Global Versus National Income Inequalities and Their Impact on Global Governance
The debate on the increasing income and wealth inequalities in the USA and some other advanced economies often disregards the opposite trend, i.e. decreasing income inequalities between individuals throughout the entire world. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the potential trade-off between both trends and the role of globalisation in such a trade-off. Another important question relates to the impact of this trade-off on global governance. On the one hand, catch-up growth in emerging-market economies and the resulting decrease in global inequality can help reduce the economic and social sources of political conflicts and tensions between countries and enable their cooperation on various issues such as trade, environment, climate change, health, fighting terrorism, managing migration and many others. On the other hand, growing income inequalities within advanced economies can undermine the existing global political and economic order and boost protectionism and nationalistic egoism in many areas.
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.
In March 2011 scholars met in Prague at the conference Interculturalism, Meaning and Identity. This event revitalised this important theme related to Diversity and Recognition. The terms 'interculturalism' and 'integration' are experiencing a renaissance. As the extent of human movement between nations increases attempts are made to balance cultural difference and social cohesion. In some contexts immigration and settlement policies are becoming more draconian in response. Because of this, interculturalism can take on many meanings. However, pivotal to the way interculturalism is understood is identification. As the relationship between nation, ethnicity and language becomes more complex so too do the ways in which people represent them selves. The cultural resources drawn on and the processes used to form identities are examined in this truly international collection. So too are the implications of these developments for how we theorise culture, meaning and identity.
For the past 37 years, the annual G8 summits have generated a wide breadth of declarations and communiqués binding the leaders to hard commitments across a diverse range of global policy issues. The extent to which the G8 members comply with their annual commitments has, in recent years, become a hotly contested topic, pitting academics, politicians, policy wonks and newsmakers against each other in an effort to understand whether commitments by the G8 do, in fact, matter. Given this era of ongoing domestic political constraints and conflicting global demands, does the G8 have the ability and, indeed, the capacity not only to make, but also to keep the commitments its members collectively generate at their annual summits?
The article analyses the EU activity in assisting developing countries to develop energy sector throughperspective of the functional approach. The author identifies the EU approach by assessing EU compliance with the G8 commitments on assisting developing countries to develop energy sector. The assessment is made on the basis of the analysis of EU implementation of its commitments made in four major spheres of international engagement for energy development, such as ensuring developing countries’ access to modern energy sources, clean energy development, raw natural energy resources, sustainable management and environmental protection. In order to ensure comprehensive and unbiased assessment the author applies the methodology of global governance delivery function approach and compares EU compliance with compliance of other traditional donors such as USA and emerging donors such as Russia. In conclusion some recommendations on how to raise effectiveness in assisting developing countries to develop energy sector are made for the Russian Federation.
The world’s financial crisis made worth an effort to rethink the existing model of global economic governance. One of the striking things among the others – is the insufficient level of global financial regulation. Experts do not share a common view on the functioning of the system. Some of them consider the system of global governance was not ready to react to the new challenges and to sustain the pressure of critical events. Others will defend the system, admitting that only some slight changes into it would make possible to cope with the current problems. The truth, as very often, is probably somewhere in between. The necessity to modify the pattern of functioning of the global financial institutions is clear. The institutions themselves should be made more viable and efficient and their competences to manage different aspects of global economy should be substantially enlarged. How useful could an EU experience be in achieving the new global governance goals?
One of the popular answers to the challenges of the modern world is the concept of global governance. Does it exist really/ This is the questyion J/ Kirton answers in his book.