Читать книгу Economics of G20 - Группа авторов - Страница 40

It was noted above that it was expected (hoped) that the recommendations of the G20 summits would be implemented as these countries held the reins of power in the IFIs and also because they were involving the IFIs in the formulation of their policy suggestions. But unfortunately, this has not happened. The G20 has repeatedly called for implementation of reforms at the IMF and the World Bank. Yet these same countries acting as the shareholders of the IMF and the World Bank have stymied these reforms. In the G20, they have championed food security. Yet the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations are at a standstill and of the contentious issue is India’s programme to provide food to the poorest. Obviously, there is no appetite at the G20 to monitor the behaviour of these recalcitrant members.²

There have been calls for studies. But there is little evidence that these studies have resulted in concrete actions to tackle the problems. For instance, after the food price hike in 2008, the G20 had commissioned a major study on food price volatility. International organisations, such as the FAO, IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, World Bank, WTO, IFPRI and UNHLTF, subsequently produced in June 2011 the paper titled “Price Volatility in Food and Agriculture Markets: Policy Response, Policy Report”.³ They analysed the forces behind the sharp increase in prices in 2008 and again in 2011 and the increased volatility of these prices. Their analyses after discussion by G20 agriculture ministers in Paris on June 22–23, 2011 resulted in an Action Plan which was endorsed at the G20 summit at Cannes. The Action Plan proposes a system to improve market information and also the working of commodities derivatives’ markets and seeks to improve agricultural production and productivity, reduce the impact of price volatility on the vulnerable group and improve international policy coordination. An Agricultural Market Information System and a Global Agricultural Geo-Monitoring System were launched, and recommendations on commodity market derivatives by the International Organization of Securities Commissions were also accepted. Subsequent summits have reiterated the need for food security. But nothing much has changed on the ground.

Analysts have subsequently pointed out the limitations of the paper by the international organisations, mainly that price volatility has not increased (Barrett and Bellemere, 2011).⁴ The problem is of the trend in increasing food prices, which is a matter of concern for the poor, but not price volatility.⁵ Critics have also pointed out that the report prepared by the international organisations did not prioritise among the many factors listed. Also, the documents accepted by the agriculture ministers did not discuss the mandates in the US and EU countries for use of eco-fuel which many have identified as the main cause of the volatility and which was one of the factors identified in the report prepared by the international organisations. This was because of the opposition from these countries and Brazil. Meanwhile, little has been done to increase agricultural productivity which is the only sustainable way to improve food security.

The G20 has yet to deliver much that is concrete. The fear has been expressed that the G20 may follow the road followed by the G8 in announcing myriad well-intentioned programmes without much effort at implementation (Fues and Wolff, 2010a, b). Another fear that has been expressed is that the G20 may merely be used as a tool to ratify G8 proposals (Haibang Zhang, 2010). The working of the G20 at the finance minister’s level seems to bear this out. The communiqués of the G20 were analysed on nine issues where the G7 and the G24 had taken a position in their own communiqués (Martinez-Diaz, 2009). It was found that only in two cases did the G20 communiqué show a movement away from the G7 communiqué towards the G24 communiqué — issue of sovereign debt restructuring supporting the adoption of a voluntary code between debtors and creditors and reform of the Bretton Woods institutions where no significant action seemed to have followed.

The summit meeting in Mexico saw an innovation. The BRICS countries, i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, met on the sidelines of the summit just as they had at Cannes and for the first time issued a brief statement that stated the importance of IMF reform and stated their intention to contribute to IMF resources. It also asked their finance ministers and central bank governors to consider intra-BRICS swap arrangements and reserve pooling and report back to them for the regularly scheduled standalone summit in 2013. The brief note also discussed development including investment in infrastructure and in the social sphere.

The communiqué from the more recent Mexico summit again stresses on creating a more conducive environment for growth, but now includes supporting infrastructure investment. In the section on development, it reaffirms the leader’s commitment to support efforts to reach internationally agreed goals, particularly the MDGs. There is also a section in the communiqué on enhancing food security and addressing commodity price volatility. The report of the Development Working Group stresses the need “to flesh out the linkages between the different streams of their work in order to make the most of the synergies between them, and to aim for a more holistic approach to development cooperation.” The communiqué from the Finance Ministers meeting on November 5, 2012 welcomes the decision by the IMF executive board to use US$2.7 billion of additional resources for the Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust.⁶

Following recent summits, there is a view that there is a difference between the developed and developing countries regarding the role of the G20 in the area of development and that development has been more central in summits when the presidency has been held by a developing country member. People holding this view also believe that two or three consecutive presidencies by developing countries would be needed to build momentum on development in the G20. On the contrary, the release of a statement by the BRICS countries at the Mexico summit suggests a move by the developing countries to raise the profile of development issues.