2010. vol. 5. No. 2

Marina Larionova, Dr of Political Science, Head of International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the State University – Higher School of Economics, Head of International Programmes at the National Training Foundation; E-mail: mlarionova@hse.ru

Mark Rakhmangulov, Deputy Director of the Informational-Analytical G8 Research Centre of the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: MRakhmangulov@hse.ru

The paper presents analysis of the G8 Muskoka and G20 Toronto summits. It looks into the main documents agreed and decisions made by the leaders. The authors consider the trend for division of labor on priorities and global governance functions between the two institutions, and the risks it contains. The analysis highlights that the G8 members so far bear the dual responsibility for commitments made in both the G8 and G20 summits. The G8 members have also delegated significant volume of the direction setting and decision making functions to the G20. It can be assumed that the Seoul summit will change the trend. However the paper concludes that if the Muskoka-Toronto summitry distribution of functions is maintained and consolidated, and the G20 compliance record remains low, the G8-G20 partnership for global governance will be neither sustainable nor effective.

Marina Larionova, Dr of Political Science, Head of International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the State University – Higher School of Economics, Head of International Programmes at the National Training Foundation; E-mail: mlarionova@hse.ru

Mark Rakhmangulov, Deputy Director of the Informational-Analytical G8 Research Centre of the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: MRakhmangulov@hse.ru

The paper analyses efforts made by the G8 and G20 in the sphere of international development assistance. The assessment of the G8 and G20 agendas on development, as well as the capabilities of two institutions to react and address changes occurred in global agenda for development efficiently is implemented on the basis of special commitments database. The database covers the G8 commitments made during the period of 1975 – 2009, and the G20 commitments on development took over since its first summit in 2008. The abilities for cooperation of two institutions are analyzed by the development assistance and labour division between both of them. Giving the forthcoming chairmanship of Russia in the G8 summitry in 2014, the recommendations are given to define possible priorities for the agenda and facilitate the promotion of Russia’s national interests in international development assistance using opportunities of the G8.

John J. Kirton, PDr of International Relations, Director of the G8 Research Group, Associate Professor of Political Science, Research Associate of the Centre for International Studies and Fellow of Trinity College at the University of Toronto, Canada, E-mail: mailto:john.kirton@utoronto.ca

The article presents the translation of the paper “Why the World Needs G8 and G20 Summitry: the Prospects from 2010 and Beyond” prepared by John Kirton for the Center for Dialogue and Analysis on North America (CEDAN), Tecnologico de Monterrey (ITESM), Mexico City Campus, Mexico City in 11-12 March, 2010. The paper turns to the systematic, analytically grounded comparison of the G8 and G20 summits to answer two questions: Why does the world need the G8 and G20 summits? And what will be their relationship? It argues that the world needs both for the foreseeable future, because they do different jobs, because the G8 has proven it can do the job of both if need be, while the G20 has not yet shown it can do even its own job well. To develop this argument, the study first compares the two evolving institutions in their creation, mission, institutionalization, membership, participation, agenda, accountability, and durability, and finds that on most of these key institutional components, the G8 thus far has a superior claim. Second, it examines how well each institution has worked in accomplishing its core mission and in providing domestic political management, deliberation, direction setting, decision-making, delivery and the development of global governance. Third, it looks ahead to identify what the two institutions are likely to do at the G8 Muskoka Summit on June 25-26, the G20 Toronto Summit on June 26-27, and the G20 Seoul Summit on November 11-12. Fourth and finally, it looks at the prospective relationship between the two institutions, both now and beyond this year. The study concludes that they will work increasingly well with each other, for the greater global good.

Vladimir Zuev, PhD in Economics, Professor, Head of International Economic Organisations and European Integration Department of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: vzuev@hse.ru

Kseniya Zavarykina, PhD Student of the Faculty of World Economics and World Politics of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: rinahunter@gmail.com

Pavel Kucheryavyy, Advisor of Department of International Financial Relations of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, PhD Student of the International Economic Organisations and European Integration Department of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: kucheryavyy@minfin.ru

A little more than a year has passed since the moment the G20 Leaders established the Financial Stability Board on their meeting in London in April 2009. However, thereafter, according to many experts, the Board has grown into the central ground for elaboration of new principles on global economic governance. The authors analyze the first results of the Board’s activity as an intellectual trust of the G20 on providing a global financial stability and evaluate prospects for adoption of new economic regulatory parameters in international practices.

Yuriy Zaytsev, Deputy Director of the Research Centre for International Cooperation and Development (RCICD) of the International Organisations Research Institute of the State University – Higher School of Economics, PhD Student of the International Organisations Research Institute of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: mailto:yuriy.zaitsev@gmail.com

The article analyses G20 members’ performance in compliance with commitments made at 2009 Pittsburgh summit. The analysis is based on the results of the monitoring compliance with commitments made by the G20 countries and the European Union. With comparison of the G8 and G20 compliance levels the author assesses the efficiency of both institutions in implementation of the functions of global political and economic governance. In conclusion the author makes the assessment of the risks associated with the G20’s week compliance and G8’s overloading.

HSE IORI G8 Research Group(eds. by Y. Zaytsev, M. Larionova, M. Rakhmangulov)

The article represents the results of the monitoring Russia’s compliance with commitments, made at the G8 Aquila summit in 2009. The monitoring was made by International organizations Research Institute of the State University – Higher School of Economics (HSE IORI) with G8 Research Group of the University of Toronto. (The full version of the G8 Aquila Summit Compliance Report) The article provides comparative analysis of the measures undertaken by the Russian Federation during compliance period in 5 major spheres of collective actions. It also provides recommendations on how to raise the compliance level and improve the efficiency of accountability on commitments made.

