Book Review - Regulating Globalisation: Critical Approaches to Global Governance

Book Review
Regulating Globalisation: Critical Approaches to Global Governance
Pierre de Senarclens and Ali Kazancigli (eds); United Nations University Press, 2007


A vast amount of literature is produced on the issue of Globalisation. But most of it ends up limiting itself to either being a votary of globalisation or takes a critical view of globalisation and argues in favour of the wider category called the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement. The book Regulating Globalisation: Critical Approaches to Globalisation moves beyond this limitation. It undertakes a rigorous theoretical engagement with Globalisation and its interface with the categories of state, citizenship, regionalism, governance and global governance.

At the outset, the title of the book appears paradoxical. How can something as widespread, diffused and free-flowing thing like globalisation be regulated? But the paradox is resolved as we go through the various essays in this book. The book does not question the process of globalisation, it rather sees it as an inevitable phenomenon. Based on this assumption, it argues that the root of globalisation is political. And it is through ‘politics’ that globalisation can be ‘managed’, the inequalities that it creates can be mitigated. This forms the main argument of this book.

The arguments made in this book become all the more relevant in the current financial crisis. When the G20 convened in December to deal with the financial crisis, two diverse views dominated the proceedings. The EU, led by the enthusiastic French President Nicholas Sarkozy, argued for creating global regulatory mechanisms that would help curb irregularities in financial matters (specifically in case of capital movement). The other view was espoused by USA, which was averse to any global regulatory mechanism and wanted national regulators to deal with the financial matters in their respective countries. Between this debate are the core concerns regarding the role of state, the growing importance of non-state actors and rising dominance of private capital. In all this the ‘global’ space is becoming less and less democratic, common citizens are being left out.

This is dealt by Virgile Perret in his essay- ‘Financial Globalisation, “global governance” and the erosion of democracy.’ He argues that ‘global governance[1]’ discourse is used to conceal the erosion of democracy.’ Perret argues that the ‘embedded liberalism’ that emerged after the Second World War slowly gave away to a ‘internationalisation of banking’ fuelled by the 1973 oil shocks. This process was accompanied by ‘disintermediation, securitisation and the rise of private institutional channels of credit.’ Disintermediation refers to the decline of the traditional role of the banks as intermediaries between borrowers and lenders, whereas securitisation broadly describes the process by which financial intermediation has been moving banks to capital markets. Specifically, securitisation refers to transformation of traditional bank assets like mortgages into marketable instruments- this rings the bell of the origin of the current financial mess, the sub-prime crisis in USA. In such cases the role of rating agencies becomes important, and this business is dominated by handful of firms, the main being Moodys and S&P. All this has aided financial globalisation, and this given ‘structural power’ to private bodies argues Perret. States now compete with each other to attract capital and thus get dictated by private capital interest- more so the developing countries. The short term movement of capital undermines the roots of democracy. Moreover, the market forces privilege the already privileged-the elite. Perret makes a forceful and theoretically sound argument to expose the ‘undemocratic’ nature financial globalisation.

The decline and modification of the state as an institution forms an important part of studies on globalisation. The liberal approach to International Relations has even termed state sovereignty as anachronous, challenging the basic realist postulate of primacy of state in world affairs. The growth of NGOs, MNCs, Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and the overwhelming power of 3 Ms- Market, Money and Media have severely encroached on the jurisdiction of the state. The essay by Kazancigli challenges this view without taking the realist position. He categorises states as regulatory states (prioritising social issues), competitive states (prioritising market forces) and failed states (lacking regulatory and competitive capacities). Kazanciglis argues that states –regulatory and competitive- have retained their internal and external capacities to exercise their sovereignty as they participate in global governance. The capitalist system and subsequent globalisation were driven by the state. The global space now is structured around two spaces- interstate space (ISS) and the transnational public space (TPS), these two spaces share a dynamic relationship.

