G20 Members Research Articles

TOWARD RURAL SUSTAINABLE PHOTOVOLTAICS DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA THE EFFECTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFIT, INFORMATION ACCESS, AND FINANCING FACILITIES TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PHOTOVOLTAICS TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

The search for a substitute for fossil energy resources in view of the growing demand for environmentally friendly technologies for electricity generation, and the needs of the growing economics and population in Indonesia have increased the interest in photovoltaic as a long term, environmentally friendly and reliable energy technology. Although Indonesia outperformed its regional neighbors and joined China and India as the only G20 members posting growth during the 2009 economic crisis, Indonesia still struggles with poverty and unequal energy distribution. Fortypercent of Indonesian households are still not electrified and most of them live in the rural area.Indonesia is trying to introduce a modern electricity technology to rural population who cannot be served economically or in a timely manner by the conventional rural electrification system. For several decades, the electricity generation in Indonesia have been under the monopolistic management of national electric company, PLN controlled and funded by the government.Experience shows that PLN has for reasons of limited funding, inadequate capacity, and has been unable to service and ensure the expansion of the utility grid to most rural households.The utilization of a photovoltaic system is targeted to contribute to the rural electrification and contribute in total of one half percent to the domestic energy mix. The photovoltaic development in Indonesia is progressing very slowly. The goal to have 50 MWp of photovoltaic generating power in the year 2010 has not been accomplished. Current installed photovoltaic capacity is 10 MWp about 2.85 percent of the year 2025 target. This dissertation studies socio and economic viability, rural information access and financial facilities influences to the sustainability of photovoltaic system dissemination in the rural area of Indonesia

Analysis of agrobacterium populations isolated from Tunisian soils: genetic structure, Avirulent-virulent ratios and characterization of tumorigenic strains

The aim of this work is to assess the presence of agrobacterial populations in a variety of Tunisian soils to provide information regarding the diversity of strains occurring in agricultural soils. Twenty five soil samples were collected from seven different regions, which had or didn’t have a history of crown gall. Agrobacterium spp. members were dominant in Tunisian soils, isolated from 23 samples and assigned to the genomospecies G4, G7 and G9 by specific primers. The majority of samples yielded strains belonging to more than one genomospecies and showed a predominance of G4 and/or G7 members. Partial recA gene sequencing revealed new alleles and a high allelic diversity at both local and country scales. BOX-PCR fingerprinting of non-tumorigenic strains from dominant alleles did not show a clear correlation with geographic origin/soil plantation type, or a clear clonal spread of Agrobacterium strains in Tunisian soils. Ti plasmid-containing strains were only recovered from soils of fields with evidence of crown gall disease, and were exclusively allocated to the genomospecies G4. Tumorigenic strains isolated from soils with galled grapevines were distinct from tumorigenic strains isolated from soils with galled stone fruit trees, based on recA sequences, Ti plasmid type, sensitivity to the strain K84 and L-tartrate utilization.

Open Economy, Institutional Quality, and Environmental Performance: A Macroeconomic Approach

As the subject of how economic development affects the quality of the natural environment has gained great momentum, this paper focuses on examining the extent to which the openness of a market economy and the quality of the institution affect environmental performance. The majority of the current studies focus on the Environmental Kuznets Curve and the level of economic growth. This paper addresses this question by relating environmental (“Environmental Performance Index”) to macroeconomic (Gross Domestic Product per capita, “Open Markets Index”) and governance indicators (“Worldwide Governance Indicators”). The sample consists of 75 countries, including all G20 and EU members, comprising “more than 90% of global trade and investment”. Findings show that the Environmental Performance Index is positively correlated to each of the (institutional) indicators, so as to confirm that the selected indices are consistent with previous studies, suggesting that environmental performance increases in line with economic development and that good governance increases a country’s levels of environmental protection. By applying factor analysis, an empirical model of the Environmental Performance Index is estimated, suggesting that there is a significant positive correlation between a country’s economic growth, the openness of an economy, high levels of effective governance, and its environmental performance.

