ArticlePDF Available

The Present and Future of the G20 from the Perspective of the Global Economy and Turkey


Abstract and Figures

PDF (2012):
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Present and Future of the G20
From the Perspective of the
Global Economy and Turkey
Prof. Dr. Aykut Kibritçioğlu
About the author: Aykut Kibritçioğlu is professor of economics at the Ankara University,
Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Economics, Section for Economic Development
and International Economics. Homepage:
© 2012 ResearchTurkey. All rights reserved.
This publication cannot be printed, reproduced, or copied without referencing the original
Please cite this publication as follows:
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (June, 2012), “The Present and Future of the G20 from the
Perspective of the Global Economy and Turkey”, Volume I, Issue 4, pp. 49 – 60,
Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London:
ResearchTurkey (
The Present and Future of the G20
From the Perspective of the Global Economy and Turkey 1
Between the 18th and 19th June 2012, the leaders of G20 summit will meet in Los
Cabos, Mexico. Turkey has been nominated for presidency of the summit in the term
beginning in 2015. After discussing a variety of current and long-term problems
based on the agenda of 2012 which was determined with respect to the objectives and
conclusions of the previous summits, the leaders will try to take important decisions
concerning the current situation. The summit, which was expected to take place
between September and November is taking place less than eight months later than
the last summit under French presidency which took place on the 3rd and 4th
November in Cannes. It has been so scheduled to avoid clashing with Mexico’s
general elections, due to take place in July 2012. After the summit, which is taking
place four months ahead due to political concerns, the work under Mexican
presidency will continue until November.
The questions that should be asked here are: since when and on which issues have the
G20 countries started to hold summits? Is it an efficient and effective formation? Will
the G20 leaders meeting on the 18th and 19th June 2012 be able to compromise on a
successful conclusion? What does this successful conclusion depend on? What are the
particular concerns that might make us pessimistic or optimistic about the future of
the G20? In this evaluation, the answers of these questions will be addressed and
discussed with respect to the present and future of world economy and Turkish
economy. 2
G-20 2012 Mexico Summit Agenda and Turkey
The original G7 group was formed in 1976 by the United States of America in the
midst of the two major oil crises in the 1970s, and comprised Germany, Japan, Great
Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Upon Russia’s entry to the group in 1998, it
became the G8, and in 1999 (following the crises in far-eastern Asia and Russia)
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union joined, transforming it to the
G20. Such international institutions have always come together for the essential
purpose of finding joint solutions to worldwide economic and/or political problems.
They meet at a variety of different settings and at varying frequencies, using political
coordination between their member countries to weather international crises.
1 The Author; would like to thank contributors to the “G20 Information Meetings” organized by the
Republic of Turkey’s Treasury Undersecretariat in 2011-1012 in Ankara, and to the meeting titled
“Towards Los Cabos: Mexico in the G20 and Turkey’s Role” held in TEPAV on 5 June 2012
(Source: He is indebted to the information generated at these
meetings, and to the contributions made by the speakers and analysts, some of which have indirectly
benefited this article. (Ankara, 17 June 2012)
2 According to Larionova (2011), it is possible to say that between G8 and G20, there is a division of
tasks in terms of what has been discussed and proposed as solutions to the existing problems during
the summits. While topics such as development, political issues, energy, security and environment
are covered in G8 agenda, in G20 summits, the focus is mostly on finance, economics, development,
trade and energy.
The G20 group failed to serve as a sufficient and active organization in the years
between 1999 and 2008. However, in 2008 the members of the group began to form a
tighter coalition, following the financial and economic crisis which started in the U.S.
and swiftly spread to other countries of the developed world. The U.S. in particular
encouraged an increasing frequency of meetings between member countries. The G20
countries met in Washington (the USA)3 from 14-15th November 2008, in London
(UK)4 on 2nd April 2009, from 24-25th September 2009 in Pittsburgh (the USA)5, and
in Toronto (Canada) 6 from 26-27th June 2012. During these meetings, they
determined the structure and the content of the agenda for the following years.7
Following these meetings, the G20 countries also met in the Seoul8 from 11-12th
November 2010 during South Korea’s presidency, and then in Cannes9 on 3-4th
November 2011 under France’s leadership.
