Comments on: Questions for the G20: A crisis response or real governance change? http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/11/questions-for-the-g20-a-crisis-response-or-real-governance-change/ from the Global Economic Governance Programme at the University of Oxford Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:32:39 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: James Kondo, Vice Chairman and President, Health Policy Institute, Japan http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/11/questions-for-the-g20-a-crisis-response-or-real-governance-change/comment-page-1/#comment-6675 James Kondo, Vice Chairman and President, Health Policy Institute, Japan Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:52:36 +0000 http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/?p=602#comment-6675 I agree with your observation that much is still to be determined, and a fundamental question is "is this good for the world - including those not represented in the G20". If one looks at the share of GDP, trade, banking activities, CO2 emissions - it is clear that you need a G20-like organization to get anything substantive done. G8 is simply too small a share of these measures to affect a meaningful change in economic, financial, or climate change discussions. Global Health is different in that G8 countries constitute 85% plus of health related ODA. This raises a few issues: - Why bother increasing members for ODA discussions unless G20 countries chip in additional resources? - Is it meaningful to talk only about ODA? If we took health spending, G8 would constitute a much smaller share. Thus, issues of health system strengthening, pandemic preparedness, intellectual property, chronic disease management etc may make sense to discuss. - Even if global health retains its focus on ODA, and G8 actually makes more sense as a grouping, is it realistic to assume that health carries such a weight within the overall global issues as to effect institutional shift from G8 to G20? I agree with your observation that much is still to be determined, and a fundamental question is “is this good for the world – including those not represented in the G20″.

If one looks at the share of GDP, trade, banking activities, CO2 emissions – it is clear that you need a G20-like organization to get anything substantive done. G8 is simply too small a share of these measures to affect a meaningful change in economic, financial, or climate change discussions.

Global Health is different in that G8 countries constitute 85% plus of health related ODA.

This raises a few issues:
- Why bother increasing members for ODA discussions unless G20 countries chip in additional resources?

- Is it meaningful to talk only about ODA? If we took health spending, G8 would constitute a much smaller share. Thus, issues of health system strengthening, pandemic preparedness, intellectual property, chronic disease management etc may make sense to discuss.

- Even if global health retains its focus on ODA, and G8 actually makes more sense as a grouping, is it realistic to assume that health carries such a weight within the overall global issues as to effect institutional shift from G8 to G20?

]]>