The ISS comprises of sovereign states-as the principle agents and intergovernmental organisation as dependent agents. The TPS is a newly emerged heterogeneous space comprising of MNCs, NGOs and other bodies of global civil society. This space is characterised by questions of legitimacy, high degree of inequality and issues of representation. Both ISS and TPS work in cooperative and conflictual manner. Kazancigli after thorough analyses of these two spaces argues that multilateralism as developed in post-1945 phase is no longer relevant. He calls for a transformative approach rather than reformist approach to make global governance more effective and democratic. The transformative approach would entail involvement of actors (from ISS and TPS) at various levels- sub-state, state and regional level.
Kazancigli’s suggestions of a transformative approach are based on sound theoretical framework. But seem a bit vague when we seek them to apply. Global Governance is based on three factors – norms, institutions and mechanisms. Norms organise, facilitate, constraint and determine the interaction among the actors. Institutions in global governance work at different levels- from sub-state to regional to global. These include IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, the sovereign states and local networks at the sub-state level. Mechanism refers to how actors interact in accordance with the norms. Kazancigli’s proposition does not dwell about how the ‘transformative approach’ will incorporate these three factors.
Pierre de Senarclens in his essay argues that reforming the United Nations offers the best chance to have democratic and transparent global governance. Most of the suggestions (like expanding the UNSC and better mandated Trusteeship Council) made by Senarclens have already been made by various UN reform committees, notably the reform suggested by Kofi Annan. But he does make some new points, like replacing the G8 negotiations with a new body called Economic and Social Security Council which will have representation on regional basis. The Council would be entrusted with the responsibility of increasing international liquidity, harmonize regional monetary systems, oversee balance of payment difficulties and manage the debt crisis. This recommendation echoes the views expressed at the recent meeting of G20. It is evident that G8 has been effectively challenged by G20, but setting up a Council in place of it would be politically difficult. Nonetheless, the idea of the Council, may be with some modifications is a valuable suggestion in wake of the current financial crisis.

L. Fawcett emphasises the role of regional organisations in evolving an effective structure for global governance. He argues that states tend to favour regional groupings instead of international bodies, as regional organisations provide them more manoeuvring space and also help them exercise better control. International Organisations can become unwieldy at times, paralysing the entire decision making process. Fawcett’s arguments have some validity to them, but regional organisations can end up being impediments to global governance. The constant failure of WTO talks and concurrent rise of regional economic agreements indicates that while states are uncomfortable with international norms and institutions, they are willing to cooperate with other states in a limited framework that regional groupings provide. Thus the path of reaching the goal of effective global governance through regional organisations may be slippery and protracted.

Jean-Marc Coicaud in his essay deals with the tricky of question of can and how can globalisation and its governance be made legitimate. He says that legitimacy requires coherence between norms and agency in global governance. And the criterion for this is human rights. Human rights are seen as benchmarks for good global governance and also as a framework for good policy making. Coicaud performs the crucial task of raising the question of legitimacy of globalisation and global governance. But the criterion he puts forward is bereft with problems. Various strands in liberal school of International Relations Theory have seen human rights as a universal principle and consider it as duty of humanity to safeguard them irrespective of the sovereign state system. Human Rights as a principle have often been viewed with suspicion by the non-Western world. The principle of human rights has often turned into a political tool of convenience.

Overall this collection of essays is one of the most theoretically sound work produced on globalisation. It attempts to bring out the subtle theoretical concerns of domestic-international divide, state-citizens relations, role of civil society and the question of legitimacy all in context of globalisation. This book contains ample material that will stimulate further research and this perhaps is the most important contribution of the book.

[1] The Commission on Global Governance defines global governance as involving intergovernmental relationships, NGOs, citizens movements, MNCs and the global capital market.

