Global politics are domestic politics: a societal approach to divergence in the G20

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Since 2008, the leaders of industrialised and emerging economies have engaged in steering the global economy through the G20. Divergent national positions were to be expected based upon the different stages of economic development and according to previously existing international groups. The actual controversies in the G20 did not reflect these patterns, however, but showed divergence both between industrialised countries and between emerging economies. In explaining this puzzle, I argue that the driving forces for global economic governance have ceased to be industrialised or emerging countries' alliances and levels of development. Rather, the causes for the positions of G20 members can be found in economic interests and ideas dominant in the domestic politics of countries. These societal influences shape governmental preference formation in both industrialised and emerging countries and consequently influence their behaviour in global governance. The resulting divergences weaken previously existing groups such as the G7 and the BRICs, and create a new pattern in world politics. This societal approach to explaining governmental positions in global economic governance is exemplified on the core G20 issues of stimulus/public debt and global imbalances/exchange rates.</jats:p>

Los países emergentes en el G-20 y la política seguida por Argentina

“…Por supuesto que hubo pugna de objetivos y posiciones entre el G-8 y la tríada China, India, Brasil; pero también es cierto que cada país con poder -siguiendo sus objetivos y posiciones-buscó imponer agenda y formar coaliciones eventuales, según el área temática que se discutía (Gnath y Schmucker, 2011). O bien, como analiza Stefan Schirm (2013), los desacuerdos entre el G-7 y el grupo BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China, Sudáfrica) han sido epidérmicos porque las verdaderas divergencias diplomáticas del G-20 pasaron por la disparidad entre las ideas y los intereses económicos dominantes en cada país.…”

The European Union and the BRICS

“…It focuses on the EU's action to reinforce its presence in specific markets and will subsequently highlight the importance of societal interests. Both the liberal approach of International Relations (Moravcsik 1997) and the societal approach to governmental preference formation (Schirm 2013) focus on societal interests and assume that foreign policy is shaped by domestic influences and economic interdependence. 8 In contrast to a systemic theory which privileges states' exogenous interests, for liberals the interests of societal actors are of significance.…”

Domestic ideas, institutions or interests? Explaining governmental preferences towards global economic governance

“…On most issues, participating states could not agree on a common ground. These controversies, however, did not follow the lines of international alliances such as the G7 or the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), but were rather shaped by domestic societal influences on governmental positions: global politics were domestic politics (Schirm, 2013).…”

“…In analysing the puzzle, the article follows the societal approach to governmental preference formation (Schirm, 2009(Schirm, , 2011(Schirm, , 2013, which rests on theories of domestic politics, including the liberal theory of international relations (IR) (Katzenstein, 1978;Milner, 1997;Moravcsik, 1997) and the varieties of capitalism theory (Fioretos, 2001;Hall and Soskice, 2001). The societal approach integrates and develops these theories further.…”