Abstract
ABSTRACT The G20 has two distinctive features that make it a unique forum in global politics. First, it is one of the few existing global platforms where different international institutions and regional organisations can coordinate across a vast array of issue areas and emergent policy fields. Second, it is an institution that brings together heads of government which control roughly 80% of world GDP. Despite these features, the G20 lacks constitutive authority of its own, bound by a consensus principle which sharply delimits its scope of action. Notwithstanding its circumspect authority, no recent international body has garnered more attention from transnational civil society groups and advocacy networks than the G20. Most of this attention is critical and points to legitimacy problems. We argue that these legitimacy problems derive from a perception of untapped potential and undue privilege for great powers. Against this backdrop, we submit that a more active and institutionalised forum – with clear decision-making procedures for exercising authority – could help mitigate resistance and contribute to a more legitimate global governance system overall.
Highlights
The idea for a regular summit convening the world’s most powerful economies was put forward by French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt
This paper argues against the mainstream approval of informality and lack of authority
Formal and transparent decision-making and open access as three normative goals for institutional reform
Summary
The idea for a regular summit convening the world’s most powerful economies was put forward by French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The global governance system is made up of a dense set of specific political institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), all of which have developed and extended their authority over time. Outreach initiatives have achieved representation for important causes, their role remains predominantly advisory.[35] Building on the G20 outreach model means formalising the outreach mechanisms.[36] We call for an institutionalised consultation process, where civil society groups are integrated into a single secretariat and contribute at the level of official policy discussions Such an arrangement could provide much needed direction for transnational policy while ensuring that a plurality of global voices are heard. The benefits of transparency as outlined in the previous section far outweigh the potential drawbacks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
