Where the G‐20 Stands

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 Splintering of the G‐20

The solidarity of the G‐20 nations in staving off global financial crisis two years ago has deteriorated into a brawl over currency valuations, trade imbalances and sovereign debt, reflecting the great powershift from the West to the East and the emerging economies. In this section, we invited comments from historians, a former head of state who successfully navigated the Asian financial crisis and a prominent Chinese dissident.     

China and America in a Post‐Hegemonic Age

A great historical transition is underway from American‐led Globalization 1.0 to Globalization 2.0—the interdependence of plural identities where no one power or alliance of powers dominates. The G‐20 is floundering as the immediate global financial crisis has receded. The United Nations and the old Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO—have lost their vigor and are struggling to adjust to the global powershift with the rise of the emerging economies. While Europe is paralyzed as the historic project of integration stalls, the world's two largest economies—the United States and China—are as yet unable to figure out how to share power. The danger now is that the geopolitical vacuum will invite assertions of national self‐interest that will unravel the rules‐based order that enabled stability and prosperity over recent decades. America's leading geopolitical strategist, China's most outspoken strategic thinker and one of Asia's leading global thinkers from Singapore offer their reflections on this state of affairs.     

Mini‐lateralism Will Get Us Nowhere

The further we get from the crisis moment of the global financial meltdown in 2008–2009, the weaker the momentum to establish an effective system of global governance. Gordon Brown, the former prime minister of Great Britain who hosted the most successful G‐20 conclave in London at the apex of the crisis, laments the complacency that has taken over. With the scandalous departure of Dominique Strauss‐Kahn as head of the International Monetary Fund, a global debate has opened up over whether the emerging economies should have a greater voice in that institution. Nobel laureate Michael Spence comments.     

Toward a Global Convergence of Interests

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 Long‐term Solution for Europe

The solidarity of the G‐20 nations in staving off global financial crisis two years ago has deteriorated into a brawl over currency valuations, trade imbalances and sovereign debt, reflecting the great powershift from the West to the East and the emerging economies. In this section, we invited comments from historians, a former head of state who successfully navigated the Asian financial crisis and a prominent Chinese dissident.     

The G‐20 Must Get Serious About Its Commitments

The sovereign debt problem in Europe, ignited by Greece, has morphed into an economic crisis challenging the solvency of major banks and countries as well as a generalized crisis of governance. Lacking the legitimacy of public support, the leaders of the European Union's fledgling institutions have been indecisive and unable to contain the looming danger of financial contagion. Along with the economic slowdown in the United States, instability and volatility in Europe threaten to derail the fragile global recovery. In this section, several former European leaders as well as political figures from the emerging economies offer their ideas on how to fix Europe and stem the global threat.     

The Middle Income Transition in China and America's Need for Structural Change

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.     

How to Get America Back on Track

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.     

Anthropo‐Technology

If the 20th Century was the century of physics, the 21st Century is the century of cybernetics, biology and ecology. Technological advance has both crossed new frontiers and discovered old limits. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine broke new ground with his understanding that nature, including its human component, seeks to establish order out of chaos by “self‐organizing,” not only according to pre‐determined laws, but through random creative choices as well that are responsible for the endless novelty and potentiality of being. The technologically‐armed purposive role of humans in the Anthropocentric Age thus takes on a new significance: “What we do today depends on our image of the future rather than the future depending on what we do today” as Prigogine puts it. “The equations of the future are written in our actions as well as in nature. Time becomes construction.” Nowhere is this truer than in the new science of genomics, which touches the soul, and in the effort to preserve the ecological balance that has enabled humanity to flourish within the narrow band of earth's livable climate. In this section we bring together leading thinkers, scientists and technologists of our age to address these issues of mankind's fate.     

Neo‐Modern Ecology

If the 20th Century was the century of physics, the 21st Century is the century of cybernetics, biology and ecology. Technological advance has both crossed new frontiers and discovered old limits. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine broke new ground with his understanding that nature, including its human component, seeks to establish order out of chaos by “self‐organizing,” not only according to pre‐determined laws, but through random creative choices as well that are responsible for the endless novelty and potentiality of being. The technologically‐armed purposive role of humans in the Anthropocentric Age thus takes on a new significance: “What we do today depends on our image of the future rather than the future depending on what we do today” as Prigogine puts it. “The equations of the future are written in our actions as well as in nature. Time becomes construction.” Nowhere is this truer than in the new science of genomics, which touches the soul, and in the effort to preserve the ecological balance that has enabled humanity to flourish within the narrow band of earth's livable climate. In this section we bring together leading thinkers, scientists and technologists of our age to address these issues of mankind's fate.     

Facing a Post‐American World

American‐led globalization has enabled the third great powershift of the last five hundred years—the “rise of the rest” following on the rise of the West and then the rise of the US as the dominant power in the West. When China, India, Brazil, Turkey and the rest sit at the table of global power with the West what will the world order look like? Will it be post‐American? Will it be culturally non‐Western, but play by the same rules of an open international order laid down by the American's after World War II? In the following pages, leading American and Asian intellectuals ponder these questions.     

China's Long‐Range Salami Tactics In East Asia

Despite grand visions of a cosmopolitan planet living in peace, the first globalization at the turn of the 20th century descended into World War I as the old empires scrambled to preserve themselves as others sought self‐determination. Powers on the losing end of that war reasserted themselves in yet another worldwide calamity within decades. After World War II, in the early 1950s, with the victorious American‐led alliance in the driver's seat, institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods arrangements created a global stability that enabled peace, prosperity and the “rise of the rest.” In 2014, the world order is shifting again with the rise of China reviving in Asia the very kind of nationalist rivalries that led Europe to war twice in the 20th century. Will we be able to build new institutions that accommodate the new powershift without resorting to war, or will the second globalization collapse as well? Top strategists from the US, Japan and China respond to this momentous question.     