National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement

In June 2015, the G7 agreed to two global mitigation goals: ‘a decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century’ and ‘the upper end of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendation of 40%–70% reductions by 2050 compared to 2010’. These IPCC recommendations aim to preserve a likely (>66%) chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C but are not necessarily consistent with the stronger ambition of the subsequent Paris Agreement of ‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels’. The G7 did not specify global or national emissions scenarios consistent with its own agreement. Here we identify global cost-optimal emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models that match the G7 agreement. These scenarios have global 2030 emissions targets of 11%–43% below 2010, global net negative CO2 emissions starting between 2056 and 2080, and some exhibit net negative greenhouse gas emissions from 2080 onwards. We allocate emissions from these global scenarios to countries according to five equity approaches representative of the five equity categories presented in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCCAR5): ‘capability’, ‘equality’, ‘responsibility-capability-need’, ‘equal cumulative per capita’ and ‘staged approaches’. Our results show that G7 members’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDCs) mitigation targets are in line with a grandfathering approach but lack ambition to meet various visions of climate justice. The INDCs of China and Russia fall short of meeting the requirements of any allocation approach. Depending on how their INDCs are evaluated, the INDCs of India and Brazil can match some equity approaches evaluated in this study.

The Interplay between the G20 and the World Trade Organization

The G20 brings together leaders of the twenty systemically most important economies to discuss global issues in an informal setting. As a network it does not have the formal decision-making procedures and rules of procedure that characterize traditional international organizations, and its output takes shape in the form of communiques and declarations, generating interesting forms of ‘informal lawmaking’. Moreover, the G20 interacts in a number of ways with other, more formal international organizations, like the WTO, whose Director-General is typically present at all G20 summits. A prominent example of cooperation between international organizations upon request of the G20 are the semi-annual trade reports that are compiled by the WTO, OECD and UNCTAD, and which monitor the compliance of G20 members with their commitments to resist protectionism. But the G20 dynamics also are said to have a complementary effect upon the WTO, in the sense that they are expected to generate political support for the decision-making process in the latter, pressurizing it to accelerate its initiatives, including the Doha Development Agenda. Moreover, it has been observed that the G20’s activities have a ‘rebalancing effect’ on global governance and international organizations, in that they bring emerging economies into agenda-setting and coordination discussions serve as a possible catalyst for reform of formal international organizations like the WTO. Last but not least, a ‘replacement’ effect has been voiced to some extent. This contribution takes stock of these interactions and critically assesses them.

G20 Hangzhou Summit: A Possible Turning Point for Global Governance

The 2016 G20 Summit in Hangzhou takes place within a tense global political context. The outcome of the UK Brexit referendum in June revealed the deep divide between the politics of competitive nationalism and the commitment to international cooperation. It also reflected the depth of public reaction to global economic integration and the absence of response to public anxieties about social well-being and environmental sustainability from the political middle in many countries. China’s hosting of the G20 Summit presents an opportunity to turn a corner in global summitry by strengthening global leadership at this critical juncture, while China’s ability to do so depends on the willingness of other G20 members to comprehensively address public anxieties. The UN 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement, both reached in 2015, do provide political and policy answers to the public anxieties. The question is the effectiveness of the initiatives governments are taking to implement them, which could be framed together to achieve sustainability for all in the face of serious, demonstrable systemic risks. Many governments may resist this level of ambition and prefer to strike a lower profile as the world shifts its focus from goal setting in 2015 to goal implementation in 2016. Yet even with this less ambitious approach, there are ways that G20 countries can initiate processes that engage stakeholders in envisioning the future and developing alternative approaches and pathways to move their nations toward where they need to be by 2030 in terms of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. As people-centered and planet-centered agendas, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) set in the UN 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement have the policy content necessary to provide hope and direction for anxious publics. Similarly, it is hopeful that G20 leaders can develop narratives and define commitments to address the economic insecurity of their people and in the meantime strengthen the G20’s role in global governance.

