The article presents the results of the research «Development methodology of international institutions effectiveness assessment, analysis and assessment of the G8 effectiveness and possibility of different reform models for realization of Russia's foreign policy priorities during global governance system crisis» conducted within the State University - Higher School of Economics plan of fundamental studies. Functional analysis methodology is used to assess G8 effectiveness in realization of global governance functions, priorities, cooperation with multilateral institutions and mechanisms. Special attention is given to dynamics of Russia's role in the G8 and the G8 effectiveness in Russia's priorities realization. The paper examines the G8 and the G20 comparative effectiveness. The research is based on the specialized data base of the G7/G8 and the G20 documents issued from 1998 to 2009 and special programme for their analysis.
This paper focuses on the period beginning with 1998, with only a brief reference to early reform initiatives of the G8. It will examine and comment on reform proposals as well as reforms actually achieved or underway. It will pay particular attention to the reform dimension of the evolving G5, Heiligendamm Process, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Major Economies Meeting and G20 groupings, and to the G8's relationship to these structures. The chapter concludes with outlining possible trajectories of G8 reform.
The rise of new institutions in response to systemic vulnerabilities, strategic power shifts in the world economy and the slow pace of reform of existing institutions generated heated discussions over the proliferation of institutions and the subsequent fragmentation of global governance. However, this fragmentation does not mean there has been a decline in demand for global governance or reduced efficiency. On the contrary, it can be beneficial, positive and creative [Acharya, 2016]. Though essentially different in their missions and collective identities, the Group of 20 (G20), the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum each has an important role to play in promoting the inclusiveness, legitimacy and efficiency of global governance. The distinctive features of these institutions are the nature of their summitry, the character of their volunteerism and their recognition of the role of major developing countries in world economic growth and global and regional governance. They are deeply embedded within the system of international institutions and are intensely engaged with international organizations (IOs). This engagement does not directly address the concerns over fragmentation. However, it does stimulate a division of labour which mitigates the risks of fragmentation and competition, facilitating coordination, coherence, accountability and effectiveness in global governance. This paper examines G20/BRICS/APEC engagement with international organizations in fulfillment of their global governance functions of deliberation, direction-setting, decision-making, delivery and global/regional governance development. The study is carried out within the paradigm of rational choice institutionalism. It draws on quantitative and qualitative analysis of documents adopted by the G20, BRICS and APEC to trace dynamics and identify their preferred models of engagement with multilateral organizations. The article begins with a brief outline of the roles of the G20, BRICS and APEC in the system of global governance. Then it presents the analytical paradigm and methodology of the study. Applying the described methodology, it tests the key assumption that summit institutions can resort to a combination of “catalyst,” “core group” and “parallel treatment modes” in their engagement with IOs and that their preferred choice reflects their mission and role in the system of international institutions which may change over time. Reviewing the findings, this article concludes that the G20, BRICS and APEC consistently engage with IOs even while the range of organizations, the intensity, the dynamics and models of engagement differ substantially. The G20, a premier forum for consensus-based economic cooperation, seeks to fulfill the promise of facilitating greater coherence in the system across institutions [Narlikar, Kumar, 2012, p. 389] to forge a new form of institutional collectivism. The G20 exceeds the BRICS and APEC in terms of the number of references to IOs, intensity and scope. It employs all three modes, engaging its key partners — the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank (WB), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) — mostly as a core group across the full range of global governance functions from deliberation to delivery. The BRICS, representing a new force in global governance, strives to build a better world order for humanity through a constructive contribution to defining the rules of the game [Duggan, 2015, p. 11]. The BRICS consistently acts as a catalyst stimulating, endorsing, compelling and supporting change of the United Nations (UN), the IMF, the WB and the WTO and building a BRICS-centred institutional system. APEC as a regional premier economic forum and a vehicle of Asia-Pacific engagement in global issues [Morrison, 2014, p. 2] advances inclusive growth regionally and globally. This duality is explicit in APEC’s choice of partners, where the top ten positions are split between global and regional IOs. APEC expedites integration of regional and global agendas, facilitates coordination between regional and multilateral institutions and reinforces their mutual influence.
Jointly the G20, BRICS and APEC contribute to more effective global policy coordination. Though there is definitely room for improvement, this is indeed good news, raising hopes for the future of global governance.
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?
The paper presents analysis of the outcomes of the two G20 summits and the EU contribution towards the decisions made. Analysis of the EU input and impact on the two summits' results allows to reveal containing factors in the EU institutional architecture constraining the quality and effectiveness of the EU global governance performance through the G20. First, the coherence and impact the institute of permanent Presidency can ensure is much higher than what can be achieved through the coordination efforts of the three rotating presidencies. This continuity and durability is essential not only for forging consensus with the EU partners in the G20, but, most importantly, for building internal consensus in the EU, as a vital factor of effective common foreign policy. The author posits that though in the run up to the Washington summit the Presidency and the European Commission leadership and contribution were very much driving the process, the run up to the London summit presented a different story. The Presidency yielded leadership and the EU institutions and the leaders of the EU-G20 members stepped in. The paper highlights this experience as one more argument in favor of permanent Presidency of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty ratification and the new institutions of Presidency and the Foreign Minister - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will consolidate the EU institutional foundation for the challenges of the future.
