The G20’s Growing Political and Economic Challenges
Jonathan Luckhurst
University of Guadalajara
(Published version at: Global Summitry, Volume 2, Issue 2, 1 December 2016, Pages
161–179: https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux004)
Center for North American Studies,
Pacific Studies Department, CUCSH,
University of Guadalajara,
Guadalajara.
Tel. +52 33 3819 3325.
Email: jon.luckhurst@csh.udg.mx
Abstract
The Group of Twenty (G20) confronts significant economic and political challenges, largely due
to the failure to achieve sustainable and inclusive economic growth since the global financial
crisis. This contributed to ‘populist’ political trends that undermined the international economy in
2016, influencing the ‘Brexit’ referendum and Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory. The most
ominous consequences of actions in the interwar period could be prevented through international
cooperation today. Today’s political leaders need to build on efforts during the Chinese and
German G20 presidencies to overcome the ‘new mediocre’ in the global economy.
2
The Group of Twenty (G20) is experiencing a crucial period in its brief history. Skeptics and
even supporters are questioning the forum’s capacity to provide the necessary leadership to
achieve sustainable and inclusive global economic growth, as political and economic uncertainty
threaten to plunge the world into another deep crisis. These doubts about the global governance
capacities of contemporary policymakers indicate the importance of enhancing multilateral
cooperation to overcome international political and economic challenges.
This article analyzes the contemporary political debate on global economic governance
and key issues presented to the G20. The first section assesses the G20’s importance for global
governance and international relations, especially since the 2008-09 global financial crisis. The
second part evaluates the recent Chinese G20 Presidency, its substantive policy outcomes and the
broader effects of the Chinese stewardship of the forum. The third section references historical
analogies with the inter- and postwar periods: the contemporary ‘new mediocre’ global economy
debate echoes political concerns of the 1940s. The final section considers the prospects for the
German G20 Presidency, which could be important for the future of the world economy and the
G20 Leaders’ Summit itself.
There is no political consensus currently on how to resolve the problems in the world
economy, though there has been a growing sense of urgency among some analysts and
policymakers, including IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde (IMF 2016c) and even
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (German G20 Presidency 2016b, 2). The election of Donald
Trump as the 45th President of the United States could further complicate the international
political context, with potentially damaging consequences for multilateralism and G20
cooperation. This article traces the G20’s influence on domestic and global policy practices and
on multilateral economic cooperation. Despite the potential for improvement, G20 delays on
addressing sustainable and inclusive economic growth have increased the prospects for global
financial or political crises.
The G20’s importance for global governance
The G20 has faced significant tests since the global financial crisis, which former UK prime
3
minister David Cameron dubbed its “heroic phase” (Rowley 2010). The transition from
international crisis committee to steering committee has not been easy, yet the G20 has become a
crucial hub for global governance networks, in policy areas such as international finance and
sustainable development. The integration of actors from leading developing states, the so-called
‘middle powers’, the large emerging market states and some formerly-excluded Asia–Pacific
nations in the centers of global economic governance, alongside western policy élites, might
prove to be one of the G20’s most important long-term effects.
China’s G20 presidency provided real evidence of an important shift in twenty-first
century international politics - the decentralizing of authority and influence that had begun in fact
before the global financial crisis. This was mainly due to the growing influence of developing
states and Asia-Pacific nations, particularly China and India, which weakened the transatlantic
dominance of global governance. The Chinese presidency of the forum, following the earlier
presidencies of the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Australia, in 2010 and 2014 respectively,
gave more credence to those who have argued this could be the ‘Pacific Century’. Whether such
predictions become reality, the G20 provides crucial inter-regional links between officials and
stakeholders, enhancing policy coordination beyond the confines of regional alliances or the
postwar duopoly of western Europe and the USA.
The western-led international financial institutions (IFIs) dominated global economic
governance until the mid-2000s. After they failed to manage the Asian financial crisis
effectively, several experts and policymakers advocated reform of the international financial
architecture (see Brown 2010; Cooper 2008; Grugel et al. 2008; Rodrik 2006; Stiglitz 2003). One
key theme was the need for greater inclusion of developing states in global economic
governance, which had been supervised largely by the Group of Seven/Eight (G7/8) in recent
decades. The latter experimented with a limited process of outreach engagement in the early
2000s, by inviting leaders of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa to attend G8
summits as guests, rather than equal partners. This was deemed by critics to have been
insufficiently inclusive, because it kept the so-called ‘Outreach Five’ in a subordinate position to
the G8 members (Cooper and Thakur 2013, 52, 60-61; Kirton 2013, 193; Payne 2008, 532).
The G20 finance forum, the original G20, established in 1999 and consisting of finance
ministers and central bankers initially included a similar disparity in status. Its main purpose
appears to have been to share the best practices in economic governance from wealthy members
with its strategically significant developing-state members, accepting the implicit hierarchy
4
(Cooper and Thakur 2013, 37-38; Ibbitson and Perkins 2010). The G20 became a more equal,
leaders’ forum during the global financial crisis, with the first summit-level meeting held in
Washington, DC in November 2008. Its relative inclusivity contributed to the G20’s subsequent
rise to global prominence, with a membership befitting the international strategic implications of
the economic and political circumstances during the crisis. The international response to the
global financial crisis in 2008-09, especially the creation of a leader-level G20, gave further
impetus to the decentralizing trend in global governance (see Helleiner 2016). This forum has
contributed significantly to this shift in authority and influence, especially by incorporating its
developing-state members in key IFIs and informal fora, such as the Financial Stability Board
(FSB) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). This substantially augmented
the representation of Latin American and Asia-Pacific countries in global economic governance.
Some recent developments could undermine hopes for more inclusive global governance,
especially if political or security tensions reduce G20 cooperation. Reforms of the IFIs have not
always been swift. Many officials in developing states were upset over the long delay in
implementing the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 2010 governance and quota reforms
(Helleiner 2014, 36-38), which had been quickly agreed by G20 members but only gained the
necessary U.S. Congressional ratification in December 2015. Some have argued the BRICS
[Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] New Development Bank, and the Chinese Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), might be hedging strategies, alternatives to universal
multilateralism in case their priorities are not met through it (Cooper 2016, 78-79), but without
yet indicating any desire to abandon the IMF, World Bank, or World Trade Organization. Others
note the potential for regional integration to be prioritized, for example between Asia-Pacific
nations, if universal multilateralism is perceived to be ineffective (see Brown 2016; Kahler
2016).
There are sometimes intangible gains from G20 membership, including the potential to
raise public-policy standards and expertise through agreements that improve members’
governance of policy areas, such as financial regulation, sustainable development, employment,
gender issues, infrastructure investment, and anti-corruption measures. The continual
engagement between G20 member officials, through working groups as well as ministerial and
sherpa meetings, helps to sustain the dialogue on these issues. Another advantage is that G20
membership enhances the international political reputation and influence of most members,
signaling the status of global governance ‘insider’, as participants in the world’s premier
5
multilateral economic forum. It could be argued that the G7/8 states have lost some of their
former influence in global economic governance, despite remaining significant due to their
economic capacities and voting rights in IFIs, due to the augmented G20 role since the global
financial crisis. The relative decline in significance of the G7 group is partly a consequence of
the growing international influence of China, India, and some other middle-income developing
states.
The governments that have held the G20 presidency all gained some measure of
international prestige and influence by doing so, though the political benefits of this influence are
not always clear. Security disagreements, the Eurozone crisis, and other issues often reduce the
potential gains from hosting summits and guiding the annual agenda. In the case of the
Australian presidency, some scholars argued that diplomatic gains were diminished by political
mistakes. These included the Australians’ failure to keep climate change off the G20 agenda and
Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s refusal to meet representatives of the Labor 20 engagement group
(Harris Rimmer 2015, 47, 52-54, 57; Hartcher 2014). Members such as India, Indonesia, and
South Africa have had less direct influence so far, though engage in areas of diplomatic
cooperation at the G20 with their BRICS and MITKA [Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea,
and Australia] ‘caucus’ partners (Cooper 2015, 96; Luckhurst 2016, 186-89). After Germany, the
new Argentine administration of Mauricio Macri will be in the spotlight as the subsequent
rotating presidency, after years of relative G20 obscurity for this South American state
(Luckhurst 2015, 24-26, 31-34).
