Background
The Group of Twenty (G20) summit was established in 1999 following the financial crisis of the late 20th century that affected, especially, Asia (Arner and Schou-Zibell). It consists of twenty Ministers of finance and Governors of Central banks from both emerging-market countries and developed economies (Edkins and Zehfuss). Its first meeting was held in Berlin, Germany, in December 1999. One of the reasons why the G20 summit came into existence was the realization that important emerging-market countries the world over had not been given a forum to discuss economic and governance issues on the world stage. Its mandate is to promote discussion and review of policies between industrialized and emerging-market countries (Blustein).
Before the emergence of the G20 summit, there had been many other similar summits that had come up with an aim of promoting dialogue on issues of governance and economics. These summits ideally came into existence to build financial growth, development, and structure in international relations. They included the G-7, G-22, and G-33 (Dunne and Smith). The larger groups, G-22 and G-33, demonstrated that there were benefits in involving emerging-market countries in regular consultations, leading to the formation of the G20. Unlike other international organizations, the G20 does not have a permanent secretariat and it promotes the informal interchange of ideas and views on international issues (Dunne and Smith).
Each year the summit is held in a different country and in June 2010 it was Toronto’s turn to hold the three-day event. The leaders of the 20 countries would participate in the discussion regarding financial sustainability (Lagarde 078-079). The 20 countries that would be involved are the following: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Also in attendance at the G20 summit would be the International Monetary fund’s (IMF) managing director, the World Bank president, and chairpersons several other international committees like the development committee and the International Monetary and financial committee (Samans, Uzan, and Lopez). Their presence is due to the close cooperation between G20 and other international organizations.
Looking at all the countries listed, it is important to note that they are all economically independent and this summit does lack the participation of third world countries. This might mean that the issues afflicting the underdeveloped countries may not be given weight in the G20 summit since there is no one to push for them, except for times when some representatives from such countries are invited, but in such cases, they may not have much of bargaining power like the representatives of the member countries (Brunswick and Evenett 269).
Working Thesis
The main purpose of the G20 summit was to have the top 20 economically independent countries come together in hopes to legitimize economic structure around the globe, but this holds to be contradictory. The Toronto G20 summit was focusing on recovery and new beginnings as its theme. In this summit, issues to do with financial reform progress and the development of stimulus measures that are sustainable were discussed. Issues of bank tax and promotion of open markets world over were also debated (Dvorak). However, the following facts should be considered when referring to the Toronto G20 summit and its overall impact on enhancing better world economy. The summit was nothing more than a media frenzy that didn’t need the amount of attention that it received. This three day event cost Canada and the tax payers a billion dollars (Msnb). It was held in one of the busiest places in Canada and therefore affected the day to day activities of many people and ventures (Dvorak). One of the most important factors this essay will study is G20, like many of the other summits before it, has yet again accomplished very little as compared to the time and money spent on the event.
The G20 summit cost Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars. What was the billion dollars spent on lingered in the minds of most Canadians. Statements by the Parliamentary office demonstrated that the summit had cost Canadians 930 million dollars in safety measures only. This security operation was the most expensive in the history of Canada. Together with other hosting costs including nearly 2 million dollars for marketing and media, the total amount comes to about 1 billion dollars. When looking at these figures and those of other G20 summit meetings, it is very astonishing to see how much of the taxpayers’ money was spent on security alone and the question whether this was necessary lingers on, bearing in mind that some people in third world countries are in need of aid (Msnb).
Potential Argument
The meeting was held in downtown Toronto, one of the busiest areas, and this affected residence, business, employees, pedestrians, transit riders, cyclists, motorists, students, those leaving town, the homeless, and lastly the tourist (Dvorak). One of the biggest tourist attractions, The CN tower, was closed for the summit. Although this attraction was only closed for a 3 days, it would negatively impact on Canada’s economy as it is a daily income generating site (Gothamist). The summit was rocked by widespread protests which stated several days prior to the summit. These protests were part of the reason for the expenses incurred on security measures. They also served to worsen an already bad situation for day to day activities for residents and business ventures as more than 900 people were arrested within a week, some streets were closed down and some buildings attacked. This further heightened the economic burden that came with hosting the G20 summit (Dvorak).