The G20: Balancing National Interests with the Global Common Good

The Group of Twenty (G20) has been evolving as a widely recognized, yet controversial, power center of the global economy. While this self-selected club has performed important functions for member states and the world at large, criticism persists with regard to its effectiveness and legitimacy. The G20 still struggles with the critical challenge of how to balance the legitimate pursuit of national interests with a genuine commitment to the global common good. At present, the G20 Development Working Group (DWG) is tasked with coordinating and monitoring G20 activities on the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, real progress will only happen if and when the personal representatives of the G20 members, or the Sherpas, take full responsibility of the process and assert their authority toward the G20 Finance Track on this issue. The current Chinese presidency has strengthened the globalist orientation of the G20 by placing the UN 2030 Agenda on the central stage. The G20 Hangzhou Summit is very likely to adopt a 2030 Action Plan which addresses three transformative dimensions: domestic actions within each G20 country, collective actions toward global public goods, and support for low-income and developing countries. The upcoming German presidency should build on the Chinese agenda by focusing on five priorities: First, to promote the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); second, to create synergies between South-South and North-South development cooperation; third, to become role models for structural transformation; fourth, to support sustainable urbanization; and finally, to enhance the evolution of global knowledge communities. As demonstrated by Chinese research institutions, knowledge organizations in the Thinktank 20 (T20) can play an important role by providing critical analyses and policy recommendations to G20 leaders.

Core design of a high breeding fast reactor cooled by supercritical pressure light water

A high breeding fast reactor core concept, cooled by supercritical pressure light water has been developed with fully-coupled neutronics and thermal-hydraulics core calculations, which takes into account the influence of core pressure loss to the core neutronics characteristics. Design target of the breeding performance has been determined to be compound system doubling time (CSDT) of less than 50 years, by referring to the relationship of energy consumption and economic growth rate of advanced countries such as the G7 member countries. Based on the past design study of supercritical water cooled fast breeder reactor (Super FBR) with the concept of tightly packed fuel assembly (TPFA), further improvement of breeding performance and reduction of core pressure loss are investigated by considering different fuel rod diameters and coolant channel geometries. The sensitivities of CSDT and the core pressure loss with respect to major core design parameters have been clarified. The developed Super FBR design concept achieves fissile plutonium surviving ratio (FPSR) of 1.028, compound system doubling time (CSDT) of 38 years and pressure loss of 1.02MPa with positive density reactivity (negative void reactivity). The short CSDT indicates high breeding performance, which may enable installation of the reactors at a rate comparable to energy growth rate of developed countries such as G7 member countries.

Invited Perspective: Switch: Coming Your Way

President's column Questions posed by 2015 SPE President Helge Hove Haldorsen Answers provided by Professor Scott Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin (UT) This is my last JPT column as your 2015 SPE President. Come end-September at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) in Houston, you will witness “the switch” to 2016 SPE President Nathan Meehan. There is another, much slower switch going on as well. Recently, the G7 members (Council on Foreign Relations 2015) announced their ambition to switch away from fossil fuels altogether 85 years from now in 2100. They also agreed to make a switch in electricity generation by 2050 so that 100% of electricity generation comes from “clean” sources from this time onward. This call to long-term decarbonification action, if followed up by laws, rules, regulations, incentives, and a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax, will give new momentum to a long-term global energy-mix switch away from fossil fuels. This “85 years from now ambition” must, of course, be held up the against the “next 30-plus year projection” that more, not less, oil and gas will be needed during this period (Figs. 1 and 2). Holding these two seemingly conflicting thoughts in our minds at the same time is difficult, but very important. Being for fossil fuels until new viable energy sources are ready to take over does not mean being against alternative energy and renewables and massive “Manhattan Project”-style research and development to make them viable. On the contrary, as pointed out by Alex Epstein in his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, if we look at the big picture of fossil fuels (which provide more than 80% of the global energy supply in 2015 while sun, wind, and geothermal provide 1% to 2%) compared with the alternatives, the overall impact is to make the world a far better place. This is why exploration and production (E&P) professionals for the foreseeable future will continue to have “making the world a better place” in their job descriptions.

Second image IPE: Global economic imbalances and the ‘defects’ of the East Asian development model

The East Asian G20 members – China, Japan and Korea – are playing an increasingly important role in governing the global economy. Their global political rise is frequently discussed in binary terms in which the ‘realist’ assumption of inevitable conflict between rising and declining powers is contrasted with the ‘liberal’ assumption of the region’s growing integration into international institutions. This article offers an alternative explanation for East Asia’s global political role by shifting attention to the internal dynamics of the East Asian development model. This ‘second image’ interpretation of international political economy focuses on the ways in which domestic political economies influence international negotiations and institutions. Furthermore, this article departs from a focus on national political economies and considers the global role of the East Asian model of capitalism as such. At the empirical level, this article investigates the role of East Asian G20 members in international macroeconomic coordination and in reducing global economic imbalances.