During the summit of 18-19th June 2012 in Los Cabos, under Mexico’s presidency,
the current agenda10 ,as determined in previous years, will be pursued according to
Mexico’s own prioritization. This agenda, in summary covers the topics such as; 1)
economic stability and structural reforms as fundamentals of economic growth and
employment 2) strengthening the financial system to promote economic growth and
promoting financial access, 3) improving the structure of international financial
systems in a world where world economies are interconnected, 4) strengthening the
food security and reducing the fluctuation in commodity prices, 5) the promotion of
sustainable development, ‘green’ growth and ways of dealing with climate change.
These key points will be discussed according to the prior preparations made in the
course of November 2011 to June 2011, and the group will try to reach important
joint decisions and make national targets for them.
3 “The Action Plan to Implement Principles of Reform” that was adopted in 2008 summit can be
found on this page:
4 The agenda pamphlet prepared by the British Treasury in 2009 which proposes the issues to be
addressed at at the summit can be found on, and
the G20 Summit Commitments issued by the G20 leaders can be found on:
5 The G20 Summit Commitments of Pittsburgh (2009) can be found on:
6 The G10 Summit Commitments of Toronto (2010) can be found on:
7 G20 takes place in a manner in which firstly the presidency sets an annual agenda which was
followed by a detailed preparation and meeting process and the leaders’ summit. According to the
decisions taken in the summit, countries make some commitments which are put into practice at a
national level. Afterwards, this process is being observed and evaluated.
8 The agenda pamphlet prepared in Seoul in 2010 can be found on
20_Seoul_summit. The Summit Commitments and the Action Plan are on:
9 The agenda pamphlet prepared in Cannes can be found on
french-presidency.75.html, The Summit Commitments can be found on:
10 See. and/or
The Secretariat of the Treasury, who is in preparation for the summit at Los Cabos,
has grouped its activities under the following categories:
(1) Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth
(2) International Financial Structure
(3) Reforms to the Financial Sector and Spread to the Financial Substructure
(4) Energy and Commodity Markets
(5) Governance of Disaster Risk
(6) International Trade (Escape from Economic Protection and the Conclusion to
Negotiations Regarding …?)
(7) The Social Impact of Employment and Globalization
(8) Fighting Corruption
(9) Money Laundering and Fighting the Funding of Terrorism
(10) Development (Food Security, Infrastructure and Green Growth)
Since the first of these areas will focus on the financial problems and the inability to
create growth and employment in the developed economies (resulting from the fact
that current global financial-economic crisis is stemming from a United States and
European Union core), this situation might lead to internal struggles of the leaders of
the developed economies, as well as a general lack of negotiation (especially
considering the short-term negative impact of current Eurozone crisis on the agenda
in Mexico), particularly between the US and China. Therefore, it is possible that the
outcome will be far weaker and more vague than expected. 11
If decisive steps are not taken at the G20 conference with regards to reforming the
international financial structure and overhauling economic organization, then the
responsibility for future international financial crises- for failing to prevent or predict
them- will, of course, lie mainly on the shoulders of the leaders of the G20 countries.
As for the issues of development, or rather for the “green growth for sustainable
development” and “food security”, as well as for the “instability in energy prices”,
these in my opinion must be discussed at Los Cabos, and if necessary must be among
the most important topics up for discussion at future G20 summits. Due to its
geographical location, Turkey is one of the countries likely to be most affected by the
11 “Sustainable growth” objective that is mentioned here mostly focuses on designing and coordinating
necessary fiscal and monetary policies and increasing demand and employment to create a way-out
from the financial-economic crisis (or to prevent a new crisis). Because, the concept of “sustainable
growth” in the first objective is different from the concepts of “sustainable development” and “green
growth” in the other objectives which put an emphasis on the well-being and presence of global
ecological system.
negative consequences of global warming and climate change, and so I predict that
Turkey will, during its presidency in 2015, put particular emphasis on these issues.
When the international crisis eased off a little in 2010, it seemed that the concomitant
anxieties regarding international trade protection also decreased. Yet as the Evenett
protection report, which was published on 14 June 2012 using the data of Global
Trade Alert ( Databank, shows, complaints arising from the
intensification of protectionist measures in trade (both in public and private sectors)
have actually increased. Furthermore, according to the report, G20 countries are
responsible for most of the protectionist measures starting from November 2008. For
this reason, the G20 countries clearly need to make joint decisions as soon as possible
in order to reduce the protectionism, and to do this without waiting for action from the
WTO member- countries outside of G20. Because, there is no empirical evidence
understating the benefits of free trade on the path to international sustainable
development. On the contrary, the one-off increase in prosperity which will arise from
opening up the world’s economies is a precondition for the increase in the wealth of
poorer countries, insufficient though it may be. In fact, there are strong findings in the
economics literature showing that the improvement of institutions and development in
technology in open economies will increase prosperity and development.
