Explained: Will G20 Become Like Other International Organizations? || ABC Live

Reviewing past G20 summits, you see commitments made over and over, indicating that they remain unfulfilled. It is easy to understand why some see the G20 less as an effective, outcome-oriented forum, and more as an opportunity to posture and make empty promises.

New Delhi (ABC Live): In year 2022, the presidency of G20, a group of world's largest economies, including both industrialised and developing nations was handed to India.

New Delhi is hosting G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting w.e.f 01/03/2023 to 02/03/2023.

The ABC Research team is keeping close watch on all events of India’s G20 Presidency will publish a research report after New Delhi G20 summit 2023.

In G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting, ministers will meet to discuss the geopolitical agenda for G20 November Summit; the ABC research team refers an article written by Brett D. Schaefer published on the official website of the Heritage Foundation to our readers with sole aim to make our them understand the paradigm of G20.

Brett D. Schaefer, Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in Washington DC based International Regulatory Affairs in Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom says as under:

Will G20 become like other the international organizations?

International organizations have a well-earned reputation for ineffectiveness and sluggishness. One has only to look at the United Nations, where the lowest common denominator outcomes are the most likely—if an outcome is possible at all. The inability of the U.N. to act decisively in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a case in point.

The G20, supposedly, is different. With members from all regions of the world, including both developed and developing countries, the G20 is more representative and reflective of global power dynamics than the Group of 7, which consists of the U.S., Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and the UK. With only 20 members and without a permanent bureaucracy, the G20 is theoretically more nimble than international organizations like the U.N. and can adapt to address pressing concerns.

Its reputation for effectiveness rests largely on its crisis management role in 2008 and 2009, when it advocated increasing IMF resources, endorsed financial accounting and regulatory reforms, and recommended “fiscal expansion” to boost growth. However, post-crisis analysis indicates that these actions were not without lasting negative side effects, such as the accumulation of public debt.

In addition, there is reason to wonder if the G20 was instrumental in adopting these policies or simply the most convenient venue to espouse them. In other words, to quote one observer: “Did the joint G20 statements … provide vital reassurance and policy coordination to the great powers, or are they simply epiphenomenal to a harmony of preferences?”

Indeed, it is an open question whether the G20 is really all that different from other forums. Consensus actions by the G20, if followed through on, can have a substantial impact. However, nations often fail to honor their pledges.

Researchers at the University of Toronto have estimated that, on average, G20 members comply with commitments only about 70 percent of the time. For example, financing for international health in response to the Covid-19 pandemic fell far short of G20 pledges, and not a single G20 member is on target to meet its emissions reductions or climate finance pledges—a central tenet of multiple G20 summits.

Unsurprisingly, the G20 has been criticized for division and inaction. A few years ago, tensions arising from Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine fractured consensus. Under President Donald Trump, U.S. resistance to climate change language scuttled an agreement on that issue.

To Read complete commentary by Brett D. Schaefer on What Role Should the G20 Play? Click here

Also, Read