Engaging with Obama: Opportunities and Challenges

After the initial euphoria of Obama’s victory had mellowed down, the foreign policy pundits began to analyse the implications of the win. Some Indian experts especially the ardent supporters of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal were sounding grave and extremely pessimistic about India-USA relations under the new President. This pessimism is unfounded. India-USA relations are no determined by individual leaders, though it was so as late as the later part of 1990s. Now India- USA relations are based on strong structural and systemic factors. The rising power of India, the declining eroding of USA, the changing security dynamics in Asia and the need to build a new world prompted Bush administration to engage with India as ‘strategic partner.’ Bush just walked on the path already determined by the changing nature of world politics.

While it is a bit too early to speculate about India-USA relations under Obama, as we still do not know his team in Washington; we still have a fair idea of what to expect and a possible response from India. The following are the areas which represent the new challenges and opportunities for the two nations:

Terrorism: If the nuclear issue was the main bonding factor between India and USA during the Bush administration, terrorism could well be the main area of strategic cooperation. As Obama will take charge on 20th January, he faces two major tasks- the financial crisis and the war against terrorism. He has already indicated that the ongoing war against terrorism will be introspected thoroughly. The focus will now shift from Iraq to Afghanistan. India is involved deeply in the nation- building process in Afghanistan. The attack on Indian embassy has raised stakes and threat perception for India there. Obama administration will need to take India onboard as it drafts a new policy of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan.
Linked to this is the comment made by Obama on Kashmir and the possibility of sending an envoy to resolve the dispute. India must firmly oppose this possibility. It must also the fact over the last few India Pakistan relations have improved and India is playing a responsible role in the region to maintain the security in the subcontinent.

The Nuclear Issue: This was another area of concern cited by the experts. Obama and the Democrats will surely push for conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Fissile Material Cut-Off Treat (FMCT). While India is has always opposed the CTBT for its discriminatory nature, India supports the larger agenda of non-proliferation. India must impress upon the new administration in Washington that it is a responsible nuclear power and its recent inclusion in the nuclear order will strengthen the non-proliferation efforts.

The Economic Dimension: This could prove to be the toughest challenge. We have to see Obama’s stand on economic issues in the context of the current recession.

The first issue of concern is outsourcing, Obama has announced during his campaign that he will remove the tax cuts enjoyed by companies that outsource their work, and give those tax incentives to companies creating jobs within USA. The working class and the unions were among the most ardent supporters of Obama, so they would expect some policy curbing outsourcing. But the act is outsourcing is an innovation that makes businesses efficient. It is expected that the US corporate giants like GE, IBM will impress upon Obama on the need not to disincentivise outsourcing.
Out if the total outsourcing business that India gets, 60 per cent comes from USA, hence the concern of Indian IT firms is justified. They are already hit due to the recession and face intense competition from new players like China and Thailand. Indian firms will now have to look at Europe more actively for getting outsourcing business. And other important task would be to move up the technology ladder, i.e. to invest heavily in research and development of new technologies.
The second and related issue is of H1B visas. Here we need not worry much. The US economy is not able to meet its demand for skilled professionals from its own workforce, and it will continue to draw skilled professionals from other countries, with India being a major supplier. But one should expect a slowdown in the demand for Indian professionals basically due to the recession.
The third issue, though not prominently discussed, is that of protectionism. The Democrats are known for their protectionist views. With them occupying a majority of seats in the US Congress, Obama will face intense pressure from his party colleagues. A protectionist USA would does not augur good for the early conclusion of the Doha Round of the WTO talks. Ironically, the recession will prevent Obama from implementing his proposal of hiking the ‘capital gains tax’ (from 15 % to 20 %) on the US corporate companies.
The fourth and the most crucial issue is that of the current global recession. The G-20 meet next week will be embark on the path of building a new international order. Whatever is the shape of the new international order, one thing is clear that it will be decisively shaped by China, India and other emerging countries like Brazil and South Africa. The previous two economic orders Bretton Woods (1945-1975) and Washington Consensus (1975-2007-08) were essentially dictated by USA and the Western European countries. This is the first time that India will be involved in the making of a international order and it must contribute to it utmost seriousness, as it will have high stakes in the in the new order.

