In my count (and categorisation) 43% of the speech was directly policy related. Of that, around half (21% of the entire text) was dealing with the US economy. Here is my translation of the contents of economic policy bit: The US economy is in crisis. The endowments are still the same, but effective government action is needed. The coming government measures should be judged by their quality and not by their size. His government’s investments will be in: infrastructure, science and technology, alternative energy, all three tiers of the educational system.
There was zero mention, or even a hint towards the global economy, and the fact that the US economy is part of it.
Yet, there were three different mentions of the global socio-economic system.
One. Global society -- the most circumvent way of putting it:
We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.A translation of the above would be something like this: The US is a culturally diverse place that managed to form an identity out of a series of shocks. The global society is also a culturally diverse thing that will see a common identity rise, and the US should be instrumental in that.
Two. Cooperation with others on two global problems:
[We] can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. [...] With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet.
Thus he supports a global-level policy on nuclear non-proliferation and climate change, as far as ‘cooperation and understanding among nations’ and ‘working with all others’ counts as such). In any case, there are existing global institutions for both, which the Bush government largely ignored, so this may only be a promise towards the US takings its share, rather than any new global leadership.
Three. There is no mention of global economic policy architecture, but there is an indirect, implied presence of some kind of global policy institution in this quote:
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Despite a relevant point (economic development aid in poor countries works better if it comes especially to healthcare and education, and in the form of assistance rather than aid money), the global policy promise is there only if you want to imagine it: effective delivery of economic development aid, as well as an enforced global constraint on resource extraction would imply some form of policy forming, implementing, monitoring, and rule enforcing global body.
Overall, this speech has not done much towards outlining a global economic policy architecture, which would be, and probably will be, necessary to contain the current global crisis. That’s a pity.