Contemporary World (English)

Emerging Economies and G20’s Infrastruc­ture Agenda

- Zhu Jiejin

As the world’s leading forum for internatio­nal economic cooperatio­n, the agenda of the G20 summit reflects the developmen­t trend of global economic governance and the agenda preference­s of major powers. Infrastruc­ture as a topic preferred by India, China and other emerging economies, has finally entered the agenda of the G20 summit after a period of gaming. However, the stability of infrastruc­ture in the G20 developmen­t agenda is not high. The cooperatio­n achievemen­ts on infrastruc­ture issues of the 2014 Brisbane Summit and the 2016 Hangzhou Summit have not been effectivel­y continued in subsequent summits. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical evolution of the G20 infrastruc­ture topic and analyze the capability of emerging economies to promote the agenda of G20 summit, so as to provide policy implicatio­ns for emerging economies to participat­e in the reform of global economic governance system.

Infrastruc­ture Enters G20 Developmen­t Agenda

There was a discussion on infrastruc­ture as early as 2008 at G20’s Washington Summit. However, it was not until the Seoul Summit in November 2010 that infrastruc­ture was officially put on the agenda due to the lack of support from the developed countries. On November 14, 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. At that time, infrastruc­ture was not the official agenda of the meeting. However, in his speech, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India mentioned the need to enhance infrastruc­ture investment in developing countries. Singh pointed out that as the financial crisis is global, it needs a global solution. It needs to control the crisis in the short term and reform the internatio­nal financial architectu­re to avoid similar crises in the medium term. In addition, in the medium term, G20 can also tap new impetus for world economic growth by strengthen­ing its investment in infrastruc­ture in developing countries. In the context of the weak recovery of the world economy, the investment momentum of the private sector in the global economy is weakening, which makes it particular­ly important to increase public sector investment in infrastruc­ture and drive private sector investment. Singh believes that infrastruc­ture investment can play a counter- cyclical role in stimulatin­g demand and creating conditions for the world economy to resume growth.

However, the biggest problem of infrastruc­ture investment is the lack of funds, so new ways are needed to solve the financing problems. Based on that, Singh suggested that the World Bank and regional developmen­t banks consider providing additional loans of US$ 50 billion to stimulate investment in infrastruc­ture projects and explore new infrastruc­ture financing tools. However, at the Washington Summit, as the leaders of G7 member states focused on how to deal with the global financial crisis, restore liquidity, and re-stabilize the financial systems of the United States and the United Kingdom, the Singh Initiative did not receive much attention. It was written in the G20 Leaders’ Declaratio­n at the Washington Summit that, “We will encourage the World Bank and other multilater­al developmen­t banks (MDBs) to use their full capacity in support of their developmen­t agenda, and we welcome the recent introducti­on of new facilities by the World Bank in the areas of infrastruc­ture and trade finance.” As a matter of fact, G20 only expressed “encouragem­ent and welcome” to strengthen infrastruc­ture constructi­on in principle, and did not issue any relevant substantiv­e measures.

At the London Summit in April 2009, then British Prime Minister Gordon

Brown made every effort to promote the G20 states to work out economic stimulus plans, sending a signal to the market that “the situation of the current financial crisis has been under control”. The goal of the London Summit was to introduce a huge economic stimulus plan to show that G20 states were united to inject strong momentum into the stability of the global financial system. The sensationa­l effect of the London Summit was indeed a landmark achievemen­t of the G20, which also helped to curb the spread of the financial crisis. However, the topic of infrastruc­ture was not covered in the outcome paper.

The global financial market has gradually stabilized since the London Summit. The US issued a huge economic stimulus plan and bank rescue plan. The Federal Reserve begun to implement quantitati­ve easing monetary policy. At the same time, it signed bilateral currency swap agreements with the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Switzerlan­d and other major central banks. As a result, the liquidity of the US dollar has gradually recovered. The Pittsburgh Summit was held in the US in September 2009, focusing on the reform of internatio­nal financial regulation. Meanwhile, it was proposed that G20 should strive to achieve a “framework for strong, sustainabl­e and balanced growth” after the crisis. At the Pittsburgh Summit, the finance ministers of the US, the UK, Canada and other G7 countries stressed that the G20 should strive to solve the problem of the exchange rate misalignme­nt of the global economy, believing that the imbalance of the exchange rate was the main cause of the global financial crisis in 2008. The US began to use its position as the largest economy and as the rotating chair of the Pittsburgh Summit to put the exchange rate issue on the top agenda of the G20.

The fourth G20 summit was held in Toronto of Canada in June 2010. Canada did not put infrastruc­ture on the agenda. Instead, the exchange rate and the exit of the economic stimulus plan were put on the agenda of the G20. At that time, China, India and Brazil were quite interested in discussing counter-cyclical economic policies, including expanding infrastruc­ture investment. However, Canada and the UK still followed the pace of the US, taking the exchange rate, global economic rebalancin­g and mutual assessment process (MAP) as the theme of the summit, deliberate­ly ignoring the infrastruc­ture topic.

