Search results

The Group of Twenty (G20) has substantial influence in global economic policy but has been peripheral in global education governance. There is intensification of education policy-relevant engagement within the Think 20 (T20), the “ideas bank” and official engagement group of the G20. The authors analyse the evolution of education as a policy domain within the T20, the ideas and discursive framing of education and global education policy “solutions” and assumptions about the G20 in education policy engagement.

The authors view the T20 as an external actor that can mobilise policy-relevant ideas to G20 actors responsible for internal policy selection and translation. The analysis covers the period 2018–2021 when education became an explicit T20 policy area. The authors screened all 461 T20 policy briefs across all domains. Of these, 32 briefs and four final T20 Summit communiqués were reviewed using critical discourse analysis. Data were supplemented via organisational websites and tacit professional knowledge.

Three assumptions on the G20 as an actor prevailed: (1) policymaker, (2) policy shaper and (3) knowledge mobiliser. The framing ideas on education were linked to assumptions on drivers of education system reform as intertwined with, or to enable: (1) economic adaptation, (2) technical adaptation and (3) socio-political adaptation of individuals and societies.

Accelerated education engagement within the T20 and its direct reach to G20 leaders makes it, and the G20, analytically unique and new unexamined actors of potential influence. The authors conclude that the T20 is positioned as a unique actor, both that can mobilise education policy-relevant ideas to G20 leaders, and legitimised as the actor from which G20 leaders and policymakers should adopt ideas.

The Dodd‐Frank Act of 2010 is the keystone policy response directed at reforming US financial system activities and oversight in the wake of the 2007‐2009 financial crisis. The USA also has financial system reform policy commitments in the international arena, including in particular by virtue of its membership in the G20. The purpose of this paper is to consider US policy initiatives related to a core dimension of financial system reform: risks posed by systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”).

The paper provides a deta‘iled comparison of SIFI policy initiatives and timetables under both the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda, as reflected in the ongoing work plan of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and poses the question “Are US domestic and international financial system reform commitments in sync?”

The study finds that, fundamentally, the answer is “yes.” However, the comparison yields two caveats with potential policy implications. First, the two agendas differ in their relative emphasis on the coverage of both banks and nonbanks. The G20/FSB focus, at least over the near‐term, is bank‐centric compared with the Dodd‐Frank Act, which consistently addresses both bank and nonbank financial firms. Second, implementation of Dodd‐Frank Act provisions is subject to long‐established US law mandating that there be sufficient opportunity for public input into the rulemaking process, whereas the G20/FSB process has been less systematic and transparent on public consultation and feedback.

These observations may be relevant to the current debate over the speed and scope of Dodd‐Frank Act implementation measures, and to the discussion about the future international competitiveness of US banks and nonbank financial firms.

This study is the first to present a detailed, comprehensive comparison of financial system reform initiatives and provisions in the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda.

The Group of 20 (G20) is tasked with responding to economic shocks in the global financial system, with COVID-19 having proved to be the most significant shock since the G20's inception. COVID-19 also represents the first economic crisis accompanied by a concerted attempt to “build back better”, principally through a climate-compatible recovery. In 2021, there is little clarity as to the G20's response to this challenge, primarily due to considerable divergence in the green stimulus practices of its member states. The paper aims to investigate whether the G20, climate change and COVID-19 are critical juncture or critical wound.

Historical institutionalism (HI) suggests that one can explain an institution's future response by reference to its developmental pathway to date. This contribution adopts its concept of “critical junctures” to shed light on the G20's possible institutional response to COVID-19. The contribution undertakes a comparative analysis of the global financial crisis (GFC) and COVID-19 as possible critical junctures for the G20.

In doing so, the work demonstrates that the G20 “building back better” from COVID-19 requires a shift away from its institutional orthodoxy to a much larger degree than its response to the GFC. Accordingly, whilst both the GFC and COVID-19 may be considered critical junctures for the G20, only COVID-19 has the potential to be a “critical wound” that leads to institutional redundancy.

Through interrogating this further, this exposition prospectively outlines two possible futures the G20 faces as a consequence of COVID-19: reform or redundancy. In this way, it offers an ex ante perspective on policy-reform options for the G20's ongoing response to COVID-19.

Whichever choice the G20 makes in its response to COVID-19 has profound consequences for global governance in an increasingly unpredictable world.

Herein lies the importance of an exploratory assessment of COVID-19 as a critical juncture or a critical wound for the G20.

Textile, listed as one of the highly environmentally sensitive goods, its trade is susceptible to be influenced by the implementation of stringent environmental policies. This paper aims to investigate the long-run relationship between revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and Environmental Policy Stringency Index (EPSI) for textile exports of G20 countries in panel data setup.

