Policy Brief on G8 Summit Reform
Summary:CIGI Associate Director Andrew F. Cooper makes the case for expansion of the G8 to include the B(R)ICSAM countries
In the inaugural Policy Brief in International Governance, CIGI Associate Director Andrew F. Cooper provides reasoning for expansion of the G8 membership to include the B(R)ICSAM group of emerging economies.
------------------------------
The Logic of the B(R)ICSAM Model for G8 Reform
Andrew F. Cooper, CIGI Policy Brief #1
MAY 2007
In this brief, Dr Cooper argues that this cluster of countries (Brazil, India, China, South Africa, ASEAN, and Mexico) coincides well with the so-called G5 'outreach' or 'dialogue' countries that have been gradually, albeit unevenly, incorporated into the G8 summit process, and that the value of using the B(R)ICSAM term allows for recognition of the individuality of each member of this group of countries, while minimizing sensitivities over previous expansion terms.
Operationally, Dr Cooper makes the case for the inclusion of these core countries on both efficiency and legitimacy. As noted at the outset all of the core B(R)ICSAM members of the L20 configuration fit the profile of classic big emerging markets and/or regional powerhouses, that are becoming increasingly integrated into the world economy. The B(R)ICSAM model for incremental G8 reform seems to have become the best bet for movement. It allows for a sizeable degree of reform without either tipping the balance away from the G8 or raising the bar of expectations too far for other countries.
------------------------------
Watch this space for future updates on CIGI Publications. Feel free to use this blog to comment on this and other papers.
1 Comment
Vicheka Lay
I do appreciate Dr. Cooper's perspective on "equal global integration"; for what he raised: Expanding G8 Memberships. However, I do not totally consent to the idea. India, China, Brazil, Asean states, South Africa and Mexica, still have countless internal problems; gaps between the rich and the poor, human rights, democratization, welfares, and other internal responsibilities of the government.
To me, let these countries solve the internal problems to the best extent possible, before becomming a prominent player on the international plane. I think if they become the international player now, the poor, the vulnerable groups, democratization, etc will be left behind. Who will suffer then?
I think international equality is not as important as reducing the gaps between the rich and the poor, the gaps between the educated and the illiterate.
Dr. Cooper and Andrew, I hope to get your feedbacks regarding my arguementations.