Emerging market ministers, particularly those from the BRIC economies -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- are painting this weekend's G20 meeting as a victory in dragging them out of the shadows of global policy-making.

The finance ministers' statement included the promise of more money for the International Monetary Fund and regional development banks, on whom struggling emerging economies rely for support.

It accelerated a review of IMF quotas by two years to 2011, which should give emerging economies more say in the running of the multilateral lender. It also suggested that the headship of IFIs -- international financial institutions -- would no longer be guaranteed to Americans or Europeans. 

BRIC countries even issued their own communique, ahead of the final statement. "There is a conclusion that has been reached in recent years, which is that the resolution to today's global problems is only possible with the participation of emerging countries," Brazil's central bank governor Henrique Meirelles told MacroScope.

 "There is a natural evolution of the decision-making process, which many important countries agree on, that decisions move from the G7 to the G20."

But were there actually any major concessions?  Tim Ash,  head of emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa research at RBS thinks not.

"Clearly they would like things to change, but I'm not sure that much has actually changed," he says.

"Confidence grows at the rate that a coconut tree grows, but confidence falls at the rate that the coconut falls," Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of India's Planning Commission, told a panel in Davos.

He also indicated that India's decision not to float its currency and to build up massive reserves was correct, noting that this gave it a cushion during the downturn.

"Floating (currencies) would be fine, if that was what was meant, but what they mean by floating is crashing upwards and crashing downwards."

John Lipsky of the IMF said the answer was a better international liquidity facility to give surplus producing nations the confidence that cash would be there if they did float and were hit by volatility.

He's right though it would have to be a very big fund indeed. But if the lesson of the last five years is that everyone should export like heck and build up reserves we are going to have a battle on our hands and a long, deep downturn.

James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

After a two-hour flight sitting a few feet away from four boisterous children who made enough noise to put a marching band to shame, emerging at Hyderabad’s swanky new airport for my first visit to the city proved very soothing for my frayed nerves.

The spacious terminal building, high glass walls, and the view, as you step outside, of palm trees and people leisurely posing for photographs in front of water fountains made me recall chaotic scenes back at Delhi’s airport, as I allowed myself a wry grin.

My admiration for what the aviation minister has described as India’s first truly “world-class” airport vaporized when on my return trip, a smiling attendant approached me at the terminal and directed me to a counter that collected 375 rupees from every passenger flying out of the city — courtesy a recently introduced toll called UDF or User Development Fee (International travellers were asked to shell out a thousand rupees).

A UDF is a toll collected by private airport developers to finance in part their project costs, provisions for which were introduced by the government recently with the advent of private players’ participation in development of the country’s airports, although there is no clear policy on how much a developer can charge passengers.

The argumentative Indian that I was, I protested that it seemed absurd to charge passengers so much every time they fly out of the airport, where the most they do is stand in queue to get their boarding passes, maybe use the toilet once and perhaps have a bite at a food joint, which by the way pays money to the airport authorities for operating on the premises.

Besides, I argued, we already paid for our air tickets, which are supposed to include all taxes and service charges. In any case, fees in other areas like road toll or parking charges on vehicles usually amount to double digit numbers, not in the hundreds.

Imagine my dismay when on my return to Delhi, I found out that DIAL, which is developing the capital’s airport, was asking the government’s permission to introduce a similar fee. On further research, I discovered that Bangalore airport already charges UDF and Mumbai airport authorities have also proposed charging the same.

And with plans to develop 35 more airports in the country through the public-private partnership model, all major airports in the country could soon be putting up requests for charging UDF on passengers to let them have a “world-class” experience at their terminals.

Not to argue about the larger economics of the costs and strains of building airports, but is directly charging a few hundred rupees from passengers every time they come to the airport fair or even commercially sound in the long term?

For thousands of citizens like me who can claim to see the inside of an airplane only due to the entry of budget airliners, paying so much just to catch our plane doesn’t make much sense (trains are starting to look inviting again).

Yes, we want big and beautiful airports like everyone else, but not by being forced into directly contributing not once but every time we visit the place.

Also, in these times of economic turmoil when consumers are increasingly getting thrifty, levying such a fee could lead to decreasing air passenger traffic with the lower middle class preferring to go, especially for short distances, by road or rail route.

This would directly affect airliners who would be forced to reduce flights, in turn decreasing the income of the airport operator because of decreased landing and parking fees of planes and service charges.

But as I said before, forget about the larger economics or the high-class jet-setters who would keep on flying anyway, is levying a UDF fair on budget travellers like you and I?

So it’s official. India has finally raised fuel prices, by more than most people expected. A hike in diesel prices in particular is sure to feed through into overall inflation. At the same the government removed the import duty on crude oil.

We’d be keen on your opinion. Has the government got it right?

Despite the price rises, oil companies are still going to be losing huge amounts of money and gas-guzzling cars are still going to be heavily subsidized by ordinary taxpayers. The oil ministry had even argued for steeper price hikes.

Are subsidies really the right way to go in the modern world? Is the government sacrificing good economics on the altar of political populism?

Or should the government have tried harder to protect the poor by keeping fuel prices down despite global inflation in oil? The left says the price rises were avoidable, and the government should instead have cut excise duties more and imposed windfall taxes on private companies.

And is this decision going to have a major impact on the UPA government’s chances of re-election?

India’s 80-year-old opposition leader says he needs help on “money matters”.

Not only does his wife pay all the bills at home, but he asked business leaders on Tuesday for help in drawing up a new economic model which does not ape the West.

He also had some strong words for the Congress-led government, accusing it of failing to control inflation and failing to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

When Advani’s own coalition government was in power, it followed pretty similar policies, except with more emphasis on privatisation of state-run companies. But it lost power partly for claiming that India was shining, when poverty was still rampant.

So it’s fair enough to look for economically sustainable ideas to help India’s poor, in fact it is probably essential to address widespread poverty more aggressively.

But is Advani being realistic to suggest there is an alternative to a “Western” development model in the modern world?

And is it right that a man who could be India’s next prime minister so blithely admits to not really understanding economics or money matters?