ANALISIS PENERAPAN KEBIJAKAN KYOTO PROTOCOL

Increasing competition of good output which interpreted with GDP in developed and developing countries that are members of the G20, have some impact on the degradation of environmental quality. The Production of good output namely GDP cannot be separated from bad output’s production which is CO2. The need for the Kyoto protocol as an environmental policy which has been ratified by the G20 that supposing to control emission levels which can be measured by the measurement of the environmental efficiency of the G20 countries. Apart from the environmental efficiency, efficiency is not the main criterion for making a country to be standard for another country. On the other hand, the performance quality of the environment must also be taken into account. The amount of the cost of environmental policy to maximize environmental efficiency of a country but the environmental performance of the country, state inefficiency in the cost of the policy then the country has not been used in a cost-efficient technology for improving the environmental quality. The approach which has used in this study is a quantitative approach, using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). To specify the input and output that is used in determining the environmental efficiency using Malmquist Index. The input and output is processed by looking at differences in productivity and incorporate technological change in its interpretation. It can be concluded that the value of the environmental efficiency of some countries are on the production frontier even if the Kyoto protocol is not implemented, but with the policy of the Kyoto protocol was able to further improve the efficiency of the environment. In some other countries for example Brazil rose from 70.09% to 83.49%, while the Germany states increased by 4.43% in their environmental policy. From some countries evident show that the policy of the Kyoto protocol succeeded in carrying out its role as controlling the growth of emissions in developed and developing countries, especially the G20 members.

Aggressive International Tax Planning by Multinational Corporations: The Canadian Context and Possible Responses

Aggressive international tax planning by multinational corporations has lately fallen under intense political scrutiny. U.S. politicians have called out some American multinationals, including Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and Google, for relocating profits abroad to avoid American taxes. More recently, politicians accused Burger King of being unpatriotic for its own purported “tax inversion” maneuver, in which it would acquire Canada’s Tim Hortons and shift the head office from Florida to Ontario, benefitting from the lower northern tax rates. The Chicago-based Walgreens pharmacy chain recently backed off a “tax inversion” plan to relocate to Switzerland (the former headquarters of Alliance Boots, a company acquired by Walgreens), apparently having assessed the political risk as too high. This sort of aggressive international tax planning by multinational corporations was what G20 members had committed to fighting against when they endorsed the OECD’s “action plan” against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Canada has been vigilant about improving its tax framework to prevent non-resident corporations from eroding the Canadian tax base, having enacted thin-capitalization rules and, more recently, foreign-affiliate-dumping rules, as well as proposing anti-treaty-shopping measures. But despite Canada’s commitment to the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan, the Canadian government has been reluctant to follow through on implementing rules that might affect its own resident corporations and their international competitiveness. This is most notably visible in the generous participation exemption for dividends from foreign affiliates, the absence of rules restricting the deductibility of interest expenses incurred to earn exempt dividends from foreign affiliates. Canada may be reluctant to fully follow through on all aspects of the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan. As the examples of Apple, Amazon, Google and Starbucks demonstrate, the American government has so far been unable to bring itself to take any meaningful action against aggressive international planning by U.S.resident corporations. Were Canada to enact and enforce rules that clamped down on aggressive international tax planning by its own resident corporations, it would only put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage relative to American (or other international) rivals. Until the United States is willing and able to take the lead on aggressive international tax planning by multi-national corporations, the reality is that smaller countries, including Canada, should be cautious about making changes to its international tax rules that are dependent on other countries making similar changes.