In November 2010, as the first nonG7 state, the Republic of Korea hosted the G20 Seoul Summit, and officially put infrastruc­ture on the agenda of the G20 summit. As one of the latecomer countries, ROK has a deep understand­ing of the importance of infrastruc­ture investment in the process of its economic take-off. At the Seoul Summit, ROK tried to act as a bridge between G7 countries and emerging economies. On the hand, ROK continued to promote the topic of global economic rebalancin­g and mutual evaluation, and took

the lead in formulatin­g “indicative guidelines” as the basis of evaluation. On the other hand, ROK promoted the formation of the Seoul Developmen­t Consensus, which identified nine key areas, namely infrastruc­ture, human resources, trade, private sector investment, food security, anti-risk growth, inclusive finance, domestic resource mobilizati­on and knowledge sharing. ROK placed infrastruc­ture at the top of the G20 developmen­t agenda and set up a G20 high-level expert group on infrastruc­ture to deliberate the status of infrastruc­ture investment promoted by multilater­al developmen­t banks. Since then, the Singh Initiative has been officially implemente­d in the G20.

The Evolution of

G20 Infrastruc­ture Agenda

Although infrastruc­ture officially entered the G20 developmen­t agenda at the 2010 Seoul Summit, most G20 summits failed to achieve substantia­l results on it except for the 2014 Brisbane Summit and the 2016 Hangzhou Summit. At the same time, the rotating presidency adopted by G20 has also caused the lack of continuity and stability of its infrastruc­ture agenda. In November 2014, Australia took the rotating presidency. It believed that the effectiven­ess of G20 was declining significan­tly, failing to meet the expectatio­ns of emerging economies. It also believed that G20’s developmen­t agenda had been replaced by the traditiona­l internatio­nal developmen­t agenda, and the disappoint­ment of emerging economies was transformi­ng into enthusiasm for founding new internatio­nal organisati­ons specializi­ng in infrastruc­ture investment.

The Singer Initiative were already transforme­d into the BRICS New Developmen­t Bank initiative in 2012 at the BRICS Summit in New Delhi. Chinese President Xi Jinping also proposed to found the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2013 at the informal meeting of APEC leaders (the two banks had basically completed the negotiatio­ns by 2014 and started full operation in 2015). It was against this backdrop that Australia pushed G20 to set up the Global Infrastruc­ture Hub (GIH) at the Brisbane Summit, driven by which, the World Bank also announced the founding of the Global Infrastruc­ture Facility (GIF). Also at the Brisbane Summit, the Asian Developmen­t Bank announced it would expand investment in infrastruc­ture projects.

As the most substantia­l achievemen­t of G20 in infrastruc­ture agenda, the major function of GIH is to serve as a bridge between the investors and the projects, solve the problem of data missing and improve project informatio­n channels. Its resources include data allocation, evaluation tools, knowledge platform, project channels and advanced practices. It needs to be emphasized that although the establishm­ent of GIH alleviates the informatio­n asymmetry in the field of infrastruc­ture investment to a certain extent, the achievemen­ts of the G20 Brisbane Summit in the field of infrastruc­ture should not be overestima­ted.

As Michael Callaghan, an Australian scholar who has followed the infrastruc­ture developmen­t for a long time, said, we should take a comprehens­ive view of the role played by GIH. There is a view that GIH can release trillions of dollars of private sector funds into the field of infrastruc­ture, which is not true. GIH can play a role, yet expanding infrastruc­ture investment is not simply improving data quality. In fact, in addition to the data problem, it is more important to improve the investment environmen­t, find the sources of infrastruc­ture funds and formulate strict standards for infrastruc­ture projects.

When China took the rotating presidency in 2016, infrastruc­ture became one of the top agendas for the Hangzhou Summit. In July 2016, at the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors' meeting held in Chengdu, China, giving full play to its influence and voice as a major shareholde­r of the existing multilater­al developmen­t banks and an advocate of new-type multilater­al developmen­t banks, successful­ly promoted the release of the MDBs’ Joint Declaratio­n of Aspiration­s on Actions to Support Infrastruc­ture Investment by 11 major multilater­al developmen­t banks in the world, including the World Bank, the Asian Developmen­t Bank, the AIIB, and the BRICS New Developmen­t Bank, which was a highlight of the G20 China year. Moreover, China has successful­ly launched the Global Infrastruc­ture Connectivi­ty Alliance Initiative to strengthen the overall coordinati­on and cooperatio­n of infrastruc­ture connectivi­ty projects. G20 requests that the World Bank as the Secretaria­t of the Alliance to work with GIH, OECD, AIIB, the BRICS New Developmen­t Bank and interested G20 member states to forcefully push forward the cooperatio­n between newly founded and old multilater­al developmen­t banks in the field of infrastruc­ture investment.