Apart from trend analysis, the authors have employed Pedroni and Westerlund panel cointegration method and fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) method to study the long-run relationship between RCA and EPSI in presence of cross-sectional dependence.

A strong link between trade and environmental stringency is observed for textile in the present study. For G20 countries, slight evidence of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis has also been witnessed in the study. Correspondingly, the results reveal the presence of long-run association between the variables under study, implying that stringent environmental policies reduce RCA for some countries, whereas some countries witness the Porter hypothesis.

The results imply that policy formulation should not aim at limiting the efforts of connecting RCA to environmental stringency but to set trade policies in a wider framework, considering environmental concerns, as these are inseparable subjects. However, this study also provides relevant real-world implications that can support further research.

The present study has important implications for textile exporters such as green innovations. The Porter hypothesis can be a beneficial tool for G20 exporters in enhancing their export performance, especially for the ones dealing in environmentally sensitive goods. This study offers relevant policy implications and provides directions for future research on global trade and environment nexus.

This study deals in a debatable area of research that evaluates the interlinkages between environmental stringency and global trade flows in the G20 countries. An important observation of the study is the asymmetrical nature of policy stringency across different countries and its impact on trade. The unavailability of updated data is the limitation of the present study.

Trade of environmentally sensitive goods (ESGs) is often exposed to countries with less stringent regulations suggesting that those countries have comparative advantage in the polluting sector. The Group of Twenty (G20) members are among the highest polluters, globally. Different stringency policies are enacted time to time in G20 to control environment pollution. However, the impact of policy stringency on export performance of ESGs is seldom examined. The paper aims to address some of the issues concerning this matter.

The present study aims to address the short run and long-run association between Revealed Comparative Advantage of ESGs and Environmental Policy Stringency Index for the period of 1990–2019 in G20. Periodic fluctuations and time adjustment mechanism are also studied. Second Generation Panel Cointegration, Vector Error Correction, Impulse Response Function and Variance Decomposition methods are employed to address the objectives.

Result is evident that more exposure to stringent environmental regulations reduces the comparative advantage of ESGs in the long run. But there is no evidence of the short-run relationship between the variables. The possible reason could be that new regulations enacted prove fruitful in the long run.

The novelty of the study is to focus on inter linkages between stringency and global export competitiveness in G20, almost nonexistent in the past studies. The study also provides a road map to policymakers to find out potential ways for sustainable development by balancing environmental stringency measures and international trade.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-08-2022-0560

Economic integration in the 21st century is driven largely by market signals, rather than by inter-governmental trading arrangements. It also means much more than “free trade.” Integration needs to consider all of the ways economies are connected in international markets, including trade in goods, services ideas and information, along with essential and complementary international movements of people and capital.

Except for a small number of sensitive products, especially in agriculture, most goods and services face no, or very low, formal trade barriers. Reducing border protection of the remaining sensitive products will certainly require negotiations, but they are no longer the most strategic obstacles to economic integration.

These days, the problems of most concern of those engaged in international commerce are logistics, communications, coping with security concerns and with different regulations in other economies. The effective constraint to designing and implementing cooperative arrangements to reduce such costs or risks of international commerce is the capacity to do so, rather than political resistance. Inter-governmental negotiations are not always necessary to deal with these practical issues.

Therefore, it should be possible to have a logical division of effort between APEC and the WTO in the Asia Pacific with the WTO dealing with those issues that do need to be negotiated; and APEC dealing with the many other issues where negotiations are not needed. In the longer term, an efficient division of labour could also emerge between the G20 and the WTO.

This study explores the interplay among climate change, economic growth and energy consumption in G20 countries by considering the role of green energy.

This study uses various empirical tools to determine the association between carbon emissions, economic growth, renewables, non-renewables, population and urbanization for a panel of G20 countries between 1990 and 2014.

Empirical outcomes from various empirical tools reveal a positive and significant impact of economic growth, non-renewable energy consumption and urbanization on carbon emissions, and their increase will further lead to the deterioration of environmental quality. The elasticity coefficient of renewable energy coefficient is negative and significant implying an increase in its consumption will improve environmental quality. Panel causality test results reveal the existence of both short-run and long-run causality among the variables. Therefore, results infer that a reduction in the consumption of non-renewable and substitution with renewables will have a significant impact on carbon emission mitigation.

Through this study, the authors suggest the sustainable use of renewables as they are sustainable, secure, efficient, environmentally justifiable and economically viable sources of energy. Therefore, replacing traditional non-renewables with modern renewables has the potential in avoiding the dangerous impacts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) particularly in the G20 countries. This paper intends to guide policymakers regarding the environmental quality and renewable energy consumption required to hold back the fossil fuel dependence for a cleaner and greener planet.