«Группа двадцати» как двигатель прогресса
The presented publication is a translation of the similarly named article by B. Carin and Shorr firstly published in The Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief in February 2013. The translation was made with the permission of the authors.
The article analyses the G20 effectiveness. The authors discuss negative statements on this international multilateral institute and analyse the G20 agenda management to improve its effectiveness. The tools used by the G20 are also explored. The authors suggest recommendations on improving the G20 effectiveness. The G20 should focus on priority issues: food security, commodity-price volatility, challenges of energy and climate change. To keep the G-20 from being overwhelmed by persistent agenda creep, it should devise ways to sunset its involvement with certain issues, perhaps by handing off efforts on an issue to other bodies or spinning them off into self-sustaining initiatives. Such filters as governance gap, global implications, need for high-level attention, complementarity, clarity, proportionate scale are recommended to develop the G20 agenda. In the authors’ view the real key to the G20 effectiveness is focusing all effort on the avenues that best rectify the given problem.
Economic inequality is increasing both within and across countries. Growing inequality has negative economic, social and political consequences, it constrains economic growth, undermines social cohesion and political stability. Eradicating causes of inequality and turning structural barriers to equality into opportunities is fundamental for generating strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. Transition to this growth model will depend on G20 coherent policy actions globally and nationally.
In the run up to the St. Petersburg G20 summit the Civil 20 initiated preparing a report and recommendations to G20 focused on surmounting the risks originating from growing income inequality. A special Task Force, bringing together experts from G20 member countries has been established to draft the report. Presented and discussed within the Russian G20 Presidency Civil Society Track (www.g20civil.com), the report provides an independent analysis and proposals for a dialogue between a wide range of stakeholders and the G20 governors on the G20 concerted policies and actions to improve economic equality within their countries and beyond.
This set of policy recommendations on how G20 can address inequality takes full account of the existing authoritative, best available, consensus, analysis and evidence of the IMF, OECD, UNDP, other international organizations and relevant scholarly, civil society and policy communities, as summarized above. It builds directly upon the extensive evidence and analysis of the causes and practical policy cures for income inequality in the G20 member countries, as identified in the country reports prepared by and for members of the Civil 20 Task Force on Equity (currently including Australia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Korea, Russia, Turkey and the US).
The Civil 20 propose that G20 leaders at their St. Petersburg summit can act together to improve income and economic equality within their countries and beyond by agreeing the Saint Petersburg Initiative for Strong, Sustainable, Balanced and Inclusive Growth affirming the value of equality and inclusion along with economic growth and efficiency.
The G20 and BRICS were born in a crowded world of international institutions following the 2008 financial and economic crisis. The G20 sought to manage the crisis, reform the international architecture and devise a new global consensus. BRICS committed to foster cooperation and policy coordination between its members and promote the international institutions reform. However, 10 years later, the G20’s and BRICS’ pursuit of the international monetary and trade systems reform has produced no fundamental results. This chapter looks into the history of the international monetary and trading systems reform endeavours and examines G20 and BRICS engagement with international organisations for better economic governance, focusing on the IMF, the MDBs and the WTO. It argues that the G20 and BRICS must increase efforts to create a global governance system that reflects new economic and technological realities, responds to persistent challenges, and creates conditions for a balanced and inclusive growth.
The G20 and the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa were born in a crowded world of international institutions in the wake of the 2008 financial and economic crisis. The G20 pledged to manage the crisis, reform international financial institutions and devise a new global consensus. Designated by its members as a premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 became transformed into the “hub of a global network” operating on the universal principles of rationality, norms building and openness. The BRICS committed to fostering cooperation, policy coordination and political dialogue on international economic and financial matters and reform of international institutions to reflect changes in the world economy. Set up to tighten economic ties and promote fair and more equitable multipolar order and global governance, the BRICS entered into its second “Golden Decade” as a concert of rising powers rapidly institutionalizing and gradually generating stronger political influence.
This article analyzes the influence of economic and political institutions on the attention of the leading print media of the G20 countries to political leaders. Based on the Factiva database which indexes publications from 35 000 mass media of 159 countries of the world, we collected the database on the number of mentions of country leaders in the five leading publications of all the countries of the G20 for 2018. In addition, we use the Institutional Quality Index data to assess the quality of institutions in the countries we study. In this study we use the theory of global news flow and the concept of political personalization. We show that attention to the leaders of countries with good economic institutions is higher than to the leaders of countries with poor economic institutions. However, the relationship with political institutions is the opposite: more attention is given to the leaders of countries with law-quality political institutions. In addition, the results show that the media of countries with more developed economic institutions are less likely to mention leaders of countries with less developed economic institutions. But for the differences in political institutions the situation is the opposite: the media of countries with more developed political institutions more often mention leaders of countries with poor political institutions. We can conclude that the leaders of authoritarian countries seek to participate in the formation of the agenda and achieve a higher level of self-attention despite economic factors. This study complements the theory of global news flow by indicating that political factors are no less important in shaping the international media agenda than the economical factors.
An background publication produced for every G20 summit, with contributions from G20 leaders and international experts on the issues on the G20 agenda.
It is, thus, important to critically examine how effectively these central global and relevant regional institutions comply with their commitments and how their effectiveness is and can be improved through stronger accountability measures that improve implementation and deliver better results for all.To do so, this volume assesses and advances the current state of knowledge on compliance and accountability at the key international institutions.It focuses on those operating at or involved in leaders-level summitry, notably the global G7/8, G20, BRICS and UN; the regional bodies of the EU, OAS, AU, Arab League and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); multilateral organizations such as the World Bank; and leading NGOs for business and children. It does so in the following three ways:
First, it develops, in this introductory chapter—and subsequently applies—a framework of major accountability measures used in such internationalinstitutions.
This article reviews the G7 and BRICS members’ positions and coalition-building in the process of forging decisions on the issues historically central to the G20 agenda: international financial institutions reform, macroeconomic policy and financial regulation. The authors seek to reveal what role the BRICS and G7 alliances played in advancing their members’ priorities in the G20 decisions. Have ad hoc groupings of advanced and developing economies indeed replaced the traditional alliances? Was the BRICS successful in using cooperation within the G20 to rebalance power and change the rules of the game in the global system? Has the G7 managed to maintain and consolidate its influence in the renewed system of global economic governance? What resources the BRICS possess for compensating the deficit of influence on the G20 decisions to achieve a more democratic and equitable multipolar world order and ensure sustainable, strong, balanced and inclusive growth?