As for the governance of risk disaster, which has been brought to forefront by
Mexico’s own preference, Turkey is expected to share its own experiences with other
countries based on a scientific report. The problem is that it may not be realistic to
expect or request the discussion of such issues at G20 conferences in the future due to
their secondary nature. This is because the G20’s contemporary agenda is already
significantly occupied by many urgent and important matters.
A Few (Likely) Organizational Problems at the G20 Summit
One of the first problems which come to attention about the G20 summit in Mexico,
and one which I touched upon earlier, is the fact that the president country has held its
presidency for significantly less than the usual 10-12 month period, thanks to the
political concerns of politicians in the president country. I personally believe that such
arbitrary decisions should be avoided at future summits. This random approach is
likely to have a negative effect on the future effectiveness and activity of the G20.
A second organizational issue, which ought not to be downplayed, is the fact that
some of the official websites detailing previous summits (as happened to the websites
of Britain’s presidency in 2009 and South Korea’s presidency in 2010) have later
been taken offline. Although it is claimed that the contents of these websites were
transferred to the next-term presidencies and most details of the G20 are generally
available on the Toronto Information Centre’s website anyway
(, I still believe that websites set up by the president countries
should be protected as both a simple and useful means of accessing information.
A third problem concerns the fact that there are plans for another important meeting
immediately following the G20 summit in June 2012. Following the preliminary
meetings that begin on the 13th June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, leaders and
representatives of 193 countries from the public and private sector will be meeting on
the 20-22nd June 2012 at the “Rio+20 Worldwide Summit” ( to
discuss “Sustainable Development”. This summit is a continuation of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCED which was first set
up in 1992, and is a 20-year anniversary of this first meeting. The 10-year anniversary
was observed in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in
The main aim of the Rio+20 Worldwide Summit is “to push” the world economy to
the path of “sustainable development” 12 , following the successful efforts and
developments in this field over the last 20 years. It is hoped that at the meeting the
governments will come up with practical preventative measures based on clear and
fixed objectives in order to ensure sustainable development. It is only through this
way we can fight poverty without damaging the environment. Turkey’s Ministry of
Development has prepared a draft agenda to be pursued at the Rio+20 summit. This
includes (1) Development of energy, food and nutrition security in poor countries (2)
The gradual decrease of fossil fuel subsidies and (3) Increasing the measures required
to protect oceans. However according to the BBC13 and other news sources, it seems
that there is no firm consensus on the details of the agreement emerging from the
preparatory meetings in Rio as of 16th June 2012.
Yet the issues of “Green Development” and “Sustainable Development” remain part
of the agenda for the G20 countries, if in reduced form. The fact that there is no real
break between the two summits, and the existence of various disagreements, delays
and lengthy diplomatic negotiations prior to signing a new international agreement at
the Rio+20 summit can be seen as a bad luck for G20 Summit.
Two Factual Facts about G20
I believe that at least these two facts should be kept in mind while evaluating the
activities, performance and the future of G20:
(1) The G20’s activities must be conducted in an environment of complex and
simultaneous financial, public debt, international trade, ecology (global
warming and climate change), energy, food and poverty/hunger crisis since
2006. 14
The reason why G20 has become more active starting from 2008 is the need to
form a force against the financial crisis that started in the US in the years
12 In the context of UNCSD, sustainable development, is defined as a development model which meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. On the other hand, as the Ministry of Development states on
(, international organizations and platforms such as OECD and
UNEP define green growth or green economy as a concept that prioritize the investment and the
consumption of goods and services that promote environmental improvements.
13 Source: ve
14 For a detailed analysis of components of the current global economic crisis, Kibritçioğlu (2011a and
2011 b) can be consulted. In these two studies, it is claimed that the current global economic
problems cannot be reduced to the USA and EU level financial crises and that the crisis has a more
complicated and multidimensional structure.
2006-2007 and spread to the rest of the world in 2008. However, the attempts
to create a political coordination among countries and to fight the Great
Recession force G20 to take a larger number of issues to the agenda than
normally planned due to the complex variety of factors which create and
nurture the global economic crisis environment. This fact is creating an
inevitable concentration and diversification pressure on the G20 agenda.