The G20 remains important for international politics, but as an informal forum, it
depends on members to fulfill their commitments in the absence of direct sanctions against
transgressors. Scholars and policymakers have argued for improved G20 commitment
compliance monitoring (Bracht 2015; Lagarde 2015). There also continues to be debate about
whether the G20’s policy agenda should be narrower, for efficiency purposes, especially by
focusing on core economic issues; or whether it could only maintain legitimacy by continuing to
deliberate on wider issues, often more important to the emerging market and developing member
states (Luckhurst 2016, 190-96). The Korean G20 Presidency in the second-half of 2010 started
the tendency to broaden the G20 agenda. They moved beyond the emphasis during the global
financial crisis on economic recovery and international financial reform, by establishing the
Seoul Development Consensus (G20 2010b). This broader approach to the G20 agenda has
remained evident since Mexico’s 2012 G20 Presidency, notwithstanding the Australian
6
Presidency’s attempts to narrow it.
Consequently, the G20 has become involved in diverse policy areas, as well as
augmenting multilateral cooperation on core issues such as the Basel III Accords on financial
sector reform (BCBS 2010; G20 2010a, 4). The G20 has also increased policy coordination and
dialogue on anti-corruption, tax evasion, employment, gender issues, and sustainable
development, while supporting the United Nations’ agenda on climate change. In these and other
activities, the forum has contributed to the widening membership in global governance since the
global financial crisis, especially by incorporating non-G7 states in élite multilateral bodies. The
G20 has become a hub of global governance networks and a steering committee for the world
economy. The forum has become highly influential and authoritative in international politics, in
terms of the political, strategic, and cognitive authority its membership affords it, due to their
reputation and material and institutional resources (Eccleston, Kellow, and Carroll 2015). This
influence and authority is reinforced by the strategic significance of its membership, which
accounts for around 85 percent of global economic production, 80 percent of trade, and twothirds of the world’s population. Many officials and politicians share a pragmatic, rather than
idealistic, support for the mutual benefits from G20 cooperation, including the advantages of
regular dialogue and coordination of the global governance agenda. G20 members’ diplomatic
emphasis on the forum would likely make it the obvious focus for future cooperation on
globally-significant financial crises.
Legacies of the Chinese G20 Presidency
There were great expectations for the Chinese G20 Presidency in 2016, as noted by Chinese
Foreign Minister Wang Yi a few months before the Hangzhou Summit (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the People’s Republic of China 2016). This was partly due to its symbolism and the
political commitment from President Xi Jinping, the support of the Party, and his government.
The Hangzhou G20 Summit of September 4-5, 2016 maintained the international focus on the
forum, though arguably brought modest results. Notwithstanding the substantial resources and
effort invested by the hosts, the summit was written off by some analysts as a missed
opportunity, further evidence the G20 had become a talking shop unable to act on key global
7
economic challenges (Bradford 2016; Sainsbury 2016).
The G20 faces complex political and economic issues, which could overburden possibly
its governance capacities. The ability to respond effectively could determine whether it remains
the premier forum for members’ international economic cooperation. The significant constraints
on China’s G20 Presidency were not specifically the fault of the Chinese; rather, the principal
reason was the forum’s shared failure to take sufficient steps to augment global economic
growth, especially through a G20-coordinated fiscal stimulus or the implementation of new trade
agreements. Despite repeated G20 pledges to raise growth, including its 2014 Brisbane summit
agreement to boost collective output by 2 percent above then IMF forecasts for 2018 (G20 2014),
the IMF (2016b) continues to downgrade its quarterly predictions for world economic growth.
The World Bank (2016, 4) currently projects only 2.4 percent annual global growth, both for
2015 and 2016.1 The G20’s inability to provide clear solutions to persistently low growth
overshadowed other aspects of the Hangzhou agenda.
The Hangzhou Summit did however include several worthy commitments, outlined in the
leaders’ communiqué (G20 2016). They comprised, what John Kirton (2016a) noted was the
core emphasis on economic issues: international trade, investment, and innovation, in addition to
areas such as sustainable development. A new strategy for achieving “an innovative, invigorated,
interconnected and inclusive world economy,” was announced. It was rather ambitiously labeled
the ‘Hangzhou Consensus’ (G20 2016). This Consensus builds on the G20’s “Framework for
Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Economic Growth”, initiated at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit in
September 2009 (G20 2009b, 5-7). The Hangzhou Consensus centers on the four categories:
“Vision”, “Integration”, “Openness”, and “Inclusiveness”. It combines short-, medium-, and
long- term policies for increasing global growth, while emphasizing sustainability and
inclusiveness. The Consensus calls for socioeconomic goals, such as female labor participation,
in addition to raising gross domestic product (GDP) (G20 2016). This Hangzhou Consensus is
compatible with the G20’s Seoul Development Consensus, especially its prioritization of more
inclusive and sustainable economic development. The Hangzhou and Seoul strategies reject core
principles of the old Washington Consensus (G20 2010b; Luckhurst 2016, 159-60), by
eschewing universal prescriptions and prioritizing effective, strategic governance above market
solutions. This constitutes a significant shift in the norms and practices of global governance
1
Considering world population growth and deviations from the norm, some economists judge anything
below 3 percent to be a ‘global recession’ (Abberger and Nierhaus 2008, 76; Davis 2009; IMF 2008, 43).
8
since the global financial crisis.
The lack of progress in raising global economic growth has increased skepticism about
the G20’s capacity to deliver on growth objectives. Still the Hangzhou Consensus is broadly
compatible with recent political discourse in international economic policy circles. The new
‘consensus’ includes an interesting set of proposals that could facilitate more effective
cooperation during future G20 presidencies. In particular, the G20’s (2016) rhetorical shift to
combining “fiscal, monetary and structural policies” to achieve economic growth could increase
the scope for collective action to advance the earlier Brisbane growth target. At the very least, it
might help soften the divide between fiscal stimulus and austerity advocates.
The Hangzhou meeting focused more on the need to achieve sustainable and inclusive
economic growth than on other issues, such as financial reform. The new growth plan
incorporates other aspects of the G20’s policy agenda, for example the “base erosion and profit
shifting” (BEPS) tax coordination strategy (OECD 2013), as well as anti-corruption measures,
clean energy and infrastructure investment, and raising female labor participation (G20 2016).
These goals fit within the overarching Hangzhou strategy to improve global economic growth,
indicating a more integrated, strategic approach to global economic governance than existed
before the global financial crisis.
Despite these advances at Hangzhou, the Chinese G20 Presidency was still deemed, at
best, a partial success by observers (Kirton 2016a). The lack of more substantive or urgent policy
solutions, especially on global economic growth, added to other concerns over the G20’s failure
to identify a specific timetable to eliminate members’ fossil-fuel subsidies, a goal that was
originally agreed at its Pittsburgh Summit in September 2009 (G20 2009, 3); or to prevent the
rise of trade protectionism in some G20 states. Unresolved security issues also dampened the
mood, including the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, plus Chinese territorial disputes with some
neighbors over islands in the South and East China seas. The Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, North Korea (DPRK) also chose to conduct an underground nuclear test during the
Hangzhou summit, indicating how security issues in East Asia could threaten to disrupt regional
and global economic cooperation. The constructive approach to the G20 presidency from the
Chinese government was encouraging, further enhancing their influence in contemporary global
governance. In addition, on the eve of the summit, the coordinated announcement by the
American and Chinese governments that they were adopting the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change Paris agreement, significantly boosted prospects for the Paris
9
Agreement’s activation conditions to be met (UN 2015). This announcement by US and Chinese
leaders indicates the importance of G20 summits in providing opportunities for successful side
deals. More disappointing was the reduced emphasis on improving implementation of current
summit pledges, compared with the preceding Turkish G20 Presidency (2014).
