The G8-G20 Roles and Relationship
The G8-G20 Roles and Relationship
John Kirton Director, G8 Research Group; Co-director, G20 Research Group john.kirton@utoronto.ca Paper prepared for a panel on “The Future of the G8 and G20 – Possible Scenarios” at an expert seminar on “The Future of the G8 and G20,” sponsored by the Universiteit Gent and Egmont, Fondation Universitaire/Universitaire Stichting, Brussels, April 26, 2010. Version of May 13, 2010.
Introduction
Now that the Group of Twenty (G20) summit has arisen as the self-proclaimed permanent, premier forum for international economic governance, a lively debate has erupted about its relationship with the old Group of Eight (G8) and the role of both bodies in the years ahead. Many assume or argue that the G8 will and should fade away, fast, and the G20 assume all the broad agenda and functions the former has long had. Far fewer assert openly that that the new and diverse G20 may itself fade away along with the galvanizing economic crisis that gave it birth, leaving the G8 with its inner Group of Seven (G7) finance ministers to continue as the global steering group that counts. Given the durability of international institutions, it is more likely that both, rather than either or neither, will continue for the foreseeable future, in a relationship that could take several forms. The major possibilities are competition, passive mutual coexistence by dividing up the global policy agenda and governance functions, or active cooperation that brings the comparative advantage of each to reap the global governance synergies that await (Kirton 2009). After less than two years of G20 summitry, it is still too soon to conclude with complete confidence which scenario will spring to life. But there is already substantial evidence to suggest that the system is moving toward synergistic cooperation between the two G’s that will strengthen each and both in the medium term. The global demand for governance is pulling the system in that direction and the old G8
John Kirton Director, G8 Research Group; Co-director, G20 Research Group john.kirton@utoronto.ca Paper prepared for a panel on “The Future of the G8 and G20 – Possible Scenarios” at an expert seminar on “The Future of the G8 and G20,” sponsored by the Universiteit Gent and Egmont, Fondation Universitaire/Universitaire Stichting, Brussels, April 26, 2010. Version of May 13, 2010.
Introduction
Now that the Group of Twenty (G20) summit has arisen as the self-proclaimed permanent, premier forum for international economic governance, a lively debate has erupted about its relationship with the old Group of Eight (G8) and the role of both bodies in the years ahead. Many assume or argue that the G8 will and should fade away, fast, and the G20 assume all the broad agenda and functions the former has long had. Far fewer assert openly that that the new and diverse G20 may itself fade away along with the galvanizing economic crisis that gave it birth, leaving the G8 with its inner Group of Seven (G7) finance ministers to continue as the global steering group that counts. Given the durability of international institutions, it is more likely that both, rather than either or neither, will continue for the foreseeable future, in a relationship that could take several forms. The major possibilities are competition, passive mutual coexistence by dividing up the global policy agenda and governance functions, or active cooperation that brings the comparative advantage of each to reap the global governance synergies that await (Kirton 2009). After less than two years of G20 summitry, it is still too soon to conclude with complete confidence which scenario will spring to life. But there is already substantial evidence to suggest that the system is moving toward synergistic cooperation between the two G’s that will strengthen each and both in the medium term. The global demand for governance is pulling the system in that direction and the old G8
References: to G8 in G20 Summits communiqués Compiled by Heather Keachie, April 21, 2010 Washington, November 15, 2008 Pittsburgh, September 25, 2009 Leaders’ Statement Preamble (para