Climate Change: Obama’s views on Climate Change and response to it, broadly has three features: he believes in the ‘cap and trade system’, he has also called for a massive push for ‘clean technologies’ and finally he wants China and India to share more responsibility in tackling climate change, specifically in terms of curbs on emissions.
India should be perfectly ok with these three features. India is already a major beneficiary of the cap and trade system. The National Action Plan on Climate Change announced recently by Indian Prime Minister also calls for increasing investments in ‘clean technology.’ And most importantly, it is time that India assumed greater responsibility at the global level in efforts to tackle climate change. But this has to be done in the existing framework of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities.’

India should now stop worrying about how newly elected leaders of other global powers will impact her. Rather the aim should be to create opportunities to assume a responsible role at the international level. This is our first crucial step in our quest to become a global power.

Hope gets a Chance Again

The most important message that Obama’s victory sends out is that politics is a medium of bringing about change. It is a way to empowerment. For long, in USA and globally, politics has been viewed with cynicism. It is considered a domain of elites. Politics is seen as a game of few and a way to exclude and oppress individuals. Obama has shown that politics is a platform to resolve issues and initiate dialogue. Obama has transformed the nature of politics, the way people see it-at least in USA. His acceptance speech-Yes We Can- signifies this transformational and constructive role of role of politics.

Obama’s win is also the win of the oppressed African-American community. Obama has realised the dream that Martin Luther King Jr gave to his fellow Americans. Obama also symbolises the America of future; a country which has welcomed people from diverse backgrounds and given them opportunities to realise their true moral worth. The entire Obama narrative is built around progress, change and hope. His-Yes We Can-speech was truly inspiring. Obama has moved beyond identity politics and reached out to various sections of the American society.

Why do we see people across the globe admiring Obama? It is because he seems to offer a glimmer of hope in this age of cynicism, deceit and corruption. Obama’s election campaign enabled people to participate-people contributed in whatever capacity they could, they could volunteer through diverse ways. Obama created a sense of belonging. Obama will enter the White House with tremendous expectations-from his countrymen and from the world community. Americans expect him give America a ‘new deal’ and regain America’s standing globally. Obama stands at a cusp of history, he has the opportunity to fulfil a dream-not one but a collective dream of millions who have expressed hope in him. The tears and emotions that filled the Grant Park in Chicago when Obama gave his acceptance speech are the emotions of individuals who see Obama as an epitome of their dreams.

Obama has raised great expectations, for him failure is not an option for the hope is too big. The journey has just began, dreams want to be audacious again.

Post-NSG waiver - A New Strategic Architecture

The NSG waiver for India-USA Nuclear Deal and the subsequent entry of India into the global nuclear order indicates the creation of a new security architecture. The Deal has to be seen in the context of larger power shifts occurring in the world post the year 2000. The broad features of the present world have been described variously as ‘multipolar with an unipolar moment’; ‘non-polar world’ and recently by Fareed Zakaria as ‘Post-America World.’

USA very well understands that it no longer commands the hegemonic status in the world, and there are various competing power centres. Most importantly there is the ‘Rise of the of Rest’ (Zakaria) i.e. rise of China, India and Russia; the global economy is now been increasingly driven by new group of countries-Brazil, South Africa, China and India and USA is in desperate search of new allies to tackle various conflicts (it needed China’s help in resolving the North Korean crisis).
It is in this context that Nuclear Deal has to be seen. USA now is seeking to forge a new global order that will suit its and its allies interests. But unlike the previous orders which were mainly driven by USA, the new emerging global order will have active participation of various countries. In Asia, this new order manifests itself in closer cooperation between India, Japan and USA, and ASEAN to a certain extent.

India must not worry too much about this new order; it is a ‘post-hegemonic order’. It is not dominated by one player, rather the main player (USA) wants participation of its allies in equal measure. This new order will be based on a negotiated consensus and convergence of mutual interests. It will provide space for India to voice its concerns and attempt to build the order suit its strategic interests. The only caution that India needs to bear is that its should not succumb to any ‘neo-con’ pressure from the policy making circles in USA; and also not let quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan affect it too much. For example, in Afghanistan, India has till now and should continue to make efforts to assert its independence vis-à-vis the NATO operations. The Nuclear Deal forms a crucial part in the blue print of the new order that USA is trying to forge.