The decision of all G20 leaders to attend the Hangzhou Summit reaffirms the forum’s
importance, both for multilateral cooperation and the opportunities at its summits for bilateral
meetings. Each G20 presidency involves the stewardship of the forum, keeping it in good
working order to be prepared for contingencies, in addition to advancing short- and mediumterm policy goals. The Chinese Presidency made progress on some goals, and maintained
dialogue on others where less was achieved. The failure to progress more substantively on
sustainable and inclusive growth was a collective responsibility, not just of the Chinese
government.
The ‘new mediocre’ and the Bretton Woods compromise
International political discourse has shifted on a number of core economic policy issues since the
global financial crisis (Luckhurst 2016, 63-91). The combination of a persistently weak global
economy with political uncertainty, and the increasing rejection of mainstream politics, has
prompted greater urgency on the issue of economic growth in international policy circles. It
remains to be seen whether this could herald renewed G20 cooperation to achieve sustainable
and inclusive economic growth.
The IMF has been important in this policy debate. Managing Director Christine Lagarde
is one of the most influential voices advocating more action to raise global growth. She helped
popularize the notion of the “new mediocre” in the global economy (IMF 2015b; 2016a), which
captures the notion of underperformance since the global financial crisis. In a recent speech at
the annual IMF–World Bank meeting in Washington, DC on October 7, 2016, Lagarde noted the
persistence of a “low-growth, low-investment, low-inflation cycle” in the advanced economies,
further emphasizing that “growth has been too low, for too long, and benefiting too few” (IMF
2016c). Later in the speech, she (IMF 2016c) commented that the IMF’s founders “would surely
be concerned” about the current international economic circumstances, further reflecting that
10
core principles of multilateral cooperation, instilled in Article 1 of the IMF’s Articles of
Agreement, “are facing their biggest test in decades.” Lagarde is not alone in her apprehension.
There are deep concerns about the world economy in the G20, noted by the leaders’ communiqué
from the Hangzhou Summit (G20 2016).
I draw an analogy between these current concerns and political debate in the 1930s and
1940s. The leading international policymakers of the interwar period failed to cooperate
effectively during the Great Depression. A sign of their failure was the collapse of the 1933
World Economic and Monetary Conference, when U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to
prioritize his national policy goal of weakening the dollar, despite the potential negative effects
on other currencies, while ostentatiously rejecting the conclusions of the London conference.
Economic historian Barry Eichengreen (2016, 236) notes that an agreement would have been
impossible, because of the incompatibility of the priorities of the different parties at the
conference. The Roosevelt Administration’s emphasis on overcoming deflation in the American
economy conflicted with the Europeans’ concerns about the potential return of inflation and their
goal to stabilize exchange rates. These differences certainly hold parallels with the present,
especially the contemporary focus in the U.S. on the need to stimulate the economy, contrary to
the prioritization of monetary and fiscal stability in the European Union. International divergence
has recently taken on a new twist, as the apparently protectionist policies of the Trump
Administration could cause a further rift with other G20 members.
The failure to sustain the global recovery since 2010 has been exacerbated by the
Eurozone’s persistent crises and low growth. This has now been compounded by the UK
referendum on remaining in the European Union, which has heightened global uncertainty.
Uncertainties over Donald Trump’s economic policies may have only added to concern over
global economic cooperation. There also has been a growing momentum behind the rise of
‘populism’, or extreme nationalism since the global financial crisis, just as mainstream political
paralysis over the Great Depression assisted the rise of populism in the 1930s (see Ash 2016;
Judis 2016, 14).2 These populist political movements are not identical, but they collectively
2
There is no single definition of ‘populism’, but as John Judis argues (2016, 14-15), it should be
conceived as “a political logic – a way of thinking about politics”, especially focused on championing
‘the people’ against an establishment or élite. Depending on the political context, ‘the people’ might refer
to blue-collar workers, middle-income citizens, or a majority ethnic group; while ‘the establishment/elite’
could imply wealthy people, college-educated professionals, or mainstream politicians. Left wing
populism generally is “dyadic”, focused on contestation between the people and an élite; right wing
populism, instead, is often “triadic”, opposing the people to an élite plus a third group, one deemed to
11
increase the uncertainty and doubts over the prospects for international economic cooperation.
The Great Depression, then, and the global economic crisis now have undermined
confidence in the perceived benefits of prioritizing market efficiency and financial liberalization.
The agreements at the 1944 United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, in Bretton
Woods, New Hampshire, were intended to avoid another Great Depression by introducing new
controls on capitalism, in a sense to prevent its self-destruction. This strategy combined
Keynesian economics and the socioeconomic goals of American progressives and European
social democrats, including full employment and other means to improve the living standards of
citizens. In addition, policies sought to bring a multilaterally-governed international economy
that prioritized trade liberalization, while controlling capital flows and fixing currency-exchange
rates (Ruggie 1982, 393-96; Steil 2013, 150, 160). These policies were a deliberate response to
the postwar political and economic circumstances. The politicians of the time developed this socalled ‘Bretton Woods compromise’ to enhance social and political stability.
Some of the economic priorities of the Bretton Woods compromise have been reprised by
the G20 since the global financial crisis, including their emphasis on sustainable and inclusive
economic growth. Recent global governance discourse on ‘sustainability’, and new norms and
practices of macroprudential financial regulation, echo aspects of Karl Polanyi’s (1944, 60,
279[note f]) conception of the economy as “embedded in social relations”. John Gerard Ruggie
(1982) adapted and attributed this notion to the Bretton Woods compromise, labeling its political
content – especially the prioritization of social, political, and socioeconomic goals – “embedded
liberalism”. Hence key global governance actors, during both the postwar period and the global
financial crisis, emphasized the need to constrain the imbalances and risks from international
capitalism and financial markets, partly to enhance economic outcomes but also to facilitate
social and political objectives. However, the Trump Administration’s policy proposals indicate a
reverse logic to Bretton Woods, by combining constraints on international trade with financial
liberalization. The latter could undermine post- global financial crisis efforts to prevent yet
another financial crisis.
The two periods of crisis constituted similar ideational effects that undermined prevalent
assumptions about economic policymaking. In each case, the efforts to achieve economic
recovery had indicated a rejection of the ‘rational-expectations’ model of self-regulating market
have been granted special treatment, such as immigrants or Muslims in northern Europe or the United
States.
12
efficiency (Luckhurst 2016, 66, 88-89; Polanyi 1944, 3-4, 243; Ruggie 1982, 388). This gave rise
to intellectual and political contestation that reduced the influence of conventional policy
wisdom. The main alternative political-economic approach in Europe and the U.S. during the
global financial crisis centered on the 2008-09 ‘Keynesian revival’ (Luckhurst 2012, 747-48),
which was reinforced by ideas from behavioral economics and other fields that contested the
epistemological assumptions of neoclassical economics (Akerlof and Shiller 2009, 144; Hay and
Payne 2013, 3-4; Nelson and Katzenstein 2014). The Chinese state-managed economic
development strategy also gained some popularity, especially in developing states, due to its
early resilience during the global financial crisis (Luckhurst 2016, 29-30, 47-49). Eric Helleiner
(2010) characterized the post- global financial crisis period as an “interregnum”, arguing the
increased political uncertainty and policy contestation did not constitute a clearly identifiable
new international economic regime. I consider these developments to be more significant though,
indicative of an important shift in aspects of domestic political economy and global economic
governance. Some post- global financial crisis policy norms and practices, such as
macroprudential financial regulation, central bank monetary-policy activism, and more extensive
G20 coordination, are considerably different from before 2008.