What comes out of this summit? Twenty large economies came together, for a three day affair, but one must essentially wonder what changes were made in previous summits and this past G20 summit. The G20 summit held in Toronto came to the conclusion that these represented economies should keep more financial capital in their banks in case of economic upsets in the future. The developed nations’ leaders also agreed on debt-to-GDP ratio reduction by the year 2016 as well as taxing financial institutions. The need for the capital reserve was to have restrictions on many of the countries that did not have them in place already, which resulted in the recession of 2009. The United States, which did not hold any restrictions on their banks, resulted in many banks as well as economy to go downhill (Lagande, 078-079).
Although it is apparent that this meeting was needed, one may ask: was the cost worth it? The 20 countries that did participate in the summit are already economically independent, which is one of the reasons protesters feel that the G20 summit is a waste of time and money (Brusick and Evenett 269). The issues that the third world countries are mostly concerned with, namely food security and climate change did not get a significant resolution during this summit. It is due to this that Protestors believe that the summit is only helping the economically successful countries gain more success instead of helping the third world countries that need the help (Brusick and Evenett 269). The results were the enduring cycle of the wealthy getting wealthier as well as the underprivileged getting more pitiable. At the end of the meeting, joblessness remains a challenge to those in underdeveloped countries and due to this they continue to suffer in poverty (Coats, Hutton and razarelli).
Hypothesis: use of technology to cut on the costs of the G20 summit
It is tradition to do these summits in person as seen in the G20 summit and many of the previous summits, but with the changing economy and technology it would be more efficient to have such summits in another manner which would cut cost especially in security, infrastructure, travel and accommodation. This would also make sure that the day to day activities of hosting countries, including businesses and other income generating ventures like tourism are not interfered with (Dvorak). The media has a large part in the amount of security that is needed in such political events. If the summit had been done in other technological means without attracting the attention of protestors little or no security would be needed. The destructive effects of protests, both to the economy and security of the country, would be avoided (Gothamist). With society changing and technology advancing 20 people don’t have to be in the same place at the same time to discuss world matters. This would also protect against excessive media coverage of a highly political event. The net effect would be a significant cut in the cost of holding the G20 summit. The saved finances would then be focused on other issues like provision of basic needs to those who lack them.
Unfulfilled promises
Since the summit was held in Toronto, there have been 94 protectionist measures implemented by the G20 member governments, with just 44 of similar measures being implemented by the rest of the world (Evenett 22). The world over, there has been 100 neutral measures formulated and implemented since June 2010, with G20 member countries implementing only 29% of these (Evenett 22). This shows a serious mismatch between what the G20 summit concludes and the action taken by the member countries. If this is the trend, is there a need to spend so much money on G20 summit to make resolutions that will not be followed by those making them? This question needs to be answered for the need for and the importance of the G20 summit to be ascertained.
It is clear that governments which are not members of the G20 summit are better at keeping markets open than those who made the resolution to do so in Toronto. There is a great mismatch between word and action of the developed countries. The same governments that spoke of their desire to promote development by encouraging trade between them and the third world countries are instead harming these poor countries through their protectionist measures (Evenett 22). The G20 members are ranked top among countries that have caused economic harm to their lesser trading partners (Evenett 23).
The following table shows the biggest targets of discriminatory measures at different times before and after the summit (Evenett 25).
Table 1: Highest targets of discriminatory measures
The table below shows by rank the countries that have inflicted the most harm to others. It shows that the economically stable countries of the G20 are in the forefront of inflicting harm to their trading partners (Evenett 26).
Table 2: Rank of countries inflicting the most harm
Defenders of self interest
As seen in the G20 meetings in Washington and London, the member countries showed that they can act together on serious issues affecting them, like the financial recession. The nations demonstrated their willingness to engage in any actions necessary in a bid to stabilize their financial systems (Blustein and Prasad). Such actions included nationalization of banks and creation of insurance schemes that would help clear toxic debts as well as availing bail-outs. There was also reduction of interest rates as a policy measure to boost the economic recovery process. These economic heavy weights encouraged support of their development agenda by the World Bank through its new infrastructure as well as trade finance facilities (Lagande 078-079). They also resolved to strengthen regulatory regimes as they did for financial markets in a bid to prevent further economic crises. During the Washington G20 meeting, the member countries stressed the importance of assisting the poorest countries in the world to develop. Emerging economies would also be helped to get finances through the IMF and development banks. The intent to help the poor countries seems noble and would momentarily bring an illusion of relief to these countries, but the developed countries just stressed the importance of helping them with no commitment or plans of doing so being drawn (Brusick and Evenett).