On the Shoulders of Giants? Global Science, Resource Asymmetries, and Repositioning of Research Universities in China and Russia

Chinese and Russian universities are increasingly drawn into center-periphery repositioning, as they compete for symbolic, financial, and intellectual resources locally and globally. However, their strategies on national and institutional linkages differ with regards to the individual scientist’s powers in knowledge production. As global hierarchies of knowledge productivity benchmark prestigious publications, and national industries seek access to innovative products in global research and development labs, globally connected talents become essential for elevating local research performance. This article examines the undercurrents of center-periphery repositioning in Russia and China by comparing their research and development funding and performance data, as well as contrasting their global standing with Brazil, India, South Africa, and G7 members. A method of comparative multilayered patterning of mixed data sets is used to reflect on center-periphery dilemmas facing the Chinese and Russian scientists.

A comparative analysis of the dynamic relationship between oil prices and exchange rates

This paper applies cDCC model to compare the dynamic correlations between oil prices and exchange rates of G20 members. The significant shifts in the correlations are then endogenously detected. For each pair of oil price-exchange rate, empirical evidence confirms of a strengthening negative correlation in the last decade. Methodology suggests only two events; US’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the 2008 global financial crisis, associating shifts of correlations to stronger negative level. While the first event has a shifting effect on mainly developed members, the latter affects them all. The new relationship provides benefits in risk diversification and inflation targeting.

Determinants of Economic Growth in G20 Countries: A Panel Data Approach

During last 10 years some G20 countries had economic instability. They have short and long term challenges such as unemployment, population ageing, globalization etc. In this study it is aimed to analyze macroeconomic indicators of G20 countries’ economic growth using panel data approach. Static linear panel data models were used for determining the effects of independent macro-economic variables on gross domestic product (GDP) of G20 countries including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. While dependent variable of analyze is gross domestic product (volume), the independent variables are current account balance, general government gross debt, general government revenue, general government total expenditure, gross national savings, inflation (average consumer prices), population, total investment, unemployment rate, volume of exports of goods and services, volume of imports of goods and services. The analysis proposed is based on a panel data (cross sectional time series data) approach. The dataset of this research involves 18 (unemployment rate variable of India was not available on our data set, therefore India was excluded from analysis) of G20 members (cross sectional units). The effects of 11 macroeconomic indicators on gross domestic product volume were examined by using panel data series. The findings of this paper would help G20 countries and investors for creating more effective macroeconomic strategies. For the government side, future rises, falls, and turning points of the macro indicators puts into perspective the effects of government policy created to deal with them. For the investors’ side, future values might increase the possibility of diligent investor in the financial market.

G20 St. Petersburg Summit Outcomes and Future Tasks

The 8th G20 Leaders' Summit was held in St. Petersburg, Russia on September 5-6, 2013. At this year's summit, along with the member countries, 6 invitees (Spain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Senegal, Singapore) and heads of 7 international organizations (UN, World Bank, IMF, FSB, OECD, WTO, ILO) were invited to participate in the premier forum. According to its troika system, Mexico (2012 chair), Russia (2013 chair), and Australia (2014 chair) have worked closely to draw up the agendas and produced the leader's declaration for this year's summit. Substantial improvements have been made within the summit structure; the 'Financial Track' has been delegated to deal with the financial and fiscal challenges that grew with expanding agendas, which were becoming a burden for Sherpas. For the main agendas, the forum proposed the action plan (for each country) and will be monitoring each agenda via the accountability report. A detailed joint reports have been drafted by experts and working groups to settle the concern of summit being left as a mere 'talk shop'. The main achievements entail the coop-eration between G20 countries for job creation, fiscal consolidation, and tax justice. G20 Leaders stress the importance of bolstering G20's functions with the aim of creating strong, inclusive growth and jobs, as well as securing the sustainability of public finances. The G20 St. Petersburg Summit was held in the midst of a gloomy world economic climate; where ameliorating the unemployment, especially youth unemployment, sat as the universal priority. Acknowledging this; the chair country, Russia, emphasized on; 'growth and job creation', and put together the Leader's Declaration, composed of 114 sections, and 11 annex documents with detailed contents of agreement for each agenda. To commemorate the 5th anniversary of the G20 Leaders' Summit, 'G20 5th Anniversary Vision Statement' was also announced. During which, leaders concurred that the collaborate work of G20 members was vital in recovering the world economy from the financial crisis in 2008. The statement also highlights the importance of inclusive growth, orderly global economy, market openness, and other factors which contributed to strong, sustainable, and balanced growth.