The comparisons between the global financial crisis effects and the Bretton Woods
compromise, or the July 1944 negotiations themselves, influenced political debate during the
acute period of the global financial crisis, from September 2008 to April 2009. There was a
common perception, during the latter period, that the global economy confronted its deepest
crisis since the 1930s. Some leaders, as a result, drew an optimistic analogy between G20
cooperation and the Bretton Woods negotiations. Some scholars and politicians emphasized the
need for a “Bretton Woods moment” during the global financial crisis (see Boughton 2009;
Helleiner 2010; Stiglitz 2008), including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French
President Nikolas Sarkozy (Hall and Eaglesham 2008; Mallaby 2008). At the London G20
Summit in April 2009, references to the failed World Economic Conference of 1933 reminded
politicians of the possibly disastrous consequences from an unsuccessful meeting, which helped
focus minds (Brown 2010, 121; Schifferes 2009). These historical analogies arguably reinforced
G20 cooperation at its April 2009 summit. The forum became an effective international crisis
committee with an impressive range of policy agreements, such as initiating international
financial-sector regulatory reform; creating the new FSB; and producing the members’
coordinated fiscal-stimulus recovery strategy. Another important agreement at the London
13
summit was the substantial increase in funding for leading IFIs, to provide greater emergency
assistance to countries in economic distress (G20 2009a).
This Keynesian-influenced G20 agenda during the global financial crisis was swayed by
several scholars, Nobel laureate economists, and policymakers around the world (see H.M.
Treasury 2008, 3; Krugman 2012; Rudd 2009; Stiglitz 2010, 215, 231; Strauss-Kahn 2009).
Leading economists such as Paul Krugman (2012) and Joseph Stiglitz (2010) contested aspects
of the pre-crisis, neoclassical-influenced conventional wisdom in national and global economic
governance. However, the Eurozone financial crisis that erupted in 2010 enabled another group
of economic policy norm-entrepreneurs, especially in Germany, the UK, and USA, to shift the
international political momentum towards ‘debt consolidation’ and ‘austerity’ policies (Abdelal
and Ruggie 2009, 162; Blyth 2013, 54-59; Farrell and Quiggin 2012; Krugman 2009). The
global financial crisis had become less acute by this time, which weakened the G20 consensus on
the need for more fiscal stimulus. This decreased the scope for economic cooperation between
European leaders and the U.S. government, leading to more contested summit discussions on
macroeconomic policy strategy, notably at the Toronto G20 Summit of June 2010 (Luckhurst
2016, 111). Even in the U.S., the Republican-controlled Congress forced some austerity
measures on the Obama Administration, including the Federal ‘budget sequestration’ of March
2013.
The growth-suppressing effects on the global economy from domestic austerity policies,
especially the failure to achieve a stronger recovery in much of Europe, constituted the
conditions for the declaration of a ‘new mediocre’. Advocates of fiscal stimulus and austerity
strategies disagree over policies and even the basic principles of economics. But the political
discourse on how to stimulate global economic growth has shifted over the past year. Many G20
politicians now consider it politically imperative to improve the performance of the global
economy, sooner rather than later, to forestall another deep economic crisis and reduce the
potential for further political developments with damaging repercussions.
Prospects for the German G20 Presidency
The international political and economic context confronting the German G20 Presidency is
14
seemingly ominous. Deteriorating security relations between some G20 members, especially the
Russian government and its G7 counterparts, undermined prospects for cooperation on issues
such as the Syria and Ukraine conflicts in recent years. The insufficient global economic
recovery from the global financial crisis has contributed to a slowdown in international trade.
Trade could in fact decline further due to rising protectionist politics among the G20 and fears
generated by the U.S. presidential-election campaign, depending on the policies actually
implemented by the Trump Administration.
The growing financial insecurity and unemployment among citizens in many G20
members, as elsewhere, contributed to public doubts about the effectiveness of global economic
policy and current mainstream politics. The evidence during the Chinese presidency was that
some G20 member governments and other stakeholders, especially the IMF and its managing
director, recognized the urgency to improve the international economic and political situation.
The G20 continues to be the most obvious international forum for strengthening global
governance cooperation. It has been tested, and performed well, as an international crisis
committee in 2008-09 (Drezner 2014, 44-49). There are concerns, however, about the
willingness of the Merkel government to advance a sufficiently growth-boosting G20 agenda.
The German G20 Presidency’s (2016b, 5) description of its focus on “Strengthening economic
resilience”, for example, downplays the weak global economic recovery since 2008 by noting,
“Global economic growth is currently close to its long-term average, but remains weaker overall
than it did after previous economic downturns.” The latter qualification is highly relevant
though, as it indicates the inadequacy of the ‘recovery’ in much of the world, before the return to
the low global growth trajectory of the decades since the 1980s (see World Bank 2017), relative
to the higher growth rates from 1945-73.
The German G20 Presidency’s (2016a) slogan, “Shaping an interconnected world”, and
its references to “making globalization benefit everyone”, indicate an intention to sustain
international cooperation despite growing concerns about protectionism. The German
government (German G20 Presidency 2016b, 5-6) also will prioritize the “strengthening” of the
international financial architecture, including a focus on how the G20 could contribute to
reducing risks from cross-border capital flows; it will also continue efforts to enhance G20
regulatory cooperation on potentially destabilizing aspects of the financial sector, such as
‘shadow banking’. However, the Germans will not only focus their G20 presidency on the core
economic themes of finance and economic growth, as indicated by Angela Merkel’s pledge to
15
“continue much of the work launched… during China’s Presidency during our German
Presidency” (Federal Government 2016a). This is partly indicative perhaps of the effects of the
G20 ‘troika’ system. The troika system is the rotating triumvirate combining the present,
previous, and subsequent presidencies, intended to help guide the agenda of any presidency. The
German Presidency will likely emphasize cooperation on wider issues relevant to the host and
the many other G20 members, such as international migration. Also Germany and its Chancellor
have stated she intends to include a focus on African development issues (Rinke 2016). The
German government further emphasizes the importance of progress on the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate change agenda, as well as enhancing global
coordination on key health issues (Federal Government 2016a). The Germans have suggested
they will promote three key pillars: “resilience”, “responsibility”, and “sustainability”. These
pillars will allow them to try and advance policy emphasizing structural improvements in the
global economy, partly through infrastructure investment and the BEPS tax agenda. Other key
policy areas will include economic inclusion and inequality, the digital economy, and food
security (Kirton 2016b).
The G20 members, like most other states, are experiencing negative effects from weaker
global growth. The slowdown in international trade is particularly concerning for governments of
key exporting nations, such as China, Germany, Japan, and Korea, as it substantially reduces
their potential economic growth. Trade is an issue-area on which the G20 has achieved some
agreements in recent years, especially its commitments during the global financial crisis, at the
Washington and London summits of 2008 and 2009, to reject protectionist trade policies and the
2013 St. Petersburg summit agreement to extend the “standstill commitment” against trade
protectionism until 2016 (G20 2013, 11). This agreement was further extended, until 2018, in the
Hangzhou leaders’ communiqué (G20 2016).
While the German Presidency will likely use the forum to try to strengthen international
trade, the distributional effects of trade should be addressed more by the G20 and its members
(Bernes 2016). Indeed, the German G20 Presidency (2016b, 4) recognized the importance of
G20 cooperation to share the “benefits of globalisation and worldwide connectivity,” linking this
to their support for the SDGs and the Paris climate agreement. There have been widespread
public concerns about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trans-Pacific
Partnership agreements, especially in Europe and North America. The U.S. Trump
Administration might try to restrict trade and implement forms of fiscal expansion, especially
16
through corporate tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The failure in the U.S. and parts of
Europe to counterbalance adverse effects from international trade and capital flows on domestic
employment and incomes of less-skilled workers, some of the so-called ‘losers’ of international
commerce, has contributed to the rise of anti-free trade populism (Judis 2016; Rodrik 2011, 88;
Summers 2008). If the Trump Administration decided to push for a G20 stimulus strategy it
might well find support from among several G20 members. The Canadian government of Justin
Trudeau is starting to implement its new, domestic fiscal-stimulus strategy (Doyle 2016). Even
the UK government has abandoned its former commitment to austerity, in the wake of the
‘Brexit’ referendum (Parker et al. 2016). Such changes in the G20 could increase pressure on the
German government to accept a more active growth-stimulating approach to their domestic
economy.