Born in response to the economic and financial crisis which existing institutions were unable to address adequately, G20 transformed from a crisis management group into the premier forum for international economic cooperation. Like its predecessor G7 set up in 1975 and BRICS established in 2009 G20 is an informal club or summit institution. To ensure continuity, legitimacy and efficiency in fulfilling their global governance functions of deliberation, direction-setting, decision-making, delivery and global governance development G20 members engage other international organizations. It is hypothesized that to maximize benefits from its engagement with international organizations G20 resorts to a combination of the “catalyst”, “core group” and “parallel treatment” approaches exercised by summit institutions: exerting an influence for international organizations’ changes through endorsement or stimulus, or compelling them to reform; imparting a new direction by giving a lead that the other organizations would follow; and creating its own mechanisms. The article tests this assumption. To trace the dynamics of G20 engagement with multilateral organizations and identify preferred models across the presidencies and policy areas the analysis is carried out within the rational choice institutionalist paradigm drawing on quantitative and qualitative analysis of documents adopted by G20.
Findings from the study indicate that the intensity of the G20 engagement with the IOs is very high and G20 mostly resorts to a combination of the catalyst and core group approaches, though the pattern depends on the policy area, the IOs and the presidency agenda. Intensity of G20 engagement with the IMF, Financial Stability Board, World Bank, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development by far exceeds the intensity of its interaction with the other institutions. The UN comes only seventh in the G20 discourse by the share and intensity of references. There are very few cases of parallel treatment and most of them are in the sphere of infrastructure investment which can be interpreted as G20 response to a persistent gap in the demand and supply for infrastructure investment and governance leadership in this area. Thus in implementing the forum mission and functions G20 prefer to engage with key international organizations acting as “a hub of a global network”.
The article starts with a brief overview of the study analytical paradigm and methodology. It then proceeds to examine the dynamics and modes of G20 engagement with international organizations across a wide spectrum of policy areas. The final section summaries and concludes.
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.
The paper presents the key results from the monitoring of the implementation of the EU programme Education & Training 2010 during the last two-year period. It examines the main aspects of the programme implementation on the overall European as well as on the national level. It summarizes further political steps and perspectives to be implemented for the future European education and training system development before and after 2010. As the final 2008 joint progress report shows the most part the EU member countries could provide positive results from the later two-year period of the EU programme implementation. While the progress achieved by different countries in separate programme's strands as experts noted doesn't prove the overall positive changes across Europe and must be strengthened in future. The paper attempts to address the following questions: What programme's strands enjoyed most positive results and had been developed better during the time period considered? And which of them are remained insufficiently developed? How effective were the national political steps of different countries? What is the national context for the EU programme Education & Training 2010 main goals delivery and implementation? As well as how reachable the priority for the lifelong learning development in Europe can be? And how it is possible to provide the favorable conditions to deliver lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation in Europe?
Recent transformations in the ways that modern sport is managed have fundamentally changed its role in society: previously a simple form of leisure activity and health promotion, sport has become a complex phenomenon and a multibillion dollar business. The combination of sociocultural and economic dimensions makes sport an important tool for the promotion of interests. A leading role in the development of sport throughout history gives the European Union (EU) an advantage in setting the rules for its management, while the size of the sports market in Europe further facilitates the EU's leading role in developing the regulatory basis in this field. The sports model developed by EU institutions plays an important role in the deepening of regional integration processes, promoting the European model outside the region and also the EU's transformation into one of the drivers of the development of the global sports management system.
The goal of this article is to identify the specificities of the European model of sport, the instruments and resources used by the EU to promote European values in this field and the universal features of the European approach that make it applicable in other regions. The analysis shows that the EU actively promotes its values, norms and interests by entrenching them into the European sport model and then promoting this model to other countries and regions.
Practices and norms developed in the European contex are being actively transferred to the international level. Sport, and especially football which is the most popular and among the most profitable sports, has become another area in which European management practices demonstrate their consistency and are being actively applied at the global level.
The spread of the European sports model is facilitated by the "spillover" of the EU law to the organizations and institutions in which it participates. The EU model is promoted through soft power supported by the authority of the European sports federations and the leading position of the European sports market. By elaborating its own sports policy and encouraging its spread to other regions, the European Union is driving the development of sports management practices at the global level.
The review is focused on critical analysis of the monograph written by the French researcher O.A. Spaiser whose study was focused on EU policy in Central Asia. The reviewers pay attention to methodology which is used by the author with the purpose to analyze EU capabilities that are necessary to influence so distant region. At the heart of her work is the methodology of post-structuralism and post-modernism. This uncommon scientific approach helps to estimate effectiveness of EU policies in Central Asia and gives an opportunity to make judgments on the political agency of the Union as such. Reviewers positively assess Spaiser’s contribution to the European studies as her book is one of a few studies where doubts about universality of EU normative model where accurately made. In contrast to the European part of the post-Soviet space, where Brussels’ policy of Europeanization has some effect and brought benefits to EU as a player, in Central Asia EU normative influence on political life is quite limited.
The paper presents author's vision of the European Union as a new but key global player. The EU features as a political institution, its internal structure and system of external relationships and mechanisms of co-operation with other global actors are overviewed in detail. Special emphasis is given to the EU characteristics such as borders' transparency and the EU member states differentiation as themselves. Factors providing political cohesion (solidarity) of the EU member states including the supremacy of law, political culture of solidarity and mechanisms for the sovereignty co-governance are analyzed profoundly. Furthermore legal and institutional base for the EU world policy practices as well as ways of its positioning on the world scene reveal with the paper. In conclusion author evaluates the EU future role and its influence rising in setting future global agenda, addressing global problems and needs, promoting future global development.