Furthermore, the current crisis environment in the global economy created a
need among economists to replace the dominant “new classical” approach
which Furthermore, the complex worldwide financial crisis of the years 2006-
2012 has created a strong and urgent need for a new economic approach to
replace traditional “new classical” approach, which made “the use of complex
mathematics and econometrics an objective rather than a tool
The debate between orthodox and heterodox economics which is gaining
popularity thanks to the contemporary financial crisis has not yet had a
sufficient (positive) impact on the curricula of the economics departments in
universities. However, I hope it is acknowledged that there is a need to apply
interdisciplinary approach to economics in which institutions, ecological
system and history will be three fundamental cornerstones.
Table 1: G20 Agenda (2008-2012) and Major Interest/Action Topics of International Organizations and Platforms
International Organizations and Platforms Selected Major Topics from the G20 Agenda (2008-2012)
Year of Foundation
Number of
Members / Parties
Trade Liberalization
and Anti-
Global Trade
Climate Change
Green Growth
Food Security
Energy Supply
Global Governance
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) 1960 34
World Bank (WB/IBRD) 1944 188
International Monetary Fund (IMF) 1944 188
World Trade Organization (WTO) 1995 155
UN Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) 1964 194
UN Conference on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD) 1992 193
UN United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) 1972 193
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1992 194
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 1988 195
International Energy Agency (IEA) 1974 28
UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) 1943 191
Bank for International Settlements (BIS) 1930 60
Source: the author.
(2) On the other hand, it may be the case that the main issues regarding the G20’s
present and future actually stem from the fact that agenda of the G20 summit
span the aims of a variety of different worldwide/international groups and
platforms. This situation has been summarized with the help of selected major
topics from the agenda and organizations in Table 1. The overlap between the
main interest areas of organizations and platforms detailed in the rows of the
table and the contemporary agenda worked on by the G20 between 2008 and
2012 has been demonstrated in the “black” boxes. Only the G20 issues
considered “relatively minor” by the OECD have been shown in “grey” boxes
in the Table. If the same method were applied to other organizations and
platforms, the areas of overlap in the table would also increase.
Table 1 demonstrates the degree to which the G20 is engaged in “role
stealing” from a variety of international organizations and platforms, and this
highlights an important point with respect to the performance of the G20. It
may be thought that because the G20 consists of relatively fewer countries
than the other organizations and platforms, it can take decisions about its main
concerns and aims in a straightforward and swift manner compared to the
other broader organizations. But this phenomenon also implies that the
decisions and actions taken by the G20 will be meaningful if only they are
supported and accepted by organizations and platforms with a broader
participatory base. This two-way reality has a great significance with regard to
the determination of the G20’s agenda and the organization’s performance.
Some Issues and Flaws about the G20 Meeting 2012, Mexico
Now, we can put aside the organizational issues which I touched upon earlier and,
bearing in mind the two factual proofs I outlined, we can look more closely at the
various issues, weaknesses, uncertainties or potential strengths within the G20
The excessive complexity and lack of consistency and realistic approach within the
G20, At the G20 summits, a wide variety of issues are discussed simultaneously
through a number of concentrated discussions of the agenda. It is therefore not an
unlikely conjecture that this diversity and complexity will have a negative effect on
the G20’s success rate. When determining the G20’s contemporary agenda, the
following issues need to be taken into account. (1) The importance of the issues (2)
their urgency and (3) the expectancy of reaching to a conclusion in a short or long
time. Therefore, it is important to have a realistic approach to the summit’s goals, and
to avoid the following topics for the good of the G20 countries and the worldwide
economy, namely (1) Issues which appear to be of less importance (2) Issues which
appear to be less urgent and (3) Issues which can only be resolved with difficulty and
15 For a detailed evaluation, criticism and discussion on G20 organization, actions and future:
Eichengreen ve Baldwin (derl.) (2008), Qureshi (2010), Larionova (2011), Bijian (2011), Stiglitz
(2011), Spence (2011), Roubini (2011), Moyo (2011), Bremmer and Roubini (2011), Bremmer
(2012) ile Dadusch and Suominen (2012)
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
over a longer period of time. Yet it is rather difficult to agree that the G20 has been
successful in these areas to date. 16
Contemporary issues invading the agenda of the summit. It is often the case that a
number of important developments in the world economy or in regional politics has a
tendency to infiltrate the agenda of the G20 Summits and shift the discussions which
were planned earlier towards contemporary developments. For example, at the
summit in Toronto (2009), the main issue under discussion was “the fiscal crises of
developed countries”, in Seoul (2010) it was that period’s “currency wars” and in
Cannes (2011) it was “the Eurozone crisis”. It is predicted that the Eurozone issues
will also make their mark on the agenda at Los Cabos (2012). The debt crisis, which
deepened with the internal political conflict in Greece, the financial crisis which could
not be postponed/avoided anymore in Spain and the expextancy of a new debt crisis in
Italy led to the arguments concerning a fiscal union, banking union and political union
withing the EU throughout the first half of 2012 It is clear that such sudden
developments should not spoil the agenda during the presidency of Russia17, Australia
and Turkey following that of Mexico.