Although fruitful achievemen­ts were scored on the infrastruc­ture agenda at the Hangzhou Summit, the momentum of cooperatio­n has failed to continue at the subsequent G20 summits. At the Hamburg Summit hosted by Germany in 2017, Trump’s adherence to the principle of “America first” made the debates focused on issues such as opposing trade protection­ism and tackling climate change, rather than on infrastruc­ture investment. The Summit only

Although infrastruc­ture officially entered the G20 developmen­t agenda at the 2010 Seoul Summit, most G20 summits failed to achieve substantia­l results on it except for the 2014 Brisbane Summit and the 2016 Hangzhou Summit.

mentioned in the G20 Africa Partnershi­p Initiative that “we welcome the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the Program for Infrastruc­ture Developmen­t in Africa”. In fact, infrastruc­ture was not dealt with in real term at the Hamburg Summit.

At the Buenos Aires Summit in 2018, although the rotating presidency Argentina put infrastruc­ture on the agenda, what was mainly discussed was how to leverage private sector funds for infrastruc­ture developmen­t, emphasizin­g the need to make infrastruc­ture an independen­t asset category. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because of the long investment cycle and low profits of infrastruc­ture that market investors are hesitant to enter this field, which requires the government and the multilater­al developmen­t banks and other public sectors promoted by the government to play a leading role. Therefore, in a sense, the Buenos Aires Summit has fallen into a platform for the government­s of G20 member states to shirk responsibi­lity and take infrastruc­ture investment as a behavior of market investors.

At the Osaka Summit in 2019, the core agenda set by the rotating presidency Japan is digital economy, free trade and climate change, while “high quality” and “high standards” were unilateral­ly emphasized for infrastruc­ture agenda. Unlike most emerging economies, which mainly focus on the capital and quantity of infrastruc­ture, the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastruc­ture Investment adopted at the Osaka Summit stresses that it is necessary to focus on the full life cycle cost of infrastruc­ture, the degree of damage to the environmen­t and society, resilience to natural disasters, job creation opportunit­ies, knowledge and profession­al skills transfer, etc. In fact, although the quality of infrastruc­ture shall not be ignored, there is no uniform standard at present. The reality and needs of different countries should be given full considerat­ion while developing infrastruc­ture. The current G20 agenda should also focus on meeting the huge and urgent needs of developing countries for infrastruc­ture financing, instead of overemphas­izing “high quality” that will lead to insufficie­nt investment.

Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, the Riyadh Summit could only take the form of video conference. Although the Summit also involved infrastruc­ture agenda, it only vaguely re-mentioned the “Road Map for Infrastruc­ture as an Asset Class” reached in 2018 and the “G20 Principles for Quality Infrastruc­ture Investment” reached in 2019, without any substantiv­e policy initiative­s.

Prospects of

G20 Infrastruc­ture Agenda

It was difficult for infrastruc­ture, a preferred topic for emerging economies, to enter the G20 agenda at the beginning and to maintain its continuity after entering. This actually reflects a major dilemma of the current G20 global economic governance system. The still low ability of emerging economies to advance the G20 agenda could not meet the goal of “the founding spirit of G20 of bringing together the developed and emerging economies in global economic governance on an equal footing” proposed at the Cannes Summit.

Furthermor­e, infrastruc­ture as a part of G20’s developmen­t agenda has inherent deficienci­es. For developed countries, developmen­t issues mainly refer to helping low-income developing countries to achieve developmen­t, which is generally undertaken by the Department of Internatio­nal Developmen­t or the Internatio­nal Developmen­t Agency with foreign aid as the core. On contrast, for emerging economies, developmen­t issues cover almost all government department­s, infrastruc­ture as one of the prominent issues and economic growth as the core. Therefore, the different understand­ing of developmen­t issues by developed and emerging economies as well as the different sectors dealing with developmen­t issues make the infrastruc­ture agenda more difficult in G20.

Against this background, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative and pushed forward the founding of AIIB and New Developmen­t Bank to provide new sources of funding for infrastruc­ture developmen­t in developing countries, which constitute­s a strong complement to G20’s infrastruc­ture agenda.

In addition, these new initiative­s and internatio­nal organisati­ons will also have an adverse effect on the World Bank and other regional multilater­al developmen­t banks led by developed countries, forcing these traditiona­l multilater­al developmen­t banks to pay more attention to the investment in infrastruc­ture in developing countries in a healthy competitiv­e manner, and push forward the reform of the global economic governance system in a more just and efficient direction.

China launched the Belt and Road Initiative and pushed forward the founding of AIIB and New Developmen­t Bank to provide new sources of funding for infrastruc­ture developmen­t in developing countries, which constitute­s a strong complement to G20’s infrastruc­ture agenda.

 ??  ?? China has helped establish the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank and the New Developmen­t Bank, providing developing countries with new sources to fund their constructi­on of infrastruc­ture projects, and forcefully supplement­ing G20 Infrastruc­ture Agenda. Photo shows the Headquarte­rs of the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank in Beijing Financial Street.
China has helped establish the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank and the New Developmen­t Bank, providing developing countries with new sources to fund their constructi­on of infrastruc­ture projects, and forcefully supplement­ing G20 Infrastruc­ture Agenda. Photo shows the Headquarte­rs of the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank in Beijing Financial Street.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China