Chancellor Merkel’s government has generally disapproved of expansionary fiscal and
monetary policy strategies (Newman 2010, 311-13; Nienaber 2014; Steinbrück 2008). The
doubts about Germany’s G20 leadership reflect not only its opposition to fiscal-stimulus
measures, but also concerns over its handling of the Eurozone crisis (Galbraith 2016, 66-69;
Pettis 2013, 121, 125-134; Stiglitz 2016, 177-213). The German government has been an
influential proponent of the “growth friendly fiscal consolidation” doctrine (IMF 2016b, 2),
which has been dismissed by critics for its reliance on dubious and arguably discredited
economic claims, especially those from Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna (1998; 2009; see
Blyth 2013, 171-73, 212-15; IMF 2010, 93-94; Krugman 2012, 195-99).3 The IMF (2014, 20-22;
2015a, 2; 2016a, 1), meanwhile, has repeatedly urged the German government to reduce the
country’s substantial international trade surplus, which increases pressure on others’ current
account balances and exacerbates sovereign debt problems, especially in the Eurozone (see
European Commission 2016). The IMF and G20 peer-pressure has been insufficient to persuade
the Germans to act in a greater growth oriented manner. There are economists who defend the
German government’s position, among a variety of perspectives on the matter (see den Haan et
al. 2016). Irrespective of whether the trade surplus is simply the result of good governance and
other virtuous factors (Jung, Reiermann, and Schmitz 2013; Sinn 2016), the German economy
and domestic policies have had external spillover effects (European Commission 2016, 3; IMF
3
Alesina (2010) presented a summary of his and Ardagna’s analysis to an EU Finance Ministerial
meeting (Ecofin) in April 2010. Their arguments influenced EU policymakers’ approach to debt
consolidation and fiscal austerity.
17
2016a, 1, 8).
Chancellor Merkel has stated “economic growth that benefits all” is the most important
objective for the G20, implying it would be a core issue for the German G20 Presidency (Federal
Government 2016b). German officials and ministers have not yet detailed exactly how they will
approach global economic growth during their G20 presidency (Marchyshyn 2016), except to
indicate that coordinated fiscal stimulus would not be on the official agenda (IMF 2016d).
German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble instead has warned of the risks from public and
private debt, advocating the need for “debt consolidation”, while also calling for an end to
expansionary monetary policies or quantitative easing (Buergin and Black 2016; IMF 2016d).
This fits the traditional German aversion to inflation, or ‘Inflationstrauma’, a core legitimizing
discourse for their economic policymaking since the postwar decades (Schirm 2013, 697). The
German finance minister’s (IMF 2016d, 2) description of predicted domestic growth of 1.7
percent for 2016 and 1.5 percent for 2017 as a “positive outlook” underlines the disconnect,
between the Germans and several other G20 members, on economic growth performance. It is
sufficient to point out that few American experts and current policymakers would consider sub-2
percent annual growth as ‘positive’. U.S. Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer has
characterized America’s recent GDP growth, which has generally been stronger than Germany’s,
as “mediocre at best” (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2016).
It is unlikely the intellectual and political divide between the austerity and fiscal-stimulus
camps in the G20 will be resolved simply through debate. Merkel’s government continues to
advocate structural adjustment and debt consolidation to raise growth (IMF 2016d), despite the
empirical evidence that such policy initiatives often hinder recoveries in weak economies.
Clearly there are deep political differences in the forum on how to increase global economic
growth (Alexandroff 2016), though the intensified attention to the issue could encourage areas of
compromise. The recent G20 focus on combining “fiscal, monetary and structural policies”, in
the context of the Hangzhou Consensus, potentially provides opportunities to overcome the
impasse between fiscal-stimulus and austerity advocates (G20 2016). It constitutes a set of
“constructed focal points” that could lead to specific policy agreements (Keohane and Martin
1995, 45), which might then engender further areas of cooperation, with possibilities for tradeoffs between structural adjustments in some members for fiscal or monetary policy adjustments
in others. Peer pressure also would intensify the sense of urgency on global growth if a new
economic crisis developed, just as the economic emergency brought G20 policy cooperation
18
during the global financial crisis. As Nobel laureate economist Robert Lucas noted in October
2008, “everyone is a Keynesian in a foxhole” (Fox 2008), implying the tendency of
policymakers to turn to fiscal stimulus when economies find themselves in deep trouble. This
might be putting a rather positive gloss on the political disparities between the German
government and its critics, especially those who tilt in a Keynesian direction. The G20 expert,
and former IMF official, Thomas Bernes (2016) is more pessimistic and faults the forum for
lacking the requisite global economic leadership.
The main task during the German G20 Presidency should be to build on the Hangzhou
Consensus, supported by the advice and resources of members and the relevant global
governance bodies and stakeholders (Alexandroff and Brean 2015, 8-10; Harris Rimmer 2015,
43; Slaughter 2015). It will be difficult, in the absence of another deep economic crisis, to
achieve convergence on broad macroeconomic strategy. Instead the focus should be to seek
specific areas of cooperation to enhance sustainable and inclusive global economic growth. The
political imperatives at stake might require compromise, on all sides, in the three key areas:
structural, fiscal, and monetary policies.
The political context of the German Presidency could complicate matters even further,
with impending general elections in France and especially, of course, the German federal
elections. The latter are scheduled to be held between August and October 2017, which forced
the Hamburg G20 Summit to be moved forward to July. In practical terms, this gives less time
for G20 officials and policymakers to resolve their differences and reach new agreements in time
for the summit communiqué. However, despite the challenging circumstances, G20 cooperation
might still be achievable. The positive western media and expert reception of Chinese President
Xi’s (2017) recent speech to the World Economic Forum at Davos (see Ehrenfreund 2017; Elliott
and Wearden 2017; Evans-Pritchard 2017), when he signaled his willingness to provide global
leadership on issues such as maintaining an open international economy and implementing the
Paris climate agreement, indicated how far the political landscape has shifted. The ‘liberal
international order’ might depend on Chinese and European leadership over the next few years.
It is possible that domestic and international politics could diminish the German
government’s G20 stewardship. However, it is a collective forum, so cooperation between some
of its members to improve the global economy could potentially prevail over the political
obstacles. The Trump election victory provided further evidence of the crisis effect on economic
governance, including the undermining of pre-global financial crisis norms and practices
19
associated with neoclassical or ‘laissez-faire’ economics. This appears to be a period of
heightened economic policy contestation that could persist for some years (Luckhurst 2016, 6474). In the absence of a consensus on global economic governance norms and practices, scholars,
officials, policy experts, and stakeholders will continue to contest the shape and performance of
global governance. The G20 will likely be a key arena of contestation during and beyond the
German presidency.
Conclusion
The political and economic challenges of contemporary international relations and global
economic governance will be very difficult to resolve. The uncertainty caused by Brexit and the
U.S. election result could exacerbate the problems in the international economy, especially the
persistence of lower growth. The political circumstances are complex, but the G20 possesses the
necessary resources to overcome the economic problems that have held back sustainable and
inclusive economic growth since the global financial crisis. For the forum to live up to its
potential as a steering committee, as opposed to a crisis committee, G20 policymakers, officials,
and stakeholders should seek areas of compromise and cooperation, with the potential for
bargaining to lead to trade-offs on fiscal, monetary, and structural policies.
