Broader Agenda and Prospective of G20

  2013/9/29 source：

Session V focused on “the broader agenda of the G20”, in which participants discussed the criterion for G20 agenda-setting and whether the G20 agenda should expand to issues like development and security.
How should the G20 agenda be set? One participant pointed out first we should see whether it is related to the core mandate of the G20, i.e., “strong, sustainable and balanced growth of the world economy”, such as financial regulation and reform of international financial institutions. Urgent issues like Syria could jump in. But the most controversial are those issues in between. Whether they should be included should be judged based on other factors, e.g., how difficult and how controversial they are and whether they need leaders to discuss. Another participant classified four categories of issues for the G20, the first is what leaders want to discuss, such as the Syria issue, the second are what leaders should or must discuss, such as international development; the third are those that what leaders do not necessarily discuss but could help achieve progress; the fourth are those decorative issues that should be abolished from the agenda. There was another opinion suggesting G20 agenda issues could be classified into two categories, i.e., urgent and long-term/strategic issues. Financial crisis and Syria are the former. There are quite a lot long-term issues and the G20 should only focus on those most important of them.

Should the G20 discuss the issue of development? Participants generally agreed on this point. Reasons include: first, development could not be separated from growth, and issues like food security, financial inclusiveness and human resources are really relevant to the long-term growth; second, development is fundamentally an issue of identity and equity, which relates to the sustainability of globalization; third, G20 needs a “grand bargain”, while the development issue is the one emerging economies in the G20 will buy and exchange interests with developed ones; fourth, although international organizations like OECD, UN and the World Bank have made enormous efforts on this issue, the G20 can play a coordinative role and set direction in this network since development is such a cross issue. There is a participant stressing that security is key for development and the potential of the G20 as a highest level platform for this cannot be excluded. But there is disagreement that issues like Syria basically depend on US and Russia, and should not be put on the table of the G20.

At the same time, participants pointed out that G20 is becoming more and more complex. There are more and more commitments while deliveries are not clear. The 2014 G20 Summit should streamline the process and focus on delivery for the development issue. One participant said the key for the development issue is to find a new consensus beyond the Washington Consensus that is really workable. G20 is only a platform exchanging trust and information and cannot be expected to be an enforcing mechanism.

Session 6 took stock of the one day and a half conference and gave advices for the future G20 Summits. Participants stressed that the G20 for the first time included emerging economies in the process of global governance and established a network of communication at official levels, which are significant for the world economy. However, whether G20 have played its leadership role and realized its potential are worth further thoughts. The G20 next year should reflect on the experiences and lessons of the past five years. Its agenda should not change, and take a “back to the basics” approach, i.e., insisting on the core mandate of the G20 of “strong, sustainable and balanced growth” and discussing those basic issues. It should streamline the process and focus on delivery, maximizing the value of leaders meeting. It should strengthen the “twin track”, i.e., prioritizing leaders’ short agenda while leaving other specific issues to department and official levels and other international organizations.

G20 should focus on providing global public goods, endorse and agree on the results of other international organizations. It should advocate good domestic policies and practices. The next year’s G20 Summit should be the first step to revitalize the multilateral trade system. Development and climate change are critical, but delivery should be the focus. The tax issue has achieved significant progress, but very high level principles need to be translated into actions. OECD is too ambitious; the more practical thing is transparency and disclosure.

There was a participant arguing that the sovereign debt of developed countries was the most important issue and biggest risk for the world economy in the next decades. The debts of developed countries will not be sustainable without the support of emerging economies. US needs an annual growth of 6% to sustain its debt, which is impossible. The G20 needs to find solutions on this. Another participant thought how to transform mess globalization into smart globalization is the key for the G20 and international cooperation, i.e., how to mobilize domestic support for the agreements reached at G20 and other international forums is the most fundamental issue. We should investigate more on those successful cases and try to find lessons for the future.