International Relations: New Paradigms and New Challenges

It is probably the most interesting time to be a student of the discipline of International Relations (IR). And more so if your are studying it based in the developing world. This post attempts to look at the new paradigms, new horizons and new tends that are emerging in the field of IR.

In Search of Non-Western IR Theory:

Traditionally and even now, the field of IR has been dominated by theories, paradigms put forth by scholars in USA and Europe. The attempt till date has been to understand the world in mould set by the Western Scholars. This bias in study was further reinforced by the theorising done in context of Cold War- with Realism and its variants being the dominant paradigm. Though neoliberalism was the contending theory, it shared many of its assumptions with neorealism. The other theories- the English School, Constructivism, and Critical Theory offered new ways to make sense of the world, but they still remained confined to the Western view of the world. The lack of Non-Western theory is seen as one of the new challenges that the scholars of Asia, Africa and South America face. This effort will be unique as it will be based on the different and varied experiences of these regions. (For more on this the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; 2007 published by Oxford University Press in association with Japan Association of International Relations is an important contribution.)

Moving Away from the Polar Terminology:

The Cold War saw the world being described as a bipolar world, in the period immediately after the end of Cold War was defined in terms unipolar world-with USA being the sole super power. By the last years of the 1990s the world was described as ‘multipolar with a unipolar moment’ that the US was no longer the hegemon as it used to be and new power centres- EU, China, Russia, India and Brazil are slowly emerging. In an influential article- ‘The Age in Nonpolarity’ by Richard Haass (2008); Haass argued that it is time to define world as a ‘nonpolar’ world. He argued that there is neither one dominant pole now contending poles in the world currently. At the global level, states are no longer the only actors; they are now fighting for space with non-state actors like – NGO, Transnational Corporations (TNCs),other international organisations and even terrorist groups. Hence he terms the current world as ‘nonpolar’. But a pertinent point here is that should we still stick to the polar terminology? On one hand there is a continuous flux in the power equations in the world-as reflected in various international negotiations, recently in WTO. And at the same time an international power hierarchy exists, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are still a reality; but the ‘have nots’ are not a one homogenous category as they used be. A new terminology may be more helpful to comprehend the changing dynamics of the world.


Redefining Sovereignty- accepting R2P?

Sovereignty though treated as sacrosanct, has been conveniently manipulated over decades to suit the interests of the power holders. Globalisation-with its varied meanings- has further challenged the institution of sovereignty. But the fact remains that state sovereignty is still a reality and states continue to value it greatly. More importantly it remains the most crucial ‘organising principle’ of the world. But now efforts are on to forge a global consensus on norms that will overcome the limits imposed by sovereignty. Humanitarian Intervention has now been reframed as Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It has been conceptualised by International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (funded by Canada). R2P signifies a growing consensus on the issue that the world cannot sit silent while thousands of people are either being left to die or being killed. The basic idea behind R2P is that human rights trump sovereignty. This is a controversial concept and many states-notably USA, China and India have been wary of it. It would be interesting to see what stand-at normative and policy level-these countries take as this idea gains more currency.

These are some of the areas that will define the terms of debate in future in the discipline of International Relations. Some of the forthcoming posts will seek to look at the new areas emerging in IR. Of these there will be two paper/article summaries from the papers published in the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; (2007). This special issue deals with the theme- ‘Why there is no non-Western IR Theory: Reflections on and from Asia’; edited by Ashok Acharya and Barry Buzan.

