The current media discourse around the G20 summit can broadly be divided into two camps: There are those who are critical of the agenda because it neglects issues such as climate change and international development; and there are those who doubt whether any substantive agreement can be reached amongst such a diverse set of nations with diverse interests. A worrying trend lamented by both camps is the 47 major measures to restrict trade which have been implemented by several countries since the last G20 leaders’ summit in Washington.
What is missing from the discourse and what underpins all of these concerns is the endogenous nature of the global financial crisis. Whiles Keynesianism has regained popularity of late, most advocates have overlooked the social quality of Keynes’ assumptions. Keynes’ writings stress that economic stability requires coordination through shared conventions. Following this line of argument, recovery from the crisis depends on whether leaders are successful in ensuring their respective constituencies attach similar meaning to the crisis. Thus, if the G20 should fail to agree on comprehensive systemic changes to financial regulation as well as trade, development and climate issues, it will be because the norms and values of their constituencies remain significantly divergent and have therefore not kept pace with global interdependency.
As each G20 electorate attaches a different meaning to the financial crisis, normative constraints limit the ability of leaders to reform and strengthen the global governance architecture. Similarly, one reason international development has been largely left off the G20 agenda might be because since the end of the Cold War there has been significant normative disagreement on what obligations wealthy nations have toward the developing world. Again, such disagreement (evidenced in variation amongst DAC member states to adopt and implement the UN Millennium Development Goals) stems from cross-national variation in the ‘median voter’s’ understanding of development.
I believe it is essential that the G20 leaders at the London summit give time and thought to what steps their respective governments can take to create a shared meaning of the crisis amongst their electorates. This demands that leaders stop shifting responsibility onto one country or one ideological system (for example in Japan the crisis is referred to as the US financial crisis). Furthermore, leaders must make a concerted effort to engender cosmopolitan public values as part of the national identity of their constituencies. Such values must inherently reject protectionism, support solidarity with the developing world, and recognize that all people on earth share the same climate. While progress on this front may be slow and may even require generational change, it will nevertheless be critical for the future of the global system. Moreover, if the aim of the G20 summit is to not only promote recovery during the current crisis, but also to prevent such crises from occurring again, cultural engineering through social marketing and the teaching of multilateralism in school curricula is fundamental to this goal.
The salience of the G20 forum speaks to the fact that the world has shifted back to a mutlipolar world. Thus, power should no longer be associated with hegemonic states but rather socially constructed knowledge. Indeed our ability to overcome the detrimental actions of non-state actors – regardless of whether they are jihadists, carbon-polluting corporations or derivatives traders – will be determined by our ability to create a shared meaning of global interdependency.
