Can the G20 summit save the world?

November 11th-12th saw the fifth G20 Summit, held in Seoul, South Korea. The theme behind this Summit was the G20's 'Role in the Post-Crisis World'. This theme has caught most of our attention, prompting us to ask whether or not the Summit really will result in meaningful and substantial improvements to the jolted global economic scene. Naturally, the occasion saw opposition; Seoul experienced OXFAM activists protesting outside of the Summit, sceptical of any real inroads being made to quell global injustice and poverty. However it must be said, the Summit has resulted in various substantial developments which cannot be left unrecognised.

The Summit was primarily geared towards ensuring global economic recovery, strengthening the global regulatory system framework as well as addressing financial safety nets, and being continuously aware of curbing any potential 'currency war'. So, upon this benchmark for success, how far had the G20 leaders actually ventured towards meaningful development?

A key feature of this Summit was the introduction of the 'Seoul Development Consensus'. This was far from a disappointing attempt at seeking serious improvement in the global economic climate, a reaction indicative of many previous Summits and intergovernmental initiatives. A strong and promising feature of this consensus was the commitment to treat LICs (Low Income Countries) as equal on the economic front. This commitment, strengthened by a dedication to partnership transparency, may prove to be groundbreaking in the near future. This is because it presents a more flexible role for state intervention. Contrary to the 'one size fits all' approach of the earlier Washington Consensus of 2009 which often inefficiently duplicated charitable efforts across the globe, the Seoul Consensus asks for a more ‘case by case’ analysis of what each LIC is lacking; intervention will now be more efficient, and further tailored to a nation's needs.

That being said, we must also note the general agreement of the G20 leaders that private investments must not lose their stake in global economic development; the combination of flexible state intervention within LICs and a continuing private sector level of support should provide an effective base for global economic development. Moreover, as Evan Ramstad puts it in his article 'G20 Pushes Seoul Consensus' in the Wall St Journal this month, an additional achievement is the role of 12 further states specifically addressing infrastructure; undoubtedly a great tool for narrowing poverty and securing economic improvement.

Even at face value we can note further aspects of the Summit that promise to erect a new sense of awareness and global responsibility. Traditionally, G20 Summits are criticised for overly emphasising specific regions, whereas Seoul's G20 was the first which had been held outside of an original G8 state. Additionally, Korea declined the chance to invite the Netherlands to the Summit, Cho jin Seo stating in the 'Korea Times' that 'a certain region had been over-represented'. Singapore made an appearance in the Summit as well, being given an opportunity to add a more eastern voice to the G20, through the representation of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

It seems that there have been several reasons to be satisfied with the Seoul G20 Summit. A substantial change in direction regarding LICs and global economic development has been made with the move from an overly narrow Washington Consensus in 2009, to a more flexibly orientated Seoul Consensus. One also cannot help but feel the significance of this G20 being the first held outside of the initial G8 states. Yes, this G20 Summit has resulted in a great deal of progress, although it would be extremely naive indeed to expect the Summit to offer an overnight solution to global crises; long term problems will always entail long term solutions, and the Seoul G20 Summit of November 11-12 2010 seems to have begun paving a new direction to such solutions.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.