Should the president country’s influence on the priorities of the summit be limited?
The fact that the president country and the initiative of its leaders are primarily
responsible for the determination of the summit’s priorities can sometimes disrupt the
continuity of the G20’s structural tendencies and the time it takes to come to decisions
(for example, France under Sarkozy). As the fact that 7-9 of the G20 countries are
having or are about to hold elections during 2012 implies, the changes in country
leadership may also have negative effects on the summit- even if they are only minor.
This point must not be allowed to limit the long-term presence and significance of the
Some of the natural limitations faced by the G20. Even if the countries of the G20 can
agree among themselves about some of the contemporary agenda, they still may not
be able to come up with worldwide solutions to them. The best example of this might
be the decisions which can be taken at the G20 summits about “the international trade
of goods and services”, a topic which falls into the remit of the World Trade
Organization. Such decisions require the final say from the WTO, and there is little
real point in discussing and reaching conclusions about such topics at the G20, as
decisions made at WTO meetings require unanimous approval from member
16 The problems which can(and should) be solved at national levels with political decisions and
practices of countries’ own policies are taking too much place at G20 agenda. This leads to an
overload of topics. As in the case of unfair competition against Turkey which is created by new-
developing countries as a result of not complying (enough) with ILO rules, if this problem is
mentioned on the ILO platform instead of G20, then this overload of topics and role stealing of G20
will be prevented
17 According to Reuters (15/06/2012), 2013 G20 summit is expected to be held in St. Petersburg on
05/09. It is also stated that, Russia will be focusing on the performance of the commitments by the
G20 members about budget deficit policies, decreasing the debts and reforming the voting rules on
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
As the worldwide Great Recession resides, there will be a greater disparity in the
mutual interests of the developed and developing countries in the G20. It is generally
accepted by many economists that swift and successful responses to the international
crisis were made at the Washington (November 2008) and London (April 2009)
meetings. This was done through the discussion of (1) Joint financial and fiscal
development (2) The provision of extra funds to the IMF and (3) The creation of new
laws for the financial sector. The problem is that as the effects of the global financial
crisis ease off, there will increasingly be a disparity in the interests of the developed
and developing countries of the G20. Many observers have frequently suggested that
these changes will reduce the effectiveness of the G20. This loss of enthusiasm and
disintegration of shared interests, if it does happen, may create a crisis of presence and
significance of the entire G20 group, especially in the view of the countries which are
about to take the presidency of the G20. From this point of view, as I touched upon
before, it is of paramount importance that all the member countries continue to desire
to make a significant contribution to the interests of the G20. If not, the G20 may be
condemned to staying idle until the next major global crisis.
Should the structural organization of the G20 be changed? This question arises
perhaps as a natural result of the issues touched upon above, and may beg the question
as to whether the G20 requires a fixed secretariat, like the one which was formed
when the GATT was transformed into the WTO. However, this possibility will not be
considered by the G20 members probably because of the risks of “role stealing” from
other organizations and platforms, as well as of “bureaucratic inertia”.
The commitments of the G20 countries and the observation of their fulfillment, or lack
of it. As far as the decisions made at the G20 summits are concerned, the number of
commitments made by the member countries is far less important than how many of
them are fulfilled, and in which timescale.18This point is of vital importance with
regards to both the performance of the G20 and the way it is perceived from the
outside. Although there are periodic reports prepared to hold the G20 countries
accountable to their national commitments, yet there is (for now) no institution in
place for those countries who fail to uphold their commitments, and this might be a
useful change for the future of the G20.