The global governance failures of the G20 to date, especially the lack of leadership in
consolidating a global economic recovery and overcoming the ‘new mediocre’, could endanger
the future of this leaders’ forum. The decentralizing trend in global economic governance might
lead to more disjointed regional agendas, if the G20 cannot fulfill its potential as an interregional forum of developing and industrialized states, IFIs, and other participants. One benefit
of this decentralizing process is that the non-transatlantic states and policy actors, especially the
Chinese but also other large emerging market states and developing economies from regions
such as Africa, the Asia–Pacific, and Latin America, can exert greater leadership, even if the
United States and European governments are unable to contribute more effectively. The
contributions from IFIs such as the IMF and World Bank, plus informal fora like the BRICS and
MIKTA and new regional and multilateral projects, including the AIIB and the BRICS’ New
Development Bank, might have a further positive effect. It is possible these institutions may
20
increase peer-pressure on the G7 states to raise their game. Indeed, the shifting balance between
austerity and fiscal-stimulus camps in the G20 could have a similar effect, by pressuring the
German G20 Presidency to advance a more active growth-stimulus strategy in its agenda.
Skeptics believe the G20 has become ineffective, but the historical lessons from the
1930s point out the dangers from a lack of collective action during extended periods of global
economic weakness. On a more positive note, the postwar Bretton Woods compromise provided
solutions to the even greater economic challenges of that period. The Great Depression and the
global financial crisis showed that markets do not consistently and rationally ‘self-correct’. The
responsibility of governments and global governance is to improve the economic well-being of
citizens. The Chinese G20 Presidency included serious debate about how to achieve sustainable
and inclusive economic growth. The German Presidency could build on the Hangzhou agenda,
taking seriously the immediate dangers from insufficient policy measures to raise growth in the
short-term. Keynes (1924/2000, 80, italics in original) famously advocated prompt government
action in response to economic slumps because, he noted, “In the long run we are all dead.”
Ordinary citizens are rejecting mainstream politics because they already have suffered from
several years of global economic malaise. Further delays in achieving more sustainable and
inclusive growth could have dangerous social, economic, and even political consequences for the
world.
21
Works Cited
Abberger, Klaus and Wolfgang Nierhaus. 2008. How to define a recession? CESifo Forum, Vol.
4, 74-76. Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich. Accessed October 9,
2016, from:
http://www.cesifo-economicstudies.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Forum%202008/CESifo%20Forum%204/2008/foru
m4-08-spotlight.pdf
Abdelal, Rawi, and John Gerrard Ruggie. 2009. The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social
Legitimacy and Global Capitalism. In New Perspectives on Regulation, edited by David Moss
and John Cisternino. Cambridge, MA: The Tobin Project. 151-162. Accessed on November 19,
2016,
from:
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/New_Perspectives_Ch7
_Abdelal_Ruggie.pdf
Akerlof, George A. and Robert J. Shiller. 2009. Animal spirits: How human psychology drives
the economy and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Alesina, Alberto. 2010. Fiscal Adjustments: Lessons from Recent History. Presentation
prepared for the Ecofin Meeting in Madrid, April 15.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/fiscaladjustments_lessons-1.pdf
Alesina, Alberto and Silvia Ardagna. 1998. Tales of Fiscal Adjustment. Economic Policy,
13(27), 489-585.
––––– –––––. 2009. Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending. National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER), Working Paper No. 15438.
Alexandroff, Alan S. 2016. Lacking Global Leadership. Rising Powers in Global Governance.
30
September
2016.
Accessed
November
19,
2016,
from:
http://risingpowersproject.com/lacking-global-leadership/
Alexandroff, Alan S. and Donald Brean. 2015. Global Summitry: Its Meaning and Scope Part
One. Global Summitry: Politics, Economics, and Law in International Governance, 1(1), 1-26.
ASEAN and China. 2016. Joint Statement of the 19th ASEAN—China Summit to
Commemorate the 25th Anniversary of ASEAN—China Dialogue Relations: Towards a Closer
ASEAN—China Strategic Partnership. ASEAN and China, ASEAN website. Accessed October 3,
2016,
from:
http://asean.org/storage/2016/09/Joint-Statement-of-ASEAN-ChinaCommemorative-Summit-Final.pdf
22
Ash, Timothy Garton. 2016. Populists are out to divide us. They must be stopped. The Guardian.
November 11. Accessed November 12, 2016, from:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/11/populists-us
BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision). 2010. Basel III: A global regulatory
framework for more resilient banks and banking systems. Basel: Bank for International
Settlements. Accessed September 19, 2015, from: http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs189.htm
Bernes, Thomas. 2016. Despite calls for action, G20 yields little more than talk. September 8.
OpenCanada. Accessed November 15, 2016, from:
https://www.opencanada.org/features/despite-calls-action-g20-yields-little-more-talk/
Blyth, Mark. 2013. Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2016. Remarks on the U.S. Economy.
Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer at the ‘Program on the World Economy’, a conference sponsored
by The Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado. August 21. Accessed October 23, 2016, from:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/fischer20160821a.htm
Boughton, James M. 2009. A new Bretton woods moment? Finance and Development, a
Quarterly Magazine of the IMF, 46(1), March. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/boughton.htm
Bracht, Caroline. 2015. Making good on G20 commitments. G20 Research Group of University
of Toronto and G7G20.com. December 22. Accessed November 15, 2016. Available from:
http://www.g7g20.com/articles/caroline-bracht-making-good-on-g20-commitments
Bradford, Colin I. (2016). 2016: The year for leadership that wasn’t for the China G-20.
Brookings blog. Accessed January 25, from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/futuredevelopment/2016/09/06/2016-the-year-for-leadership-that-wasnt-for-the-china-g-20/
Brown, Chad P. (2016). Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and the Future of the WTO. Council
on Foreign Relations. Part of Discussion Paper Series on Global and Regional Governance.
September.
Brown, Gordon. 2010. Beyond the Crash: Overcoming the First Crisis of Globalization. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Buergin, Rainer and Jeff Black. 2016. IMF, Germany Still at Odds Over Greece Debt as EU Sees
Concerns. Bloomberg. October 6. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/imf-germany-still-at-odds-over-greecedebt-as-eu-sees-concerns
Chowdhury, Iftekhar Ahmed. 2010. The Global Governance Group (‘3G’) and Singaporean
Leadership: Can Small be Significant? Singapore: National University of Singapore. ISAS
Working Paper, No. 108, 19 May.
23
Cooper, Andrew F. 2008. Executive but Expansive: The L20 as a project of ‘new’
multilateralism and ‘new’ regionalism. Chapter in Cooper, Andrew F., Christopher W. Hughes,
and Philippe de Lombaerde, eds. Regionalisation and Global Governance. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
–––––. 2015. MIKTA and the global projection of middle powers: Toward a summit of their
own? Global Summitry: Politics, Economics, and Law in International Governance, 1(1), 95114.
–––––. 2016. The BRICS: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, Andrew F. and Ramesh Thakur. 2013. The Group of Twenty (G20). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Davis, Bob. 2009. What’s a global recession? Wall Street Journal, April 22. Accessed October
10, 2016, from: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/22/whats-a-global-recession/
den Haan, Wouter, Martin Ellison, Ethan Ilzetzki, Michael McMahon, and Ricardo Reis. 2016.
The danger of Germany's current account surpluses: Results of the CFM and CEPR Survey. Vox.
October 27. Accessed November 15, 2016, from: http://voxeu.org/article/danger-germanyscurrent-account-surpluses-results-cfm-and-cepr-survey#
Doyle, Simon. 2016. Canada flies the anti-austerity flag. Financial Times. April 25. Accessed
November 15, 2016 from: https://www.ft.com/content/89029194-0809-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd33
Drezner, Daniel W. 2014. The system worked: How the world stopped another great depression.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Eccleston, Richard, Aynsley Kellow, and Peter Carroll. 2015. G20 endorsement in post crisis
global governance: More than a toothless talking shop? British Journal of Politics and
International Relations, 17, 298–317.
