the former but will likely to be the latter. Understanding why says a lot about the world we live in today.

    The G-8 Summit should be the most consequential economic attraction this week. After all, these Summits don't happen often, especially when compared to the frequency of Fed meetings. They convene powerful countries represented by their highest elected officials. And they start with the presumption of a common vision for the global economy, at least for seven of the eight G-8 members.

    Yet there is a difference today between what should happen, and what is likely to happen. And when it comes to the latter, the Summit is likely to be less consequential than the Fed when it comes to global economic prospects.

    Part of this is due to past outcomes. As British Prime Minister David Cameron noted a few days ago, G-8 Summits have a tendency to issue grand proclamations that end up leading nowhere. Thus his wise decision to opt for "an ambitiously modest agenda" -- that is, something less grand but more likely to be effective.

    Yet even this astute course correction is likely to fall short when it comes to material economic outcomes.

    Undoubtedly, the world's consistently anemic economic growth (particularly in the West) and the return of financial market volatility require better global policy coordination. Yet the current G-8 membership lacks the right country composition for meaningful progress. (The G-20, while much better at including the systemic emerging economies, has proven too large and incompletely designed to be consistently effective).

    Meanwhile, the Summit's agenda may well be dominated by two other important issues where differences have already come to the fore.

    Leaders likely will -- and should -- discuss what to do about the enormous human tragedy that has been unfolding in Syria, and related regional geopolitical shifts. Here, important political differences have already emerged among certain G-8 countries even before the start of the Summit.

    This week's meaningful initiation of trade negotiations between the European and the United States is also important, albeit from a medium-term perspective. Yet this encouraging initiative is already being undermined by some premature bilateral posturing.