Who should run the world? The thorny issue of who or what should steer the $41-trillion global economy - now more integrated and interdependent than ever before - came into focus at weekend meetings of the world's finance chiefs.
After years of semi-paralysis, proposals to revamp the Group of Seven club of rich nations and the G7-controlled International Monetary Fund are at last crystallising.
Policy-makers continually wring their hands about the risks to world growth from acute imbalances in trade and investment accounts, and most now accept there are severe limitations to existing structures in dealing with the problem.
The G7 coalition, which for decades has acted as the world economy's de facto governing council, has become too narrow to reflect dramatic changes to world power following a decade of breakneck globalisation.
What is more, a perceived illegitimacy of the G7 in running the world economy means its dominant share of votes in steering the policies of the 184-member IMF undermines the credibility of that financial fire-fighter too.
G7-weighted IMF voting structures mean the emerging Asian economic giants are clearly under-represented and that there is skepticism about the motivation behind some of the Fund's policy prescriptions.
Japan's finance minister Sadakazu Tanigaki said on Saturday the current distribution of IMF votes and shares "represents another form of unsustainable global imbalance."
Moreover, one reason for the imbalances in world financial accounts has been emerging Asia's huge build-up of foreign currency reserves in recent years - a policy blamed partly on mistrust of the IMF in the region after several painful bailouts in the 1990s.
"After suffering financial crises in the late nineties, many emerging Asian economies have accumulated over $2,000 billion of foreign reserves as self-insurance," South Korean Finance Minister Han Duck-soo said.
Fred Bergsten, director of the Insitute for International Economics, said the fundamental reason for the IMF's ineffectiveness has been the ineffectiveness of the G7, which he described as its "steering committee".
"Reforms are needed in the steering mechanism if the IMF is ever to play its needed role as effective manager of the international monetary system."
But there are some signs change is afoot at last.
For the second time this year, the G7 - the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada - met on Friday with what it sees as the five most prominent emerging powers to discuss global economic issues of concern to all.
The five - Brazil, China, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa - met with G7 in February under the auspices of the British G7 presidency. A repeat invitation from the US Treasury this week indicated growing consensus on a new group.
Tim Adams, the US Treasury's top foreign affairs official, insisted this weekend he favours putting these five countries on what he called a "glide path" to full inclusion in the group.
If that were to replace the G7, rather than coexist with it, it would mark a major shift in global governance both in the scope of policy co-ordination and in an expansion of the dominant IMF voting bloc.
The IMF, which has been criticised for its management of Argentina's financial meltdown in 2000 and for not playing a bigger role in recommending changes to rigid Asian currency regimes, is currently reviewing its own strategic direction.
Calling for an overhaul in the fund's voting structure, Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Saturday: "The IMF needs to exercise significantly greater ambition in surveillance of exchange rates."
Tim Adams also lamented the perception the Fund has been "asleep at the wheel" in monitoring Asian exchange rates.
IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato last week published an internal review of the Fund's future role. He said the IMF wanted a central part in global policy co-ordination but needed the support of its shareholders and sought adjustments to voting rights to reflect the rising clout of Asian nations.
The US is reluctant to yield any of its voting power and the focus centers on consolidating European Union votes into one seat to make room for a higher Asian representation.
Either way, the changes to both G7 and IMF are likley to come hand in hand and will be critical for any credible agreement on steps toward more Asian currency flexibility, US budget discipline and structural reforms in Europe and Japan.
Japanese officials on Saturday threw cold water on the idea of an imminent G7 expansion but, for many economists, the change cannot come soon enough.
The changes could also come at a natural break in the whole G7/G8 governance cycle. Russia assumes the Presidency of the G8 leaders next year but there has been confusion over who chairs the G7 finance meetings, at which Russia is not a full member.
G7 said on Friday it had scheduled an extraordinary meeting for December in Britain - a move largely unexplained by ministers but which is likely to have been related to avoiding a February gathering in Russia.