Brazil (authored in English by Alcides Costa Vaz and Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue, translated by A. Shvets, ed. by O. Perfilieva)

India (authored in English by Subhash Agrawal, translated by M. Rakhmangulov, ed. by O. Perfilieva)

China (authored in English by Gregory T. Chin and B. Michael Frolic translated by Y. Zaytsev, ed. by V. Nagornov)

South Africa (authored in English by Wolfe Braude, Pearl Thandrayan, Elizabeth Sidiropouls, translated by A. Shadrikova, ed. by V. Nagornov)

The article presents the translation of a series of papers on the role of emerging economies in international development assistance prepared under the project “Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance” supported by the International Development Research Centre, Canada in 2007-2008. The papers review the lessons revealed by the country studies of Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, who are referred to collectively as ‘emerging donors’. The studies emphasize the origins, structure, and operations of these countries’ development assistance programmes, especially the research for development and international collaborative dimensions, geographical and sectoral priories of their programmes.

Alma Nurshaikhova, PhD in International Relations, Department of International Relations, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University; E-mail: mailto:a.nurshaikhova@mail.ru

The article provides an overview of the criticism by economists, developing countries and civil society regarding the effectiveness of development assistance. In particular it discusses three directions of criticism: critics of aid’s theoretical basis, critics of recipient country’s internal conditions, and critics of donor practices. The article briefs on current initiatives on aid effectiveness and provides synopsis of international civil society’s attacks against the former. It also discusses the peculiarities of new donors’ assistance in relation to traditional aid criticism. The author comes up with the following conclusions: development assistance should be directed to the real needs of a recipient country and meet interests of their population, which is possible if the principles of equal partnership and accountability are adhered to; new donors should consider to join the existing international efforts on increasing aid effectiveness or set up an alternative platform leading to this goal; enhancing aid effectiveness is a long process, which should involve all stakeholders and take into account their interests.

Arina Shadrikova, Researcher of the Centre for International Comparative Studies of the International Organisations Research Institute of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: sarina_2003@list.ru

The paper presents the results from the comparative analysis of the role of non-governmental organizations in contemporary development assistance processes. The author highlights special features of NGOs’ functioning in international development cooperation, especially in emerging economies, such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa, basing on the results of the recent international studies. Such issues as communication and cooperation of NGOs with different types of donors operating in the field, including global NGOs, multilateral international institutions, and governments, as well as the interactions between organizations are comprehensively analyzed. The special focus is given to the networking NGOs, interactions between organizations to provide better efficiency and coordination of development assistance at national level and globally. To get the in-depth vision of the third sector’s specific role in international development assistance the definitions to notion “NGO” adopted in traditional and new donor countries are included to the analysis. The preliminary conclusions about the current state of NGOs’ capabilities to impact and influence on development assistance at national and global levels are based on the results from the expert interviews taken from Russian NGOs representatives active in the field and elucidated their own vision of the role and impact to international development assistance (IDA) and factors affected on their more efficient and active participation in these processes.

Mark Rakhmangulov, Deputy Director of the Informational-Analytical G8 Research Centre of the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the State University – Higher School of Economics; E-mail: MRakhmangulov@hse.ru

The paper analyses the process of establishment and development of the national system of international development assistance in Russia. The analysis covers the period starting from 2005 when key national priorities for international development assistance (IDA) were set and amounts of foreign aid were substantially increased in the threshold of the Russia’s G8 summitry preparations. The establishing structure of governance, the aid flows and amounts of allocated ODA, as well as basic and new funding priorities in the sphere of IDA are described on basis of analysis of official documentaries, statements and speeches of officials, and statistics available for public access. The focus is also given to the Russia’s participation in multilateral international organizations and institutions in the sphere of development cooperation. Basing on the results from the analysis the author came up with recommendations to adjust the Concept of Participation of the Russian Federation in International Development Assistance, in particular its certain statements, as well as on more active cooperation with national and international NGOs active in the field.

Maria Efremova, 4th year student of the Ulyanovsk State University, winner of the Creative Essay Contest “Russia as a Responsible Player in International Development Assistance”; E-mail: mailto:m_efremova@list.ru

The essay describes the current situation in world economic system and emphasizes the responsibility of each actor for the MDGs achievement. As one of the largest economies in the world, Russia must take its part in international development assistance (IDA). However, now national IDA system in Russia is at the initial stage of establishing. The essay assesses the key issues, achievements, and prospects of Russia as an active participant of international development assistance.

Elena Morozova, 4th year student of the Institute of Tourism and Social Technologies of the Povolzhsky State University of Service, second winner of the Creative Essay Contest “Russia as a Responsible Player in International Development Assistance”; E-mail: Luchien-tinuviel@yandex.ru

The essay examines the issues of Russia’s participation in the processes of international development assistance. Bearing in mind Russia’s active participation and responsibility to overcome the limits of social and economic development in the global context, the author examines the main achievement of the Russian Federation in the sphere of development assistance since 2006, the year of the Russia’s G8 presidency. The author highly estimates the intention of the country to continue to provide assistance to developing countries by means of fostering the aid flows in times of a crisis, and considers it as an important indicator of country’s responsibility for development in mid-term and long-term perspective.