From these summits, it is clear that the developed countries can act in haste when matters affecting them directly arise and they defend their interests with whatever action that is necessary. It cannot be expected that they react with the same zest when there are issues affecting the poor countries, but at least including the in the membership of the G20 would give them a forum to push for consideration of those problems afflicting them (Brusick and Evenett).
The financial stability board
The financial stability board (FSB) came up as a result of re-establishment of what was formerly known as the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) during the G20 meeting in London. It was mandated with the task of promoting financial stability among the G20 member countries, but its coverage extends to cover the European commission and Spain. The FSB monitors and advises the member countries on issues to do with market development, highlighting the possible effects on regulatory policy. It undertakes strategic reviews of the work on policy development done by standard setting institutions in an effort to ensure timely and coordinated focus on priorities that cover financial gaps (Samans, Uzan and Lopez). It also comes up with guidelines and support for supervisory colleges’ establishment and operation by identifying the most important and systemically appropriate cross-border firms. It then coordinates planning to manage cross-border crisis with reference to the identified important cross-border firms. In conjunction with the IMF, the FSB identifies early warning signs of financial risks and recommends actions that can be used to deal with the threat.
The FSB is therefore concerned about the financial welfare of the G20 member countries which, as earlier indicated, comprise of the world’s greatest economies and upcoming promising economies. This further proves the theory earlier generated that the process adopted by the G20 seeks to safeguard the rich and make them richer while the poor remain in poverty. The developing countries could benefit significantly from the services of the FSB in helping them from their financial difficulties through strategic planning (Brusick and Evenett).
Conclusion
From the text presented in this paper, it can be concluded that the G20 summit is necessary for handling the economic and governance issues of the member countries. The summit provides a forum in which matters of global importance are discussed and solutions formulated. It also works hand in hand with other global organizations like the World Bank and the IMF to facilitate solutions to various challenges. Through the FSB, it helps identify economic warnings early enough for preventive measures to be put in place. Therefore, the importance of the G20 summit cannot be underestimated (Blustein and Prasad).
However, the G20 summit has its blemish on different areas. First, its organization and operation of meetings is too expensive, as seen in the 2010 Toronto summit in which approximately 1 billion dollars was used, most of it going to security. This leaves the desire for a way to change how these summits are done in a bid to cut the costs and direct the funds to other areas which are more critical, like helping poor countries develop (Brusick and Evenett).
It is apparent that the G20 summit does not concentrate on issues that do not affect the member countries directly as much as they concentrate on those issues directly affecting them. Since the membership of the G20 does not include poor third world countries, this means that issues affecting them are not given weight for them to be attended to well and solutions found (Brusick and Evenett).
The G20 summit continues to use a lot of money on issues like organising meetings while the poor countries of the world suffer in poverty. Though the G20 is necessary, something should be done on its membership to involve third world countries and cut down the cost of running it (Blustein and Prasad).
Works Cited
Arner, Douglas, and Lotte Schou-Zibell. Asian regulatory responses to the Global Financial Crisis:Global journal of emerging market economies, 3, 1 (2011): 135- 169.
Blustein, Paul, and Eswar Prasad. Recovery or relapse: the role of the G20 in the global economy. Washington D.C: global economy and development at Brookings, 2010.
Brusick, Philippe, and Simon J. Evenett. “Should the developing countries worry about abuse of dominant power?” Wisconsin law review, 2 (2008): 269.
Coats, David, Will Hutton, and Matteo Razzanell. Tackling the global jobs crisis: Why the G20 summit matters. London: The Work Foundation, 2009.
Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International relations theories. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Dvorak, Phred. “Toronto Locks Down for G-20 Summit”. The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company Inc. 2011.
Edkins, John. and Zehfuss, Michael. Global politics. London : Routledge, 2009.
Evenett , Slyst. Broken promises: a G20 summit report by global trade alert. London: centre for Economic Policy research, 2009.
Msnb. G-20 Summit: ‘$1 Billion Boondoggle?’ 2011. WEB.
Gothamist LLC. How will the G-20 affect everyone, From Cyclists and Tourists. 2011.
Lagande, Charles. “How the G20 must unite to stave off further global financial crises.” business week- New York, 4149 ( 2009): 078-079.
Samans, Richard, Marc Uzan, and Augusto López-Claros.. The international monetary system, the IMF, and the G20: a great transformation in the making? Basing stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.