in specifics, spelled out general objectives.
We argue that, despite concerns over legitimacy, the G20 is an appropriate platform for discussing development issues even though the G20 does not include the majority of developing countries. Development issues span many ministries in countries and many international agencies, and only heads of government can mobilise these different bodies, give them direction and coordinate their action both across and within countries. The G20 includes the economically important countries and these can consult with those not included. Its structure being weighted less towards the major developed countries, unlike many International Financial Institutions (IFIs), gives it some legitimacy which will be enhanced if wide-ranging consultations are held.
It has developed a working relationship with the IFIs and UN agencies as it has called on their help, as noted in the following sections, in dealing with the development issues it has identified thus far. Such a relationship has the advantage that conflicts of interest at the implementation stage might be avoided. The G20 can also enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of other international bodies.
The G20 has identified two priority areas which impact development — infrastructure and food security. Relevant international agencies have prepared papers and proposals to deal with these issues. These actions are part of what was agreed as the broader Development Agenda Consensus at Seoul in 2010 and the part that the G20 has concentrated on in subsequent meetings.
Against this background, the chapter discusses what the G20 can realistically be expected to deliver on the development front. For now, the G20 has mobilised other bodies for advice, which seems appropriate to us as these other bodies would have to undertake the necessary actions. As yet, the G20 has shown no tendency for micromanagement.
Building on this, we suggest that the G20 can also attempt to incorporate development considerations more directly into their core agenda. They have, in their declarations, stressed that part of the delivery of strong, sustainable and balanced growth (SSBG) is to raise incomes in low-income countries (LICs). They have reiterated that they intend to deliver on all three aspects of the framework. While the broader Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) in the G20 does not include dealing with how policies affect development, the G20 has mandated the Development Group to examine how the contribution of national policies to development can be monitored and how countries can be made accountable through the Multi-Year Action Plan for Development.
In the medium to longer term, the G20 could also potentially move incrementally in the direction of addressing the twin deficiencies of lack of direct control over resources and lack of legal structure in ways that potentially help development.
The actual record of delivery on development has been disappointing. We therefore argue that the G20 can, if there is political will, reopen the debate on how development can be achieved, the necessary financial flows to developing countries and set priorities for trade, such as maintaining developing country export market access in a weakened world economy. The future of the development agenda of the G20 would thus seem to be to move to implementation of specific policies and instruments, while setting broad priorities and perhaps to implement incremental initiatives. How far it can go in examining how policies of individual countries affect development prospects of countries remains an issue, but broader questions of special arrangements to help development and even the special and differential treatment of developing countries in G20 decisions (as in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other international bodies) beckon.
What the G20 Has Done Thus Far on Development
The G20 initially sought to stabilise the financial system and reform it to prevent recurrence of such crises and to coordinate monetary and fiscal policies for recovery of the world economy. It evolved to be labelled at the 2009 Pittsburgh G20 meeting as the primary forum for all discussion of global economic policy coordination with the aim to provide a firmer institutional underpinning for future growth through the creation of a Financial Stability Board (FSB) and a Framework for Strong Sustainable and Balanced Growth (FSSBG).
The actions thus far from the G20 on development can be divided into declarations of purpose and intent, calls for studies from international agencies preparatory to initiating action and instances where the G20 has initiated courses of action. The third category for now is small and the issue is whether and how these actions can grow.
Declarations of Purpose and Intent
The Seoul summit in November 2010 contained a declaration in the agenda to discuss development and the summit resulted in the formation of Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth (SDCSG) and the Seoul Action Plan on Development (APD). The communiqué from the summit reiterates the leaders’ intent to deliver on the promise of the FSSBG, and in the next paragraph, para 5, the communiqué goes on to state that achieving the SSBG includes ensuring accelerated growth in LICs.
The SDCSG and APD are based on the following six core principles:
(1)Provision of Official Development Assistance (ODA) as well as mobilisation of all other sources of financing remain essential to the development of most LICs.
(2)As there is no single formula for the success of development, developing countries must devise their own plans.
(3)Priority must be accorded to global or regional issues that call for collective actions.
(4)The private sector has a critical role to play.
(5)The G20 will complement the efforts of other actors and specialise in areas where it has “a comparative advantage or could add momentum”.
(6)The G20 will focus on removing important constraints to development.
The communiqué also states that “the Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth sets out our commitment to work with other developing countries and LICs, in particular, to help them build capacity to achieve and maximize their growth potential, thereby contributing to global rebalancing”. Narrowing the development gap and reducing poverty are considered integral to achieving the broader objectives of SSBG. The consensus identifies nine key pillars where action is needed to remove important constraints to resilient growth. These are infrastructure, human resource development, trade, private investment and job creation, food security, growth with resilience, financial inclusion, domestic resource mobilisation and knowledge sharing. The APD then provides for specific actions in these areas. For instance, in the area of infrastructure the APD calls on the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to undertake a needs assessment and to develop action plans to rectify any shortcomings that were revealed in this process. The G20 also created a high-level panel to review the MDB plan and identify financing needs and sources. As part of the Seoul Action Plan, the accompanying summit document states that the FSSBG adopted at Pittsburgh aims to assess the collective implications of national policies on both global growth and development, which would suggest that development was always part of the Framework. The document then goes on to state that the Seoul APD seeks to deliver on all three objectives of the FSSBG. The leaders also proposed replenishments for the concessional lending facilities of the MDBs, but with no specific numbers, and also to increase technical support to LICs through the banks.
Communiqués from subsequent summits have reiterated the above points, usually laying particular emphasis on food security and investment in infrastructure. The necessity of creating meaningful and satisfying employment has been increasingly stressed. The leaders at the Cannes summit in the following year labelled development as “a key element of our agenda for global recovery and investment for future growth”. The Cannes summit committee also expanded the development agenda by emphasising green growth, but there is a view that the Cannes summit scaled back
