The economist John Maynard Keynes helped broker the original, which was designed to return markets to normality in the aftermath of hostilities. Commentators believe this type of coordinated response is required again to avoid a repeat of the current credit crunch that is wreaking chaos in world markets.

While war was still raging, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire. They signed a deal to set up a global financial management system to get their economies back on track.

Bretton Woods resulted in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now part of the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under the agreement, each country had to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value.

The Bretton Woods system collapsed in 1971, following the United States' suspension of convertibility from dollars to gold. It could now be reincarnated in some form.

With the global financial economy in meltdown there have been calls for a world "super-regulator" to tackle the current problem of in-fighting between countries. Within hours of European leaders meeting in France last Saturday to discuss measures to return the economy to stability, Germany angered its peers by acting on its own to guarantee savings. Ireland had taken a similar step the previous week which led to fears of money flooding out of the UK in search of a safe haven.

According to Haig Bathgate, an investment director at Turcan Connell: "With the Germans and Irish being accused of being anti-competitive, there's a widespread need to get everyone to agree on one course of action."

The UK Government itself has recognised that coordination between countries is essential. Amid last week's market turmoil, Chancellor Alistair Darling said: "The global nature of these problems means it is important for all countries to adopt a comprehensive approach… Delegates at Bretton Woods in 1944 created the IMF to promote a stable monetary system. It is clear, however, that the post-war institutions have not kept pace."

Darling wants the IMF's focus to shift towards surveillance of the links between the financial sector and the "real economy". He said it should co-operate with the Financial Stability Forum to design policy and regulatory responses.

Many commentators working in the financial services industry agree that the global nature of markets makes some sort of overarching regulator a necessity. However, they are unclear about how this would look.

Geoff Tresman, chairman of Punter Southall Financial Management, says: "There will be calls for a more extreme form of regulation, but what form that will take I don't know. I would absolutely welcome it as long as it was managed by those who know what they're doing."

In the UK, he says the Financial Services Authority has failed to meet its responsibility of ensuring the economy does not return to boom and bust. "You can't really blame the bankers for what they were doing during the feeding frenzy. We were told the regulator was watching," he says.

The question for many now appears to be "when" not "if" a worldwide regulatory body will be created. According to Bathgate, markets are global, so regulation has to be. However, he says that as markets improve, there may be less talk of regulation and it is uncertain whether the appetite will still be there for a global authority 12 months ahead.

Experts warn that the introduction of yet more red tape must be avoided. They say effective regulation must tackle the problems that have led to the current crisis. Selwyn Blair-Ford, senior domain expert with FRSGlobal, says: "A call for a global regulator is reasonable and understandable. The danger is it will create just another layer of bureaucracy. We have to ensure it's the best mechanism to prevent this situation happening again."

Bathgate wants the new regulator to tackle the lack of transparency in the packages of assets that were transacted between banks, leading to the global contagion of the credit crunch.

But experts who accept the need for a super-regulator warn that self-interest will make it difficult to implement and manage. "I can't imagine the US taking kindly to being told its regulation is not good enough and I can't see France behaving just because the US tells it to," says Blair-Ford.

Ken Taylor, director at Mackenzie Taylor Wealth Management, questions how more than 200 countries would be able to reach agreement when the 25 members of the European Union struggle to do so.

Despite his doubts he can see the merit in the idea as last week's events have shown how the world has become a "global village". For a global regulator to work, Blair-Ford says it has to grow from a cooperation between countries rather than being imposed on them. He believes there should still be room for self-regulation by the industry. Employees must be ethical and realise their responsibility to avoid the types of risk that led to the sub-prime crisis.

However, other commentators warn that regulation should not be regarded as a panacea for the world's economic woes as there are examples of costly failures in the past. Neil Lovatt, sales and marketing director at Scottish Friendly, said: "Regulation such as Bretton Woods involved governments trying, and then failing at great expense, to buck the market. The truth is that this type of bubble is generational."

Instead, he wants countries to focus on inflation, which he describes as the root of the problem. The central banks have used wrong measures of inflation, according to Lovatt. He says they should factor in asset price inflation, such as housing or stock markets, as that would make them more likely to raise interest rates when it becomes clear that the "population's affordability is being stretched".

Rumours fly over the fate of Scotland's banking bigwigs

THE banks are wobbling and the markets are in freefall, yet those at the top are managing to resist the shakeout, writes Terry Murden.

But can they continue to withstand the onslaught? As reputations are torn up faster than a loser's betting slip, the odds are shortening on somebody being offered as a sacrificial lamb.

All the talk last week focused on Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Tom McKillop, chief executive and chairman respectively of Royal Bank of Scotland. Somebody went to the Daily Telegraph with a story that the Government had demanded their removal in part-exchange for the £50bn handout from the taxpayer.

According to the paper, they were to be replaced by Steve Hester, formerly of the Abbey, and Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of Sainsbury's. As part of the deal, there would be a cap on executive pay and shareholder dividends.

It looked like an excellent scoop for Jeff Randall, the former BBC business editor, and a chance to get one up on his successor, the now-ubiquitous Robert Peston, who in recent weeks has been elevated to celebrity status.

The story appeared rock solid, with no hint of speculation or rumour. With no equivocation whatsoever Randall, accompanied by three bylined colleagues on the front page, thundered that the two Scottish bankers were "out".

But RBS was unimpressed and later that day a firm denial was issued from its Gogarburn HQ. The bank demanded a correction and got the next best thing: a follow-up story on the denial and an admission that a "Government source inaccurately stated (to the paper] that Sir Fred and Sir Tom would step down".

The Treasury also insisted there was no truth to the claim that it put pressure on the pair, insisting that such changes were a matter for the bank's shareholders.

Intriguingly, Hester and Hampton have kept their counsel. Hester was tipped for one or the other post at RBS when he joined the board as a non-executive director earlier in the summer. However, a source told Scotland on Sunday that Hampton was mystified by the story. In any case, as chairman of Sainsbury's his responsibilities include Sainsbury's Bank, which is a joint venture with HBOS. Were he to accept the chairmanship of RBS it may mean forsaking his role at the supermarket chain to avoid a conflict of interest.

Some sources insist the Goodwin/McKillop rumour is not entirely without foundation. At a party in London on Wednesday night hosted by Lansons, the public relations agency, there were rumours that Goodwin had quit. Another guest claimed Goodwin had tendered his resignation and been persuaded by the board to stay. Yet more speculation doing the City rounds suggested Goodwin had moved quickly to nip a boardroom rebellion in the bud.

In what is now commonly referred to as a "febrile" atmosphere, the rumour mill is certainly in full swing. Lloyds TSB is deliberating on who will get the top posts in the proposed merger with HBOS and it is widely expected that there will be few vacancies for those running the Edinburgh-based bank.

Andy Hornby, the current HBOS chief executive, has been promised a position on the board and a job of some sort, but Lloyds has not yet indicated what that might be, but it's unlikely to see him asking for membership of the New Club any time soon.

Helen Weir, current head of retail at Lloyds, and Archie Kane, chief executive of Lloyds-owned Scottish Widows, are believed to be in contention for further promotion, with the latter possibly taking over as head of all the group's Scottish operations – including Lloyds TSB, Bank of Scotland and Widows.

Where that would leave Susan Rice, current chief executive of Lloyds TSB Scotland, is unclear. She has her supporters, though there are some, particularly down south, who believe her title is an exaggeration of her role as she has little influence over group strategy.