Ehrenfreund, Max. 2017. World leaders find hope for globalization in Davos amid populist
revolt. The Washington Post, January 17. Accessed January 25, 2017 from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/17/chinese-president-warns-againsttrade-war-in-davos/?utm_term=.e659277e6522
Eichengreen, Barry. 2016. Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, The Great Recession, and the
Uses – and Misuses – of History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, Larry and Graeme Wearden. 2017. Xi Jinping signals China will champion free trade if
Trump builds barriers. The Guardian, January 18. Accessed January 25, 2017 from:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/17/china-xi-jinping-china-free-trade-trumpglobalisation-wef-davos
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose. 2017. China’s Xi Jinping seizes Davos stage to proclaim himself
defender of globalization. The Telegraph, January 18. Accessed January 25, 2017, from:
24
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/17/chinas-leader-xi-jinping-seizes-davos-stageproclaim-defender/
European Commission. 2016. Country Report Germany 2016: Including an In-Depth Review on
the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances. Commission Staff Working
Document. February 26. Accessed November 15, 2016, from:
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_germany_en.pdf
Farrell, Henry and John Quiggin. 2012. Consensus, dissensus and economic ideas: The rise and
fall of Keynesianism during the economic crisis. March 9. Center for the Study of Development
Strategies. Accessed on November 19, 2016, from: http://www.henryfarrell.net/Keynes.pdf
Federal Government. 2016a. Sustainable growth and social responsibility. Deutschland.de, the
German Federal Government’s official website. September 5. Accessed October 21, 2016, from:
https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Reiseberichte/2016/2016-09-02-g20-gipfelchina_en.html
–––––. 2016b. Germany and the G20. Deutschland.de, the German Federal Government’s
official website. September 12. Accessed November 2, 2016, from:
https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/global-issues-law/germany-and-the-g20
Fox, Justin. 2008. The Comeback Keynes. Time Magazine, October 23. Accessed November 10,
2016, from: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1853302,00.html
G20. 2009a. London summit – Leaders’ statement 2 April 2009. G20 Leader Forum, April 2.
Accessed November 19, 2016 from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/t20151225_1723.html
–––––. 2009b. Leaders’ statement the Pittsburgh summit. G20 Leader Forum, September 24–25.
Accessed November 15, 2016, from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/P020151225615583055801.pdf
G20. (2010a). The G-20 Toronto summit declaration. G20 Leader Forum, June 26–27. Accessed
November 19, 2016, from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/P020151225621431044503.pdf
–––––. 2010b. Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth. G20 Leader forum, November
11-12. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/t20151225_1725.html
–––––. 2013. G20 leaders’ declaration. G20 Leader Forum. St. Petersburg Summit. September
5–6. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/P020151225709417239707.pdf
–––––. 2014. G20 Leaders’ Communiqué. G20 Leader forum, Brisbane Summit, November 1516. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://www.g20australia.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/brisbane_g20_leaders_sum
mit_communique.pdf
25
–––––. 2016. G20 Leaders’ Communique Hangzhou Summit. G20 Leader forum, September 4-5.
Accessed September 5, 2016, from:
http://g20.org/English/Documents/Current/201609/t20160906_3395.html
Galbraith, James K. 2016. Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the
Future of Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
German G20 Presidency. (2016a). Germany’s G20 Presidency begins. Accessed January 23,
2017,
from:
https://www.g20.org/Content/EN/Artikel/2016/11_en/2016-11-30-g20kernbotschaften-im-kabinett_en.html
––––––. 2016b. Priorities of the 2017 G20 Summit. Hamburg: G20 Germany 2017. Accessed
January
23,
from:
https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2016-g20praesidentschaftspapier-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
Grugel, Jean, Pia Riggirozzi, and Ben Thirkell-White. 2008. Beyond the Washington Consensus?
Asia and Latin America in search of more autonomous development. International Affairs,
84(3), 499–517.
H.M. Treasury. 2008. Managing the Global Economy through Turbulent Times. December.
London: H.M. Treasury. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110108035941/http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/managingtheglobaleconomy_081208.pdf
Hall, Ben and Jean Eaglesham. 2008. Brown, Sarkozy seek ‘new Bretton Woods’. Financial
Times. November 2. Accessed November 19, 2016, from: https://www.ft.com/content/7be46feea92c-11dd-a19a-000077b07658
Harris Rimmer, Susan. 2015. A Critique of Australia’s G20 Presidency and the Brisbane Summit
2014. Global Summitry: Politics, Economics, and Law in International Governance, 1(1), 41-63.
Hartcher, Peter. 2014. Climate change to be discussed at G20 summit. Sydney Morning Herald,
October 31. Accessed September 19, 2015, from: http://www.smh.com.au/federalpolitics/political-news/climate-change-to-be-discussed-at-g20-summit-20141030-11eis9.html
Hay, Colin and Tony Payne. 2013. The great uncertainty. SPERI, Paper No. 5. September.
Accessed
November
19,
2016,
from:
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/SPERI-Paper-No.5-The-Great-Uncertainty-389KB.pdf
Helleiner, Eric. 2010. A Bretton Woods Moment? The 2007-2008 Crisis and the Future of
Global Finance. International Affairs, 86(3), 619-636.
–––––. 2014. The Status Quo Crisis: Global Financial Governance after the 2008 Meltdown.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
–––––. 2016. Legacies of the 2008 Crisis for Global Financial Governance. Global Summitry:
Politics, Economics, and Law in International Governance, 2(1), 1-12.
26
Ibbitsen, John and Tara Perkins. 2010. How Canada made the G20 happen. The Globe and Mail.
June
18.
Accessed
November
15,
2016,
from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/how-canada-made-the-g20happen/article4322767/?page=all
IMF. 2008. World Economic Outlook: Financial Stress, Downturns, and Recoveries.
Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Accessed October 31, 2016, from:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/pdf/text.pdf
–––––. 2010. World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing. Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund. October. Accessed October 31, 2016, from:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/pdf/text.pdf
–––––. 2014. Germany 2014 Article IV Consultation. Staff Report; Press Release; and Statement
by the Executive Director for Germany. IMF Country Report No. 14/216. July. Accessed
November 15, 2016, from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr14216.pdf
–––––. 2015a. Germany 2015 Article IV Consultation. Press Release; Staff Report; and
Statement by the Alternate Executive Director for Germany. IMF Country Report No. 15/187.
July.
Accessed
November
15,
2016,
from:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15187.pdf
–––––. 2015b. IMF Survey: Lagarde: Prevent “New Mediocre” From Becoming “New Reality”.
IMF News Article. April 9. Accessed 14 October, 2016. Available from:
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew040915a
–––––. 2016a. Germany 2016 Article IV Consultation. Press Release; Staff Report; and
Statement by the Alternate Executive Director for Germany. IMF Country Report No. 16/202.
June.
Accessed
November
15,
2016,
from:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16202.pdf
–––––. 2016b. Uncertainty in the Aftermath of the U.K. Referendum. World Economic Outlook
(WEO) Update. July. Accessed, October 3, 2016. Available from:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/02/
–––––. 2016c. Managing an Inclusive Transition for the Global Economy. IMF News Article/
Speech. October 7. Accessed October 8, 2016. Available from:
http://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2016/10/07/am16-sp100716-managing-an-inclusivetransition-for-the-global-economy
–––––. 2016d. Statement by Mr. Wolfgang Schäuble Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic
of Germany to the International Monetary and Financial Committee. International Monetary and
Financial Committee. October 8. Accessed October 23, 2016. Available from:
https://www.imf.org/External/AM/2016/imfc/statement/eng/deu.pdf
27
Judis, John B. 2016. The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American
and European Politics. New York, NY: Columbia Global Reports.