Is the lack of a leader country in the G20 a problem? It is a contention commonly
made and is trying to be proved by economists, political theorists and historians that
the worldwide economic power is shifting from the U.S. to countries like China and
India. According to polls conducted in 14 countries by telephone or face-to-face by
the Pew Research Centre ( in 2008, the dominant belief is that China
is the “leading economic force in the world” (Rampell, 2012). Furthermore, according
to the estimate of The Economist Online (2011), China may indeed overtake the U.S.
in terms of its Gross Domestic Product in the very near future, possibly 2018-2021.
But in contrast to this tendency neither the U.S., nor China or any other powerful
country has been able to undertake the responsibilities of “leadership” in the past as
they have been expected to do so. As a result of this, the economist Nouriel Roubini
and the political theorist Ian Bremmer have been referring to this international
18 a comparative quantitative analysis on this issue : Larionova (2011)
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
political and economic governance as “G-Zero World” since the beginning of 2011. 19
They believe that during this period – which they think will be “temporary”-, the G20
will- as a result of a greater number of countries being admitted, and their interests
becoming increasingly diverse- become a leaderless platform for “lack of
compromise”, instead of one for solutions. They contend that this deficit or lack of
“cooperation leadership” is postponing and making more difficult to solve the global
economic problems. Furthermore, according to the writers, the economic actors
around the world (especially large companies) are waiting for this political and
economic uncertainty to be over, while hoping that it is temporary. However the
longer they “wait” (for example before making new or additional investments), the
deeper and bigger will be the impacts of this new (temporary) order on the global
There is no expectation that the G20 leaders who will come together from 18-19 June
2012 in Mexico will be able to solve this issue of “cooperation leadership”. In fact, it
seems that this issue will continue to effect G20 summits in the future.
Concluding Remarks
In the existing complex global economic and political atmosphere, it seems that the
G20 organisation’s job is rather a difficult one, especially when one considers the
questions and problems detailed in this report. Yet the fact remains that the G20
countries can take some steps towards solving or at least lightening some important
and urgent issues that may concern the activities of other international organisations
and platforms.
Turkey puts an important political emphasis on the G20 group. For this reason, we
may contend that Turkey is a more active participant in the G20 than many other of its
member countries. As a result of its political interest and willingness, Turkey will be
the host country of the preparatory meetings of the G20 in 2015 and, ultimately, will
host the leaders’ summit. As it prepares for its presidential term, Turkey, like Russia
and Australia, should bear in mind all the points that have been drawn to our attention
in this paper. In this way, Turkey may be able to learn some lessons from the mistakes
of the inability to create a successful agenda with respect to continuity, urgency,
importance and selectiveness between terms as well as of inability of some
countries/leaders in fulfilling their tasks. It is of great importance for Turkey to start
preparations for the 2015 summit early, to be careful, realistic and selective when
determining the summit’s agenda in order to maintain a successful summit.
During this term it will also be most suitable for Turkey to give a primary importance
to the issue of “green growth for sustainable development from an environmental
perspective” with a long-term approach on national and global levels. If the G20
countries, who have a big share on production and trade of international goods and
services, decide to work together, this will have a huge positive impact on the
inevitable transformation process in the global energy system, the fight against global
warming, poverty and hunger
19 See. Bremmer and Roubini (2011), Roubini (2011) and Bremmer (2012).
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
But it is important to make one thing clear, namely that if the issues of “a new
financial structure” and “the reform of financial organisations” (which seem to be
solvable more quickly compared to other topics), are not brought to a concrete
solution during the presidencies of Mexico, Russia and Australia, they may even
infiltrate the agenda of the G20 in 2015. In this respect, it is clear that big steps on
financial issues are needed to be taken in Mexico.
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
Bijian, Zheng (2011): “Toward a Global Convergence of Interests”, New Perspectives
Quarterly, 28(2): 15–17.
Bremmer, Ian (2012): Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.
Portfolio (Penguin).
Bremmer, Ian, ve Nouriel Roubini (2011): “A G-Zero World: The New Economic Club Will
Produce Conflict, Not Cooperation”, Foreign Affairs, 90(2): 2–7.
Dadush, Uri ve Kati Suominen (2012): “Is There Life for the G20 Beyond the Global Financial
Crisis?”, Journal of Globalization and Development, 2(2): Article 7.
