Rebecca M. Nelson
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
The G-20 is an international forum for discussing and coordinating economic
policies among major advanced and emerging economies. Congress may want to
exercise oversight over the Administration’s participation in the G-20
process, including the policy commitments that the Administration is
making in the G-20 and the policies it is encouraging other G-20 countries to pursue.
Background
The G-20 rose to prominence during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009,
when it played an arguably influential role in coordinating international
responses to the crisis. Leaders agreed that the G-20 would be the “premier”
forum for international economic coordination, a position previously held
by a smaller group of advanced economies (the Group of 7, or G-7, which includes
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United
States). G-20 leaders have annual meetings (“summits”), and meetings among
lower-level officials from the G-20 countries occur more frequently.
Meetings primarily focus on international economic and financial issues,
although related topics are also discussed, including development, food security,
and the environment, among others. Previous summits have, for example, focused
on financial regulatory reform, global imbalances, funding for the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), voting power of emerging economies in
international financial institutions, and fossil fuel subsidies.
The G-20 in 2013 and 2014
The G-20 has a rotating presidency, which is held by Russia in 2013. The
Russian government indicated that it wanted to use its presidency to focus
on macroeconomic and financial sector issues. The Russian government
hosted the 2013 G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, on September 5-6,
2013, which focused on a wide range of economic issues, including trade, investment,
jobs, financial regulation, and corruption. Foreign policy issues, most notably
the situation in Syria, were also discussed. Australia is scheduled to
assume the G-20 presidency in 2014 and host the next summit in Brisbane on
November 15-16, 2014. In addition to the summits, several meetings among
lower level officials, including finance ministers and central bank governors
among others, are scheduled throughout the year.
Effectiveness of the G-20
Some analysts say that while the G-20 was instrumental in coordinating the
response to the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, its effectiveness
has diminished as the urgency of the crisis has waned. They argue that the
G-20 has failed to provide adequate international leadership in key policy
areas, including responses to the Eurozone crisis and forging a conclusion to
the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round of multilateral trade
negotiations. They also maintain that the G-20 as a group is too
heterogeneous to achieve real coordination and its agenda is too ambitious.
Others argue that the G-20 serves as an important institution in the
international economy. They argue that the G-20 is a critical forum for
discussing major policy initiatives across major countries and encouraging
greater cooperation, even if agreement on policies is not always reached.
They also argue that it serves as a useful institution as a steering committee
for other international organizations, such as the IMF, and that having
the G-20 policy-making infrastructure in place is important for timely
international responses to future crises.
Date of Report: November 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R40977
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R40977 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance
The flow of private sector resources to developing countries has increased
significantly in recent decades. Seeking opportunity in this changing
environment, government development assistance agencies such as the U.S.
Agency for International Development and the State Department are working
with private sector entities in unprecedented ways to determine when and if
such partnerships can lead to improved development results. As explained
in the Obama Administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR), “private sector partners can add value to our missions through
their resources, their capacity to establish presence in places we cannot,
through the technologies, networks, and contacts they can tap, and through
their specialized expertise or knowledge.”
Modern public-private partnerships (PPPs), characterized by joint planning,
joint contributions, and shared risk, are viewed by many development
experts as an opportunity to leverage resources, mobilize industry
expertise and networks, and bring fresh ideas to development projects.
Partnering with the private sector is also widely believed to increase the
likelihood that programs will continue after government aid has ended.
From the private sector perspective, partnering with a government agency
can bring development expertise and resources, access to government officials,
credibility, and scale.
Now a decade after the formation of USAID’s Global Development Alliance (GDA),
PPPs for development have received mixed reviews. PPPs require significant
effort to create and manage, and critics argue that inadequate data exist
to demonstrate that these efforts are the most effective way to use
limited development resources. Others have expressed concern about partnerships diverting
resources away from proven development programs or recipients. Still others are concerned
that PPPs, particularly those involving corporate partners and focusing on
trade and economic growth, may lead to outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
Partnership proponents have varying views as well. Some feel that the goal of
mainstreaming the PPP model as a tool for development has been achieved,
while others contend that the potential for using PPPs in development has only begun
to be realized and that expanded partnerships are the future of development
assistance.
To date, the movement toward this modern concept of development partnership has
been driven by successive administrations with limited congressional
involvement. However, recent reviews of U.S. foreign assistance policy,
together with increasing fiscal constraints, may spur congressional action
on foreign assistance reauthorization or reform in the 113th Congress. As part of
this effort, Congress may consider several issues that affect or are affected
by the use of PPPs, including budget and procurement policies, interagency
leadership, international commitments, and the role of aid within broader
development policy. This report discusses the evolution of private sector
involvement in U.S. foreign assistance programs over recent decades, how globalization
has driven the modern approach to development partnerships, potential benefits
and drawbacks of PPPs, and how partnerships are being used by other
bilateral donors and multilateral development agencies. The report then
discusses partnership-related issues that may be of interest to Congress
as part of the foreign assistance authorization and reform process.
Date of Report: October 28, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41880
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R41880 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Mary Jane Bolle
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
The April 24, 2013, collapse of an eight-story garment factory, called Rana
Plaza, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, resulted in the deaths of more than 1,100
workers. It is reportedly now considered the deadliest accident in the
history of the apparel industry. Congress has had a long-standing interest
in supporting internationally recognized worker rights in developing countries,
and the building collapse has raised concerns about worker conditions in Bangladesh.
Rana Plaza was allegedly structurally unsound and poorly maintained for apparel
production. Apparel production is generally known as an industry under
threat of fire, and one where workers need easy access to rapid escape
routes. Issues relating to workers’ inability to effectively exercise
their rights to organize, bargain collectively, and work in a safe workplace
may have contributed to the tragedy. For example, workers reportedly
noticed cracks in the building and resisted entering, and were told that
if they did not report to their jobs, they would not be paid. The factory
collapse brought international focus to those parts of global supply chains
that may not meet basic safety and health standards.
The U.S. government supports internationally recognized worker rights through
various policies and programs. These include U.S. trade preference
programs, free trade agreements, foreign assistance, and Department of
Labor initiatives.
Congressional and U.S. efforts in this regard are part of an international
worker rights support structure in place to offer technical assistance and
support to countries—especially developing countries. Other major parts of
this structure include international organizations, such as the International
Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919; and corporate codes of conduct,
which have arisen from a broader movement of corporate social
responsibility that gained strength in the 1980s and 1990s.
Early analysis of the causes of the Bangladesh tragedy raises questions about
what went wrong and about what can be done to help Bangladesh to improve
working conditions at factories. Efforts to make changes in Bangladesh are
already underway, and developments on this issue are evolving.
This report provides an overview of the recent tragedy in Bangladesh and the
Bangladesh economic environment and culture. It also notes the responses
to the tragedy, to date, from Congress, the Administration, the ILO, the
Bangladesh government, and the private sector. Finally, it raises some
possible issues for Congress.
Date of Report: November 1, 2013
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R43085
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43085 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Posts
