The G20 Cannes Summit 2011: A New way Forward
Accountability and transparency are important elements in ensuring that the G20 is delivering on its commitments, but few formal mechanisms exist for holding member countries answerable for their decisions and the subsequent effects.
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.
This paper attempts to put G8 and G20 institutions within the same assessment paradigm on the basis of a functional framework. This approach allows comparing the G8 and G20 across at least three groups of indicators: performance of global governance functions, accountability and compliance performance; contribution towards global governance agenda; and engagement with the other international institutions. It begins with outlining the methodology, and goes over to the main findings and conclusions on each of the dimensions. Thus the study contributes to building a quantifiable evidence base for an assessment of the G20 and G8 effectiveness and to inform forecast of their future roles.
The G20 has proved that it can respond to crises. It has to live up to the expectations that it can prevent global risks, break dead locks other institutions responsible for resolving critical issues were unable to break. Challenging a plethora of skeptics G20 is now a long term process in motion. The G20 leaders’ decisions on the Mexican 2012 Presidency’s five priorities, which are broadly shared across the G20 members and beyond, are expected to advance global financial and economic stability; promote growth and jobs creation through structural reforms; make progress towards international financial institutions reform; strengthen financial regulation; enhance food security and mitigate commodity price volatility. The summit commitments and their implementation by the G20 and relevant international institutions will show how much the expectations held would prove to be the expectations met.
The paper presents analysis of the G8 and G20 assistance to developing countries in overcoming the consequences of economic and financial crisis. It assesses the G8's and G20's implementation of key global governance functions and highlights their engagement with international organizations. In conclusion the author gives recommendations for rational division of labour between the institutions in international development assistance.
For the first time since World War II, the U.S. seem to lose leadership at the multilateral trade talks shifting accents to bilateral and regional trade cooperation. The main reason for the shift is a deadlock at the WTO Doha-round negotiations where the U.S. face opposition of the steadily growing economies of India, China and Brazil.
Торговые переговоры, ГАТТ, ВТО, США, многосторонняя торговая система, ЕС, Япония, ИНДИЯ, КИТАЙ, Бразилия, Дж. Буш-мл., Б. Обама, М. Баррозу, Р. Зеллик, П. Лами, Р. Кирк, Л. да Силва, Карел де Гюхт, АТЭС, НАФТА, АСЕАН, трансатлантическое партнерство, "двадцатка", trade talks, GATT, WTO, U.S., Multilateral Trading System, Eu, Japan, India, China, Brazil, G.-W. Bush, B. Obama, M. Barrozo, R. Zoellick, P. Lamy, R. Kirk, L. da Silva, Karel de Gucht, APEC, NAFTA, ASEAN, Transatlantic Partnership, G 20
Five years after the first meeting of G-20 leaders, and decisive action by the central banks and treasuries of the world’s major economies that prevented the financial crisis of 2008-2009 from turning into a 1930’s style world-wide depression, the world economy still remains fragile. The original fiscal stimulus agreed upon in the April 3rd 2009 second leader’s level G-20 London meeting has been withdrawn in the U.S. and Europe after 2011, not through a coordinated decision of the G-20, but in response to fears of rising public debt and a political process in which these fears came to dominate the debate. In China too, fiscal policy became less expansive, after the mega-stimulus of 2009, although a mini-stimulus has been declared for the summer of 2013 to counter a greater than expected output slowdown. Monetary policy, however, remained extraordinarily expansionary in the U.S., the U.K., Japan and the eurozone. The balance sheets of the Federal Reserve (Fed), the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and the European Central Bank (ECB) expanded by $2 trillion, £310 billion, ¥50 trillion, and €1.5 trillion, respectively between December 2007 and December 2012. The Fed’s, the BoE’s, the BoJ’s and the ECB’s balance sheets were as big as 6 percent, 7 percent, 21 percent and 15 percent of their GDP in 2007, whereas in 2012, their balance sheets represented 19 percent, 27 percent, 33 percent and 32 percent of their 2012 GDP levels, respectively. Repeated rounds of quantitative easing no doubt helped the U.S. economy recover, and the actions of the ECB prevented the crisis in the eurozone periphery to spin entirely out of control.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.