@ARTICLE{26583242_211341786_2017, 
	author = {Marek Rewizorski}, 
	keywords = {, G20, global governance, international organizationsgovernment officials},
	title = {<p class="text">G20 and the Development of a New Global Governance Mechanism</p>},
	journal = {INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS RESEARCH JOURNAL},
	year = {2017},
	month = {октябрь },
	volume = {12},
	number = {3},
	pages = {32-52},
	url = {https://iorj.hse.ru/en/2017-12-3/211341786.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The main objective of this article is to analyse the new global governance mechanism developed at the G20 forum by nineteen individual countries, along with the European Union (represented by the European Commission and the European Council), cooperating with international organizations (IOs) and government officials (GOs). In the subsequent sections, I argue that the new mechanistic and praxis-oriented mechanism of global governance is built on the nexus between (1) the G20 acting as a hub of multi-level cooperation and as an apex systemic risk manager; (2) IOs offering expertise on specific issue areas; and (3) GOs as sherpas, or ministers responsible for specific subjects, who are able to meet before and after commitments, and are endorsed by and influence the iteration leaders use at subsequent summits to soften difficult issues. The mechanism represents a departure from the Schumpeterian "creative destruction" process, understood in broader terms as not restricted solely to the role of entrepreneurs and innovations, but extended also towards global politics and institutions (norms, systems, and organizations). As shown in G20 communiqu&eacute;s and declarations, the elite global governance institutions are providing valuable input to the G20 process. A good example of the G20 and IOs' effective synergy is the relationship between the G20 and the OECD, which can be described as a "partnership of convenience". The activity of sherpas, finance ministers, central bank governors, expert groups and similar sub-summit entities are also an essential component of the global governance mechanism. They are all responsible for major preparatory work before G20 summits. In conclusion, I argue that the successful spreading of this mechanism makes it possible to achieve ambitious objectives, such as (1) crisis response and closing global governance gaps, (2) enhancing international cooperation, and (3) building a capacity for international innovation.&nbsp;},
	annote = {The main objective of this article is to analyse the new global governance mechanism developed at the G20 forum by nineteen individual countries, along with the European Union (represented by the European Commission and the European Council), cooperating with international organizations (IOs) and government officials (GOs). In the subsequent sections, I argue that the new mechanistic and praxis-oriented mechanism of global governance is built on the nexus between (1) the G20 acting as a hub of multi-level cooperation and as an apex systemic risk manager; (2) IOs offering expertise on specific issue areas; and (3) GOs as sherpas, or ministers responsible for specific subjects, who are able to meet before and after commitments, and are endorsed by and influence the iteration leaders use at subsequent summits to soften difficult issues. The mechanism represents a departure from the Schumpeterian "creative destruction" process, understood in broader terms as not restricted solely to the role of entrepreneurs and innovations, but extended also towards global politics and institutions (norms, systems, and organizations). As shown in G20 communiqu&eacute;s and declarations, the elite global governance institutions are providing valuable input to the G20 process. A good example of the G20 and IOs' effective synergy is the relationship between the G20 and the OECD, which can be described as a "partnership of convenience". The activity of sherpas, finance ministers, central bank governors, expert groups and similar sub-summit entities are also an essential component of the global governance mechanism. They are all responsible for major preparatory work before G20 summits. In conclusion, I argue that the successful spreading of this mechanism makes it possible to achieve ambitious objectives, such as (1) crisis response and closing global governance gaps, (2) enhancing international cooperation, and (3) building a capacity for international innovation.&nbsp;}
}