As US President George W Bush and the leaders of 20 nations prepare to convene at the White House for an emergency economic summit, a growing number of economists are convinced the effort is doomed to failure.

As US President George W Bush and the leaders of 20 nations prepare to convene at the White House on November 15 for an emergency economic summit to stave off global financial disaster, a growing number of economists are convinced the effort is doomed to failure.

The upcoming G20 session - to be hosted by lame-duck Bush 10 days into the aftermath of Barack Obama's landslide victory in the US elections - is envisioned as the first in a series of international meetings aimed at laying the groundwork for an overhaul of the rules governing global financial markets.

The gathering will attempt to invoke the spirit of the historic conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, which remade the global financial system in the wake of the Great Depression and the Second World War. It was at Bretton Woods that the rules were designed for the operation of the inter- national exchange rate system, and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established.

But if history is a guide, the predictors of calamity may have got it right.

One of the doomsayers is Catherine Schenk, professor of international economic history at Glasgow University, who believes the primary - and possibly insurmountable - hurdle is one of consensus.

Nonetheless, while Schenk finds it difficult not to see parallels between the current economic crisis and historic events, she also insists that media analogies with the Great Depression are overstated.

She said: "We are not yet in the position of the 1930s. The US growth rate slowed only by 0.3%. I think, by the latest reckoning. US real per capita GDP fell by 31% between 1929 and 1933. By 1933 unemployment in the USA was 25%."

However, Schenk added: "People keep saying that this current economic crisis is a global problem that needs global solutions - but the fact of the matter, looking back at history, is that there is very little chance of a global solution.

"Bretton Woods happened at a height of consensus and commitment to international co-operation to avoid the consequences of the failure to co-operate after World War I.

"The pressure for co-operation is not nearly as great now as it was then, when many believed that the economic conflict associated with the Great Depression had led directly to global military conflict. But even so, by 1946 it was already disappointing."

She added: "After the war ended, the commitment to multilateral co-operation quickly evaporated. The International Trade Organisation, which was supposed to accompany the IMF, was never able to be formed because the leading states were unable to continue the spirit of co-operation and compromise at a multi- lateral level, and the summits to establish an ITO at Havana in 1948 failed to be ratified.

"Instead we ended up with a much less formal set of rules - GATT - and the World Trade Organisation was only formed in 1995.

"My view is that the existing model of global financial regulation, which involves prolonged negotiation to develop common standards that are then imposed on financial institutions, has repeatedly failed.

"If this is repeated then the outcome is likely to be financial innovation around the new rules and they will quickly become outdated and ineffective - in the same way as has happened in the past 30 years."

Nonetheless, economists argue the attempt to revamp the global financial framework is necessary and important, and that it comes at a time of global economic fear and when so-called "de- coupling" - the supposed ability of emerging market economies to keep growing even when the rest of world falls into recession - has been unmasked as a myth and the financial gloom continues to spread.

Although European leaders had been pressing for a meeting of G8 industrialised nations, Bush went one step further and called for a broader global conference that would include developed and developing nations.

Observers have noted that the decision to include developing nations acknowledges the risk these countries face, particularly as the more prosperous nations have poured billions into stabilis-ing their banks - thus heightening the risk for emerging nations, because banks in those countries are less safe than those in the western economies.

Nations such as Hungary, Ukraine and Belarus are showing familiar symptoms - the flight of foreign capital, plummeting currencies and soaring inflation - to those manifested in Iceland recently, crippling its banking system and hobbling the economy.

All these countries are in talks with the IMF for loans to stabilise their banks, as western banks pull back credit and the number of countries falling victim to a financial crisis could grow to include several more in Central Europe and Latin America.

The countries invited to the summit will come from the so-called G20, a forum of wealthy and emerging nations that was convened in 1999 after the Asian economic crisis.

Its members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the US, the UK and the European Union.

According to a joint statement by Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, while national leaders have warned that any effort to overhaul the international financial system must "preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism - a commitment to free markets, free enterprise and free trade", any discussion of international regulation of financial markets is delicate and problematic.

Schenk's scepticism is rooted in the idea that national governments are determined to keep sovereignty over their national financial and banking systems. No country wants other nations to control its banking system. She said: "Financial information is a valuable, private asset for banks and governments, and they guard it jealously. There is a quote I often cite from Sir George Blunden, the chairman of Basel Committee in 1977, which I think explains this very well.

"He said: The banking system of a country is central to the management and efficiency of its economy. Its supervision will inevitably be a jealously guarded national prerogative. Its subordination to an international authority is a highly unlikely development, which would require a degree of political commitment which neither exists nor is conceivable in the foreseeable future.' "On top of this, financial innovation is a common response to regulation. Regulation is backward-looking, and prompts innovation to evade constraints, and so can increase risky behaviour.

"What is needed is a more dynamic internalised approach that introduces incentives for institutions and individuals to engage in more risk-averse behaviour and increase transparency.

"The current strategy of promoting mergers and acquisitions to consolidate the industry is likely to mitigate against transparency and effective supervision."

Nonetheless, while Bush has urged leaders to view any financial reforms as a way to "preserve democratic capitalism" rather than restrain it, others - including Sarkozy, have proclaimed the need to increase the regulation and overseeing of financial markets.

The contrast underscores the clashes that could erupt.

Schenk added: "The most ambitious likely outcome is agreement in principle for greater co-operation and co-ordination of international financial regulation, perhaps through a new international organisation - possibly, but not likely, through the IMF, since previous attempts have failed. But whether leaders can deliver the compromise of national sovereignty necessary to make this effective is doubtful."