India as a Responsible International Stakeholder

Article Review: Is India, or Will it be, a Responsible International Stakeholder
Author: Xenia Dormandy; Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Published in The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2007 issue


Over the last few years numerous articles, journal papers and policy declarations have heralded India’s emergence on the global stage and its evolution as an important international stakeholder. This article from The Washington Quarterly makes an interesting case for India as a responsible player in the emerging global order. Written by Xenia Dormandy of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard University, this article appeared in the above mentioned journal’s Summer 2007 issue.
Many in the US policy structure- like Rice and Zoellick have called for India become a responsible stakeholder of the international order, especially in tandem with USA. Post 9/11 USA no longer enjoys the hegemony it commanded earlier. The article builds on this argument and makes a case for New Delhi’s partnership with Washington to build and maintain the international order. Any international order has two aspects-norm-building and burden sharing; a stakeholder takes effort to build establish norms, elicit support and participation for the norms and prioritise the issues that the international system should consider; e.g. India’s membership of various regional and international organisation. A stakeholder also shares the burden of maintaining the international order, e.g. India’s efforts in reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Dormandy argues that India now is moving out of its Cold War scepticism of USA. The relationship between these two countries is no longer Pakistan centric. And at the same time India is forging independent ties with China without being part of US policy towards China. But there is convergence of perspectives and interests between India and USA in Asia, especially while dealing with China and Pakistan. USA hopes that India’s growing clout in the region and its membership or observer status of organisations like BIMSTEC, SCO, APEC will ensure that USA’s interests are safeguarded especially in case of SCO.

Three Areas of assuming responsibility:

Dormandy identifies three main areas where India can emerge as a responsible stakeholder, these are: a) Non-Proliferation b) Energy and Environment and c) Regional and International Security.

Non-Proliferation: India has an excellent record of non-proliferation in spite of not being a member of formal non-proliferation measures like NPT. The Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Deal marks an important step of integration of India with the nuclear order. India has already expressed its support for Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). This is important as India is unofficially acknowledged as the leader of the developing countries.

Energy and Environment: India by 2030 will emerge as the third largest consumer of energy. It is also a major importer of crude oil and it provides security to one of the most important energy passages of the world-the Malacca straits. India along with China is emerging as an important contributor of carbon emissions (if total and not per capita emissions are considered); hence any future measures on tackling global warming will require participation by India. India could show the way to developing countries by investing in ‘green technology’ so that it already saves the costs of shifting from carbon-economy to green-economy.

Regional and International Security: The article argues that since India is keen on rapid economic development, it has an interest in having a peaceful and stable regional and international security scenario. India could play an important role in negotiating with Iran in diffusing the current nuclear crisis and should prevail upon USA that military action is not the solution. India is strategically located with proximity to Central Asia and South East Asia; it has the ability to control the movement in Indian Ocean (a major trading zone) and is crucial to stability in the Asian continent.

While identifying these three scenarios, Dormandy takes a US centric view of the international order. She sees India as junior partner in USA’s foreign policy designs (many in India already see this as a reality). She argues that USA does not involve itself deeply in international organisations and treaties that are unverifiable and lack implementation, citing the examples of UN, APEC and the Kyoto Protcol. But India has always seen the above mentioned organisations and treaties as serious efforts to achieve global cooperation.
The article has an underlying tone of USA and the Western world trying to or should co-opt India into an order of their making. But the current international scenario is dramatically different from the one in 1990s or even early years of the present decade. No new international order can be shaped without countries like India, China, Brazil and South Africa occupying a rightful place in it. More importantly neither USA nor Europe can dictate the terms and contours of the new international order. It has to emerge with consensus among the important players. The latest failure of WTO ministerial talks on Doha Round is a clear indication that the West can no longer push through their agenda.
Nonetheless the article provides an interesting glimpse of what the academic world in USA is thinking about India’s rising power.

Assessing the G8

The recently concluded G8 summit in Hokkaido in Japan saw the same promises being dished out again. More aid, more funds were announced without accounting much for the previous declarations. But still G8 remains one of the two most important non-institutional forums in the world today, the other being World Economic Forum. Irrespective of ones ideological position, one has to agree that G8 is a crucial international body of negotiations and decision making.