Integration,functional differentiation and problem‐solving in multilevel governance

The European Union (EU) is currently facing unprecedented challenges to its problem‐solving capacity, such as those represented by pressing transnational crises and by bottom‐up criticisms towards the European integration process. Moreover, the EU is said to compensate its weak input legitimacy with an enhanced problem‐solving capacity. However, the notion of problem‐solving itself has remained remarkably vague in the multilevel governance (MLG) literature. This symposium analyses problem‐solving in different MLG settings. In this introduction, we identify procedural and operational notions of problem‐solving in MLG, and present a structural framework to guide the comparative analyses of multilevel systems along the dimensions of political integration, functional differentiation and decentralization. The contributions to the symposium illustrate how structural elements of different multilevel systems shape both the policy‐making process and the politics of problem‐solving within these systems. In doing so, they pave the way for further comparative research.     

THE CENTRE STRIKES BACK: META‐GOVERNANCE,DELEGATION, AND THE CORE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, 2010–14

A growing literature on ‘agencification’, ‘quangocratization’, and the ‘autonomization’ of the state has highlighted a coordination dilemma in contemporary public governance whereby governments rely on delegated governance but are frustrated by the lack of control that arises from such structures. In the run‐up to the 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom this coordination dilemma was prominent as the capacity of the Cabinet Office to exert control over arm's‐length bodies, either directly or indirectly, received intense criticism. This article presents the findings of the first detailed research project to examine the subsequent Coalition Government's approach to this dilemma. It argues that in relation to the governance of public bodies, the role and capacity of the Cabinet Office has been transformed. In mapping this development the article explores the implications of the centre striking back in the context of ‘post‐New Public Management’ reforms.     

Co‐production as a route to employability: Lessons from services with lone parents

Policy‐makers claim to support personalized approaches to improving the employability of disadvantaged groups. Yet, in liberal welfare states, mainstream activation programmes targeting these groups often deliver standardized, low‐quality services. Such failures may be related to a governance and management regime that uses tightly defined contracting and performance targets to incentivize (mainly for‐profit) service providers to move people into any job as quickly as possible. This article draws on evidence from third sector/public sector‐led services in Scotland to discuss an alternative approach. These services co‐produced personalized support in partnership with disadvantaged service users (in this case vulnerable lone parents). We suggest that, in this case, street‐level co‐production and personalization were facilitated by co‐governance and co‐management in the design and organization of provision. We conclude by identifying lessons for future employability services.     

LOCAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT OF RULES‐IN‐USE

This article argues that political participation is shaped by locally distinctive ‘rules‐in‐use’, notwithstanding the socio‐economic status or level of social capital in an area. It recognizes that the resources available to people, as well as the presence of social capital within communities, are potential key determinants of the different levels of local participation in localities. However, the article focuses on a third factor – the institutional rules that frame participation. Levels of participation are found to be related to the openness of the political system, the presence of a ‘public value’ orientation among local government managers, and the effectiveness of umbrella civic organizations. Whereas resources and social capital are not factors that can be changed with any great ease, the institutional determinants of participation are more malleable. Through case study analysis, the article shows how actors have shaped the environment within which citizens make their decisions about engagement, resulting in demonstrable effects upon levels of participation.     

META‐GOVERNANCE: VALUES,NORMS AND PRINCIPLES,AND THE MAKING OF HARD CHOICES

Meta‐governance – or governance of governance – is a concept that raises questions regarding how values, norms and principles underpin governance systems and governing approaches. Values, norms and principles pertain both to substantive governance issues, for instance, related to sustainable resource use, and to governance system issues in themselves, for instance, regarding their institutional design. This article deals primarily with the latter. Thus the interactive perspective serves as basis for developing a coherent set of meta‐governance principles. We argue that an explicit, deliberated and decided upon set of meta‐governance principles as an integral part of governance can help in making hard substantive governance choices easier. Interactive learning plays a key role in governance processes when public and private governing actors have to make such hard choices. In the article, examples from natural resource governance will serve as illustrations for the more conceptual argumentation and reasoning.     

SCALE AND POLICY IMPACT IN PARTICIPATORY‐DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: LESSONS FROM A MULTI‐LEVEL PROCESS

This article addresses two interrelated critiques of participatory‐deliberative democratic institutions: that they are beset by problems of scale and that they achieve weak policy impact. This article tests these criticisms through the case of the UK Sustainable Communities Act (SCA), a multi‐level process that is relatively strongly institutionalized. The evidence lends qualified support to these critiques. The article differentiates between contextual factors, related to the attempt to institutionalize participatory‐deliberative processes within existing socioeconomic and political structures, and design factors to do with institutional and process design. The case of the SCA calls for caution about the claim that multi‐level participatory‐deliberative processes can overcome problems of scale and policy impact, but the question remains open. The article ends by suggesting that expectations of direct policy impact might be too high. Rather than determinants of policy, multi‐level participatory‐deliberative processes might function best as agenda‐setters.     

One in 20: the G20, middle powers and global governance reform

There is a growing consensus that the international system needs to be reformed to reflect the changing distribution of power with the rise of the Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). The Group of Twenty (G20) has been at the centre of these discussions. Within the G20, emphasis has been on great powers or rising powers and their capacity to drive reform. Less attention has been given to the preferences and strategies of middle powers in the G20 and their capacity to shape global governance reform. Drawing on interviews with G20 officials, this paper considers the role of Australia as president of the G20 in 2014. Australia’s presidency presents a unique opportunity to examine the behaviour of a middle power as it balances the competing global governance claims of the USA and the BRICs.