G20 Information Centre provided by the G20 Research Group
	@g20rg G20 Summits |  G20 Ministerials |  G20 Analysis |  Search |  About the G20 Research Group [English]  [Français]  [Deutsch]  [Italiano]  [Portuguesa]  [Japanese]  [Chinese]  [Korean]  [Indonesian]

Analysis

2010 G20 Toronto Summit Final Compliance Report

The G20 Research Group at the Munk School of Global Affairs at Trinity College in the University of Toronto
and the G8 Research Centre of the University Higher School of Economics

Prepared by
Netila Demneri, Sarah Ellis, Mila Khodskaya, Ivana Jankovic and Jenilee Guebert,
University of Toronto G20 Research Group
and Mark Rakhmangulov and Yuriy Zaytsev,
University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) G8 Research Centre

28 June 2010 to 29 October 2010
Published November 14, 2010

Download the full 207-page report here.

• Executive Summary
• Main Findings
• Table 1: G20 Toronto Summit Compliance Scores
• Table 2: G20 Compliance by Country, 2008–2010
• Table 3: Toronto G20 Compliance on Macroeconomic Policy
• Table 4: G20 Compliance by Issue, 2008-10

Executive Summary

The G20 Research Group at the Munk School of Global Affairs at Trinity College in the University of Toronto presents its fourth G20 Compliance Report in collaboration in collaboration with the G8 Research Centre at the State University Higher School of Economics. The report analyses the efforts made by the G20 members to comply with the commitments made at the Toronto Summit on 26-27 June 2010, within the period from 28 June 2010 to 31 October 2010.

This study uses a comprehensive methodology of monitoring and assessing the G20 members’ compliance performance with the commitments made at the summits. It is based on the method used for assessing G8 compliance designed and employed since 1996 by the G8 Research Group at the Munk School of Global Affairs at Trinity College in the University of Toronto.

Individual scores of G20 members are assigned on a scale from -1 to +1, where +1 indicates full compliance with the stated commitment, -1 indicates a failure to comply or action taken that is directly opposite to the stated goal of the commitment, and 0 indicates partial compliance, a work in progress or initiatives that have been launched by a government but are not yet near completion so that results can not yet be assessed.

Thus every G20 member receives a score of -1, 0 or +1 for each commitment. These individual commitment scores are summarized and divided by the number of commitments to get a country average compliance score (in points).

Eight commitments from the G20 Toronto Summit declaration were selected to be monitored. The selection criteria were similar to those used for monitoring G8 compliance. The selection should be balanced and represent the summit priorities, be important for the G20 and the world, be comprehensive and cover most of the summit domains and decision areas, and represent both individual and collective pledges. The selected commitments should also meet secondary criteria relating to performance measurability, ability to comply within the monitoring period and the feasibility of establishing interpretative guidelines. The commitments chosen cover the most important issues discussed in the document: macroeconomic policy (two commitments), reform of international financial institutions (IFIs), development finance, reform of financial markets infrastructure, food and agriculture (L’Aquila Food Security Initiative), trade (anti-protectionist pledge), corruption (United Nations Convention against Corruption) and energy (fossil fuel subsidies).

[back to top]

Main Findings

The average compliance of the G20 members with their Toronto Summit commitments is assessed at a score of 0.28 (see Table 1). This score on the scientific scale of -1.00 to +1.00 represents 64% on the more familiar scale based on 0 to 100. The G20’s Toronto performance exceeded the average of both the September 2009 Pittsburgh Summit at 0.24 (62%) and the April 2009 London Summit at 0.23 (62%) (see Table 2).

Canada, which was the chair of both the 2010 G8 summit and the Toronto Summit, registered the highest compliance score of +0.78. The United Kingdom registered the same score, while the European Union followed in third place at +0.57. Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea tied in fourth place with a score of +0.56, and China came in fifth with a compliance of +0.38. Mexico, South Africa and Turkey tied with the second lowest score of -0.14, with India achieving the lowest compliance at -0.29. The G8 members achieved a cumulative score of +0.53. The non-G8 members registered compliance of +0.11.

With respect to issue areas, the highest performance at +0.9 was registered on IFI reform. Next followed the macroeconomic policy commitments, with the advanced economies scoring a compliance of +0.67 on halving deficits by 2013 and stabilizing or reducing the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) by 2016. Advanced deficit economies achieved a score of +0.83 and surplus economies scored +0.63 on their respective commitments (see Table 3). This shows a slight increase from Pittsburgh’s +0.7, well above London’s +0.35. Issue-specific compliance scores for the previous summits are provided in Table 4.

With regard to the macroeconomic commitment, the Toronto Declaration does not ask for the compliance of emerging deficit countries. However, since several G20 emerging economies have deficit current accounts (Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey), their compliance has been assessed using the scoring for advanced deficit countries and included in Annex II. Likewise, a report on the EU’s compliance with the macroeconomic commitments is included in Annex III.

The issue of corruption scored the lowest compliance with a score of -0.20, as no G20 member implemented all the principles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The issue of energy scored second lowest at +0.05.

[back to top]

Table 1. G20 Toronto Summit Compliance Scores

[back to top]

Table 2. G20 Compliance by Country, 2008–2010

[back to top]

Table 3. Toronto G20 Compliance on Macroeconomic Policy