Origins:

The G8 began in 1973 in context of a serious international monetary crisis. It began with USA, West Germany and UK constituting the core group, in the later couple of years Japan (1973), France (1975) and Italy (1975) joined in. USA pushed for Canada’s entry in 1976 so that it did not remain a Europe-dominated club. Robert Putnam and Nicholas Bayne (under the G8 group at University of Toronto-which is dedicated G8 research facility) have identified three main factors in the international system that provided for the formation of G7/8 (Russia joined it as a full member in 2002 making it G8). These are:

• declining hegemony of the USA and need to have combined management of the world economy by North America, Europe and Japan
• growth of interdependence among the post-industrial democracies
• growing unease about the increasing role played by bureaucracies in tackling world problems, and the need to reassert the primacy or importance of the political leadership.

The G8 summits are held once every year and the members take turns to host the summits. If we look at the issues discussed at the summit since 1976 to 2008, we can identify a wide range. Beginning with management of the world economy, international trade and monetary system; and moving to trans-national issues like drug trafficking, terrorism, crime etc and global humanitarian issues like poverty and environment – all these issue have defined the G8 agenda across the various summits.

The current status

The G8 now has evolved a sophisticated and one can even say an ‘institutionalised’ method of functioning, prompting John Kriton to say that G8 represents ‘prospectively the effective centre of global governance.’ G8 summits see lot of pre-summit and post-summit hectic activity in terms of publications, meetings (at ministerial or secretarial level). The fact that G8 comprises of the most eight most powerful countries of the world, it practically sets the agenda for other multilateral platforms- from WTO to Climate Change Conferences.

Thus it can be seen that the idea behind G8, especially one of ‘global governance’-draws from ‘liberal institutionalist’ position in international relations theory. G8 has also been criticised from the neo-marxist position, Stephen Gill saw it as ‘as a nexus of G7/8 countries at the apex seeking have a neo-liberal management of the world economy. It has also been argued that one major role of G8 has been to maintain ‘group hegemony.’ So when the US hegemony began to decline in 1970s, it sought to continue its influence by replacing ‘individual hegemony’ with ‘group hegemony’. Many critics of G8 see it as ‘vehicle of furthering US interests.’

Over the last few summits there G8 has made serious efforts to involve new countries- the BRIC countries comprising of Brazil, Russia (it is already a member of G8), India and China, of which China and India were considered as the most important players. Other countries that are vying for place at G8 summits are Mexico, South Africa and the ASEAN group. It should be noted that all these countries have been often categorised as ‘emerging economies’ (though differing in degree). Whatever new terminology that G8 may use to describe this new involvement (outreach summit or G8+5), it is very clear that G8 is not going to expand. Moreover, the significance of G8 as the core of global decision making has reduced over the past few years. Countries have believed more in bilateral negotiations or multilateral negotiations (outside any group framework). The recently concluded G8 summit in Japan could not make much headway in addressing issues of climate change, tackling the crisis in Zimbabwe and Sudan and also could not make any breakthrough on the stalled Doha round.

The G8 has always been seen as an ultra-elite group, it has always shown reluctance to involve new countries. Russia for long had to remain an associated member before gaining full membership in 2002. Barring UK, no other summit host in the last three years has shown enthusiasm to involve the ‘outreach’ countries in the discussion process. These countries are normally met over a small ‘breakfast meeting’ and have no involvement in final declaration of the summit. G8 also does not have a transparent rule making and implementation process. There is no mechanism to monitor the progress done on previous declarations.

G8 may now no longer command the power that it commanded earlier and this is a natural outcome shifts in the centres of global economy. It is still a gathering that influences world politics, but it needs to reassess its role to become more active to resolve the current problems. The biggest strength of G8 is that it is not confined to any single issue or area, it can discuss anything it wants. So, rather than being lost in vague declarations, it would be pertinent for G8 to evolve as body to generate activity and direction in resolving disputes.