Fault Lines and Issue Linkages at the G20: New Challenges for Global Economic Governance

AbstractThe G20 emerged at the center stage of global economic governance in 2008. At the time, it was designed to be an inclusive and effective intergovernmental body. However, we find evidence of a slowdown of the G20's development by tracing the evolution of the G20 agenda during the seven summits held to date. We argue that the principle reason for the lack of progress is that the expansion of the issues covered by this international organization created new dividing lines among G20 members and also made preexisting ones more salient. Rather than reaching increasingly shallow consensus on a wider a range of issues, state leaders should sharpen the G20 agenda, avoid politicization, and frame issues in ways that prevent the formation of opposition along national lines.

Power law classification scheme of time series correlations. On the example of G20 group

A power law classification scheme (PLCS) of time series correlations is proposed. It is shown that PLCS provides the ability to classify nonlinear correlations and measure their stability. PLCS has been applied to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of G20 members and their correlations analysed. It has been shown that the method does not only recognise linear correlations properly, but also allows to point out converging time series as well as to distinguish nonlinear correlations. PLCS is capable of crash recognition as it is shown in the Argentina example. Finally the strength of correlations and the stability of correlation matrices have been used to construct a minimum spanning tree (MST). The results were compared with those based on the ultrametric distance (UD). Comparing the structures of MST, UD and PLCS indicates that the latter one is more complicated, but better fits the expected economic relations within the G20.

G20 St. Petersburg Summit Outcomes and Future Tasks

The 8th G20 Leaders' Summit was held in St. Petersburg, Russia on September 5-6, 2013. At this year's summit, along with the member countries, 6 invitees (Spain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Senegal, Singapore) and heads of 7 international organizations (UN, World Bank, IMF, FSB, OECD, WTO, ILO) were invited to participate in the premier forum. According to its troika system, Mexico (2012 chair), Russia (2013 chair), and Australia (2014 chair) have worked closely to draw up the agendas and produced the leader's declaration for this year's summit. Substantial improvements have been made within the summit structure; the 'Financial Track' has been delegated to deal with the financial and fiscal challenges that grew with expanding agendas, which were becoming a burden for Sherpas. For the main agendas, the forum proposed the action plan (for each country) and will be monitoring each agenda via the accountability report. A detailed joint reports have been drafted by experts and working groups to settle the concern of summit being left as a mere 'talk shop'. The main achievements entail the coop-eration between G20 countries for job creation, fiscal consolidation, and tax justice. G20 Leaders stress the importance of bolstering G20's functions with the aim of creating strong, inclusive growth and jobs, as well as securing the sustainability of public finances. The G20 St. Petersburg Summit was held in the midst of a gloomy world economic climate; where ameliorating the unemployment, especially youth unemployment, sat as the universal priority. Acknowledging this; the chair country, Russia, emphasized on; 'growth and job creation', and put together the Leader's Declaration, composed of 114 sections, and 11 annex documents with detailed contents of agreement for each agenda. To commemorate the 5th anniversary of the G20 Leaders' Summit, 'G20 5th Anniversary Vision Statement' was also announced. During which, leaders concurred that the collaborate work of G20 members was vital in recovering the world economy from the financial crisis in 2008. The statement also highlights the importance of inclusive growth, orderly global economy, market openness, and other factors which contributed to strong, sustainable, and balanced growth.

Reforming Global Economic Governance: A Strategy for Middle Powers in the G20

In this paper I argue that middle powers that are members of the G20 can extract substantial benefit from their participation in the G20 if they have both a clear long term vision of global economic governance and a plan of action that is based on obtainable short term objectives. In the article I address four issues. The first is that the institutional arrangements for global economic governance will remain unstable until the current process of changes in the balance of global political and economic power plays itself out. The second is that, given the changing international power dynamics, the current “manager” of the global economy, the G20, is unlikely to be a stable entity. Consequently it can only be effective if it focuses on the relatively narrow range of economic issues of common interest to all G20 members. Third, middle-size countries need a long term vision of global financial governance to guide their conduct in the G20 and other forums of global governance. Fourth, the middle powers will only be able to capitalize on whatever short term opportunities may arise from their participation in the G20 if they identify a set of achievable short term objectives and devise a strategy for reaching them.