{"id":32749,"date":"2017-07-07T13:30:23","date_gmt":"2017-07-07T03:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=32749"},"modified":"2017-07-07T10:18:42","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T00:18:42","slug":"g20s-misguided-globalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/g20s-misguided-globalism\/","title":{"rendered":"The G20\u2019s misguided globalism"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
This year\u2019s G20 summit in Hamburg promises to be among the more interesting in recent years. For one thing, US President Donald Trump, who treats multilateralism and international cooperation with cherished disdain, will be attending for the first time.<\/p>\n
Trump comes to Hamburg having already walked out of one of the key commitments from last year\u2019s summit\u2014to join the Paris climate agreement \u2018as soon as possible\u2019. And he will not have much enthusiasm for these meetings\u2019 habitual exhortation to forswear protectionism or provide greater assistance to refugees.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Hamburg summit follows two G20 annual meetings in authoritarian countries\u2014Turkey in 2015 and China in 2016\u2014where protests could be stifled. This year\u2019s summit promises to be an occasion for raucous street demonstrations, directed against not only Trump, but also Turkey\u2019s Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan and Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin.<\/p>\n
The G20 has its origins in two ideas, one relevant and important, the other false and distracting. The relevant and important idea is that developing and emerging market economies such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and China have become too significant to be excluded from discussions about global governance. While the G7 has not been replaced\u2014its last summit was held in May in Sicily\u2014G20 meetings are an occasion to expand and broaden the dialogue.<\/p>\n
The G20 was created in 1999, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. Developed countries initially treated it as an outreach forum, where they would help developing economies raise financial and monetary management to the developed world\u2019s standards. Over time, developing countries found their own voice and have played a larger role in crafting the group\u2019s agenda. In any case, the 2008 global financial crisis emanating from the United States, and the subsequent eurozone debacle, made a mockery of the idea that developed countries had much useful knowledge to impart on these matters.<\/p>\n
The second, less useful idea underpinning the G20 is that solving the pressing problems of the world economy requires ever more intense cooperation and coordination at the global level. The analogy frequently invoked is that the world economy is a \u2018global commons\u2019: either all countries do their share to contribute to its upkeep, or they will all suffer the consequences.<\/p>\n
This rings true and certainly applies to some areas. Addressing climate change, to take a key problem, does indeed require collective action. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is a true global public good, because every country, left to its own devices, would rather free ride on others\u2019 cuts while doing very little at home.<\/p>\n
Similarly, infectious diseases that travel across borders require global investments in early-warning systems, monitoring, and prevention. Here, too, individual countries have little incentive to contribute to those investments and every incentive for free riding on others\u2019 contributions.<\/p>\n
It is a small step from such arguments to consider the G20\u2019s bread-and-butter economic issues\u2014financial stability, macroeconomic management, trade policies, structural reform\u2014in the same vein. But the global-commons logic largely breaks down with such economic problems.<\/p>\n