Eichengreen, Barry, ve Richard Baldwin (derl.) (2008): What G20 Leaders Must Do To
Stabilise Our Economy and Fix the Financial System. Londra: Centre for Economic Policy
Research (CEPR) &
Evenett, Simon J. (derl.) (2012): Débâcle: The 11th GTA Report on Protectionism. Londra:
Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (2011a): “2006-2011 Küresel Ekonomik Krizinin Bileşenleri ve
Karmaşıklığı”, İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, Sayı 9 (Temmuz): 30–34.
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (2011b): “Avro Bölgesi Ülkelerindeki Güncel ‘Borç Krizi’”, İktisat ve
Toplum Dergisi, Sayı 10 (Ağustos): 30–41.
Larionova, Marina (2010), “Assessing G8 and G20 Effectiveness in Global Governance So
Far”, International Organisations Research Journal, 5(31): 99–120. Güncelleştirilmiş
versiyonu (2011)
Moyo, Dambisa (2011): “How to Get America Back on Track”, New Perspectives Quarterly,
28(2): 31–33.
Rampell, Catherine (2012): “Putting China’s Economic Power in Perspective”, The New York
Times (EconoMix), 15 June.
Roubini, Nouriel (2011): “It Is a G-Zero, Not a G-20, World”, New Perspectives Quarterly,
28(2): 27–30.
Qureshi, Z. (2010): “G20: Global Growth and Development Agenda”, International
Organisations Research Journal, 5(31): 25–30.
Spence, Michael (2011): “The Middle Income Transition in China and America’s Need for
Structural Change”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 21–26.
Stiglitz, Joe (2011): “Where the G-20 Stands”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 18–21.
©2012 ResearchTurkey The Present and Future of G20
Prof. Dr.
The Economist Online (2011): “The Dating Game”, 27 December.
Truman, Edwin M. (2012): “The G-20 Is Failing”, Op-ed in Foreign Policy, 14 April.
Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey)
For general enquiries, contact
For sending articles and papers, contact
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
The Components and Complexity of the Global Economic Crisis of 2006-2011 In this short paper, it is mainly argued that the current global economic crisis (2006-2011) consists not only of the US financial crisis of 2006-2007 which has been globalized since fall 2008. The world economy has also been hit by the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, rising energy prices, two successive food crises, increases in poverty and hunger, and severe ecological problems within a very short period of time since 2006. All of these components are closely linked to each other, so that they increase the complexity of the current crisis that is still persisting, although their relative contributions are continuously changing with the passing time. Özet: Son beş yılda dünya ekonomisinde yaşanan “kriz”, sadece Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki konut finansman piyasasında 2006-07’de hızla gelişip patlak veren ve özellikle 2008 sonbaharından itibaren küreselleşen “Büyük Durgunluk”tan oluşmuyor. Bu kısa makalede; dünya daha önce eşine pek rastlanılmamış karmaşıklıkta bir finans, ticaret, borç, küresel ısınma, enerji, gıda ve yoksulluk/açlık krizi ile yüz yüze olduğumuz görüşünden hareketle, küresel ekonomik krizin temel uluslararası bileşenlerinin neler olduğunun kısaca sergilenmesi ve bu kriz(ler)i besleyen ve karmaşıklaştıran kaynakların birbirleriyle olası etkileşim kanallarının neler olduğunun kabaca (ve şematik olarak) özetlenmesi hedefleniyor.
The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the executive committee of globalization as the emerging and advanced economies came together in the wake of the Wall Street crash to stave off depression. Now, each country is going its own way. In this section we examine whether the G-20 can be saved, and what the countries within it must do to bring the global economy into balance.
The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the executive committee of globalization as the emerging and advanced economies came together in the wake of the Wall Street crash to stave off depression. Now, each country is going its own way.In this section we examine whether the G-20 can be saved, and what the countries within it must do to bring the global economy into balance.
The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the executive committee of globalization as the emerging and advanced economies came together in the wake of the Wall Street crash to stave off depression. Now, each country is going its own way.In this section we examine whether the G-20 can be saved, and what the countries within it must do to bring the global economy into balance.
The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the executive committee of globalization as the emerging and advanced economies came together in the wake of the Wall Street crash to stave off depression. Now, each country is going its own way. In this section we examine whether the G-20 can be saved, and what the countries within it must do to bring the global economy into balance.
The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the executive committee of globalization as the emerging and advanced economies came together in the wake of the Wall Street crash to stave off depression. Now, each country is going its own way. In this section we examine whether the G-20 can be saved, and what the countries within it must do to bring the global economy into balance.