1 / 24

How B20 Recommendations Translate into G20 Decisions

G20-B20 DIALOGUE EFFICIENCY TASKFORCE. How B20 Recommendations Translate into G20 Decisions. Report prepared by IORI HSE and G20 Research Group of the University of Toronto . 22 March 2013. Presentation Structure . Review Goals Methodology Main findings Findings by areas Conclusions.

aurek
Download Presentation

How B20 Recommendations Translate into G20 Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. G20-B20 DIALOGUE EFFICIENCY TASKFORCE How B20 Recommendations Translate into G20 Decisions Report prepared by IORI HSE and G20 Research Group of the University of Toronto 22 March 2013

  2. Presentation Structure • Review Goals • Methodology • Main findings • Findings by areas • Conclusions

  3. Goals • Review the progress of G20-B20 engagement • Identify what works • Support continuity of B20 efforts on the key areas of policy coordination with G20 • Help in developing B20 recommendations for future G20 actions • The report is not meant to assess either G20 or B20

  4. MethodologyFirst Step: Review of Recommendations Recommendations singled out from B20 final documents, produced since Toronto and included into a catalogue Recommendations categorized by summits, by 14 issue areas, by Task Forces Output: catalogue as an archive and a tool for future B20 presidencies consolidating B20 members’ individual wisdom into an institutional memory

  5. MethodologyFurther Steps: Analysis and Assessment Neither G20 nor B20 are assessed, the score is used as an indication of G20-B20 engagement progress on B20 recommendations. Criteria: 1. Direct references to B20; 2. Mentions of the keywords “business”, “private sector”; 3. Degree of G20 statements matching B20 recommendations Scoring system: (+1) B20 recommendation was addressed in the G20 documents and G20 actions (commitments) or mandates are in line with it (0) B20 recommendation was addressed in the G20 documents but no commitments/ mandates in line with it have been agreed (deliberation) (-1) B20 recommendation was not addressed in the G20 documents. Cycle based analysis

  6. Main Findings Total of 262 recommendations: 93 (35.5%) reflected in G20 documents as commitments and/or mandates Toronto: 11 recommendations as a response to the G20 priorities on the eve of the summit Seoul (57 recommendations): increase in the number and expansion into new areas of green growth, ICT and innovations, infrastructure development and health Cannes (118 recommendations): increase in the number and expansion into new areas of food security, anticorruption, global governance and financing for development Los Cabos: 76 recommendations

  7. B20 Recommendations’ Scores Distribution

  8. B20 Recommendations’ Scores Distribution by Areas +1 0 -1

  9. Financial Regulation: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  10. International Monetary System (for Cannes only) • 4.2% of all recommendations • 63.6% of recommendations were acted upon by G20 • Level of reflection is the highest after Financial Regulation • High level of correlation between B20 recommendations and G20 decisions explained by B20 sharing G20 established agenda and reflecting it in recommendations, rather than B20 influencing G20 decisions

  11. Macroeconomic Policy: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  12. Food Security: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  13. Trade: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  14. Investment: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  15. Infrastructure: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  16. Employment, Human Capital and Social Issues: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  17. Green Growth: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  18. ICT, Technologies and Innovations: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  19. Energy: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  20. Corruption: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  21. Financing for Development: Scores Distribution by Presidencies

  22. Global Governance and Impact and Advocacy 8 recommendations made in Cannes focused on improving G20 coordination and communication with business and other stakeholders, and enhancing G20 transparency and legitimacy 2 reflected in G20 decisions, 2 deliberated upon In Los Cabos the Task Force on Impact and Accountability addressed its recommendations to B20, not G20 B20 should consider agreeing a set of recommendations which would integrate proposals to G20 andrecommendations to B20 in a balanced manner

  23. Conclusions • B20 impact on G20 decisions is incremental and mostly tracked in the policy areas and on issues which constitute G20 core agenda. • However, there are good examples of B20 leadership and success stories, such as the employment and finance respectively. • B20 can build upon its own best practices. This will require three qualities: • B20 capability to identify challenges G20 face, to define B20 priorities related to these challenges and to agree on a select number of issues B20 would advocate; • B20 awareness of G20 members’ national circumstances, understanding if G20 consensus may be forged on B20 recommendations; • B20 capacity to coordinate and consolidate positions across presidencies, B20 consistency and continuity on the issues they prioritize, especially where recommendations fall beyond the G20 core agenda.

  24. B20 Recommendations’ Scores Distribution by Areas

More Related