Jung, Alexander, Christian Reiermann, and Gregor Peter Schmitz. 2013. Complaints about
German Exports Unfounded. November 5. Spiegel Online. Accessed November 15, 2016, from:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/complaints-about-export-surplus-of-germanyunfounded-a-931607.html
Kahler, Miles. 2016. Regional Challenges to Global Governance. Council on Foreign Relations.
Part of Discussion Paper Series on Global and Regional Governance. September.
Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.
International Security, 20(1), 39-51.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1924/2000. A Tract on Monetary Reform. New York, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Kirton, John J. 2013. G20 Governance for a Globalized World. Farnham, UK: Ashgate
Publishing.
–––––. 2016a. A Summit of Significant Success: G20 Leaders at the 2016 Hangzhou Summit.
G20 Research Group of University of Toronto. September 7. Accessed September 8, 2016.
Available from: http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/160907-kirton-performance.html
–––––.2016b. The G20 Hamburg Summit’s Priority Agenda. G20 Research Group of University
of Toronto. October 31. Accessed November 2, 2016. Available from:
http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/161031-kirton-hamburg.html
Krugman, Paul. 2009. How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? The New York Times Magazine.
September 6. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html
–––––. 2012. End this Depression Now! New York and London: W. W. Norton.
Lagarde, Christine. 2015. Time to act on the G20 agenda: The global economy will thank you.
IMF Direct, the international monetary fund’s global economy forum. February 6. Accessed
September 19, 2015 from: http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2015/02/06/time-to-act- on-the-g-20agenda-the-global-economy-will-thank-you/
Luckhurst, Jonathan. 2012. The G20 and ad hoc Embedded Liberalism: Economic Governance
amid Crisis and Dissensus. Politics & Policy, 44(5), 740-82.
–––––. 2015. Latin America in the G20: Insiders or Outsiders? Latin American Policy, 6(1), 19–
40.
–––––. 2016. G20 Since the Global Crisis. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
28
Mallaby, Sebastian. 2008. Bretton Woods, the sequel? Washington Post. October 20. Accessed
November 19, 2016, from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101901333.html
Marchyshyn, Maria. 2016. Hamburg 2017: Will Germany Complete the Missing Pieces from
Hangzhou? G20 Research Group of University of Toronto and G7G20.com. October 16.
Accessed October 17, 2016. Available from: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/blogs/161016marchyshyn.html
McGuire, Steve and Michael Smith. 2008. The European Union and the United States.
Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. 2016. Remarks by Foreign
Minister Wang Yi At the Media Briefing on the G20 Hangzhou Summit. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the People’s Republic of China official website. Accessed January 25, 2017, from:
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1368193.shtml
Nelson, Stephen C. and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2014. Uncertainty, risk, and the financial crisis of
2008. International Organization, 68(2), 361–392.
Newman, Abraham. 2010. Flight from Risk: Unified Germany and the Role of Beliefs in the
European Response to the Financial Crisis. pp.306-318 in From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic:
Germany at the Twentieth Anniversary of Unification, edited by Jeffrey Anderson and Eric
Langenbacher. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Nienaber, Michael. 2014. German finance minister contradicts IMF chief on monetary policy.
Reuters. May 15. Accessed November 19, 2016, from: http://www.reuters.com/article/usgermany-schaeuble-interest-rates-idUSBREA4E0JA20140515
OECD. 2013. Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Paris: OECD. Accessed
November 19, 2016, from: https://www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf
Parker, George, Kate Allen, and John Murray Brown. 2016. New chancellor Philip Hammond to
scale back austerity. Financial Times. July 14. Accessed November 15, 2016 from:
https://www.ft.com/content/db1b6304-492a-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c
Payne, Anthony. 2008. The G8 in a changing global economic order. International Affairs,
84(3), 519-33.
Pettis, Michael. 2013. The Great Rebalancing: Trade, Conflict, and the Perilous Road Ahead for
the World Economy. Princeton, NJ and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Rinke, Andreas. 2016. Merkel says Africa to be priority for German G20 presidency. Reuters.
October 11. Accessed October 11, 2016 from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopiaprotests-merkel-africanunion-idUSKCN12B15Y
29
Rodrik, Dani. 2006. Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? Journal of
Economic Literature, 44(4), 973-87.
–––––. 2011. The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can’t
Coexist. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rowley, Emma. 2010. David Cameron tells G20 to end trade barriers. The Telegraph. November
12. Accessed September 19, 2015 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20summit/8127236/David-Cameron-tells-G20-to-end-trade-barriers.html
Rudd, Kevin. 2009. The global financial crisis. Australian Politics, Society & Culture: The
Monthly. February, pp.20-29. Accessed November 19, 2016, from:
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/february/1319602475/kevin-rudd/global-financialcrisis
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded
liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.
Sainsbury, Tristram. 2016. A US$24b summit about a staircase: lessons for Germany and the
2017 G20 leaders. The Conversation, September 8. Accessed September 8, 2016 from:
https://theconversation.com/a-us-24b-summit-about-a-staircase-lessons-for-germany-and-the2017-g20-leaders-64874
Schifferes, Steve. 2009. Lesson for G20 from 1933 London summit. BBC News. March 23.
Accessed November 19, 2016, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7954532.stm
Schirm, Stefan A. 2013. Global politics are domestic politics: a societal approach to divergence
in the G20. Review of International Studies, 39(3), 685-706.
Sinn, Hans-Werner. 2016. Europe’s Emerging Bubbles. Project Syndicate. March 28. Accessed
November 15, 2016, from: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/european-centralbank-fueling-asset-bubbles-by-hans-werner-sinn-2016-03
Slaughter, Steven. 2015. Building G20 Outreach: The Role of Transnational Policy Networks in
Sustaining Effective and Legitimate Summitry. Global Summitry: Politics, Economics, and Law
in International Governance, 1(2), 171-86.
Steil, Benn. 2013. The battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and
the making of a new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Steinbrück, Peer. 2008. Germany’s Way Out of the Crisis. The Wall Street Journal. December
22.
Accessed
November
19,
2016,
from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122998189254627575.html
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2003. Globalization and the Logic of International Collective Action: ReExamining the Bretton Woods Institutions. In Governing Globalization:
Issues and Institutions, edited by Nayyar, D. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 238-253.
30
–––––. 2008. The next Bretton Woods. Project Syndicate. November 6. Accessed September 19,
2015, from: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-next-bretton-woods
–––––. 2010. Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. London and
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
–––––. 2016. The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe. London and
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Strauss-Kahn, Dominique. 2009. Beyond the Crisis: Sustainable Growth and a Stable
International Monetary System. Sixth Annual Bundesbank Lecture. Berlin, September 4.
Accessed
November
19,
2016,
from:
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp090409
Summers, Lawrence H. 2008. America needs to make a new case for trade. Financial Times.
April 27. Accessed November 3, 2016 from: https://www.ft.com/content/0c185e3a-1478-11dda741-0000779fd2ac
Turkish G20 Presidency. 2014. Turkish G20 Presidency Priorities for 2015. Accessed September
19, 2015, from:
https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2015-TURKEY-G-20PRESIDENCY-FINAL.pdf
UN. 2015. UNFCCC Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President, Draft decision
-/CP.21. Conference of the Parties Twenty-first session Paris, 30 November to 11 December
2015. Accessed November 15, 2016, from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
World Bank. 2016. Global Economic Prospects: Divergences and Risks. June. Washington, DC:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group. Accessed
from: http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/842861463605615468/Global-Economic-Prospects-June2016-Divergences-and-risks.pdf
––––– . 2017. World Bank Data. World Bank Data website. Accessed January 25, 2017, from:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=1W&year_low_desc=fal
se
Xi, Jinping. (2017). President Xi’s speech to Davos in full. Davos: World Economic Forum.
Accessed January 25, 2017, from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/full-text-of-xijinping-keynote-at-the-world-economic-forum
31