South Africa at the G20 Table and the Limits of the New Multilateralism
Date
2011-04-18
Authors
Hunt, Deborah Margaret
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Over the last ten years, global governance arrangements have changed. This is
particularly so in the global economic governance arena, which has tended to
outstrip political governance. A number of multilateral institutions, alongside the G-
8 and the more recently established G-20, focus on issues of economic and financial
stability, but these currently operate largely outside the framework of the UN.
Arguments for ‘the new multilateralism’ claim that the ‘old multilateralism’, with the
UN and its 192 members as the benchmark, was unwieldy and performed poorly by
standards of efficiency and effectiveness. Decisions and gaining agreement simply
took too long. It is in this context that the G-20 forum arose. A `step up’ from the G-8,
the forum brings together the most systemically significant economies. Within this
grouping, only one country from Africa was selected to participate.
The research questions whether this club or the form of network governance that is
expressed through the G-20 is the right one for addressing issues related to economic
and financial governance. The UN itself as core `securitising actor’ has recognised
that human security, as it relates to other challenges such as sustainable
development, climate change and poverty, must also inform global collective actions
and the solutions brokered in the 21st century. In the same way, economic and
financial governance should perhaps take greater account of social outcomes,
lending more weight to social justice and equity concerns.
The exclusion or marginalisation of poorer countries, particularly African countries,
from decision-making in the multilateral institutions, such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organisation
(WTO), means that asymmetric relations of power are reinforced. As a block, these
institutions become powerful actors on the world stage, but their lack of
4
South Africa at the G-20 Table and the Limits of the New Multilateralism - Deborah Hunt - 8606500d
4
transparency, openness and governance arrangements show them up to be deeply
flawed. As long as they remain unreformed, they are defined by their democratic
deficit.
A central question within this research is whether the G-20 is any better or can be
any better as a soft law, informal forum.
An examination of the deliberative performance of the G-20 will explore these
questions and will seek to outline what the implications of its performance mean not
for the most powerful, but for Africa which has historically lagged behind the rest of
the world in terms of development, the reduction of poverty and widening levels of
inequality. The G-20 mandate has been that it should promote financial stability and
growth for all. (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether the G-20 has been
meeting its mandate in terms of technical financial and economic variables only, the
research assesses the G-20’s performance in terms of equity and social justice. The
litmus test in broad terms is whether the forum has helped to progress in any way
social issues, such as those mentioned above, in relation to Africa.
If the G-20 remains a forum that relegates Africa to the status of `rule-taker’ (as is the
case with many of the multilateral institutions, and more particularly the Bretton
Woods Institutions or BWIs), then the limits to the `new multilateralism’ show that
the `new’ is very much like the `old’. Currently, only one African country, South
Africa, is a permanent member of the G-20.
The research posits that global governance arrangements - where multiple centres of
power are often in competition rather than working co-operatively on the same
global issues - require a marrying of Type I governance and Type II governance to
ensure that equitable outcomes are achieved, and that Africa, in particular, is repositioned
at the table with the rule-makers.
5
South Africa at the G-20 Table and the Limits of the New Multilateralism - Deborah Hunt - 8606500d
5
Drawing on Higgott (2004), Type I governance is seen as being governance that is
concerned with co-ordinating action efficiently and effectively on a technical level,
while Type II governance can be seen to be concerned with the broader social
dimensions of decision-making and democratic representation.
As the UN framework is strong on Type II governance, the research will explore
recommendations on how the G-20 might be revisioned to bring Type I and Type II
governance strengths within the UN framework, so that ultimately poorer nations -
excluded currently by the barrier of economic weight within the G-20 forum - will
participate and have greater voice in decision-making processes that impact the
achievement of broader developmental and social outcomes. Linked to this, the
paper explores what mechanisms might be put in place to `bridge’ the divide
between formal treaty-based organisations such as the UN and informal networks,
which are typically unaccountable and lacking in legitimacy by virtue of their
exclusiveness. The G-20 is one such network gaining prominence due to its elevation
in 2008 to Leaders’ level and the global financial and economic crisis of 2008/9.
Description
MM - P&DM
Keywords
Multilateralism, Global governance