Opinion

The G20 in a post-Brexit world

As Britain enters a period of political and economic instability, following a referendum vote that many now interpret as anti-globalisation, it is worth reflecting on what the consequences of Brexit will be for the world’s ‘economic steering committee’: the G20.

By: Date: August 18, 2016 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This op-ed was originally published in Naftemporiki and Diario Economico.

naftemporiki

diario economico logo

Post-war Great Britain has always been at the forefront of promoting global cooperation and multilateralism: from taking an active role in the setting up of the Bretton Woods institutions to being a member of the Group of Five – an embryo gathering which later evolved into the G7. The UK has been a prominent member of the G20 since its founding.

As Britain enters a period of political and economic instability, following a referendum vote that many now interpret as anti-globalisation, it is worth reflecting on what the consequences of Brexit will be for the world’s ‘economic steering committee’: the G20. There are indeed reasons to believe that the forum may experience rough sailing ahead.

While the British referendum had its own peculiarities, it is clearly part of a wider trend in growing discontent with globalisation. Both US presidential candidates have expressed no penchant for further trade integration, with Hillary Clinton criticising the TPP and Donald Trump stating he would renegotiate and possibly even leave NAFTA. In continental Europe, opinion polls show how the wider public in Germany and Austria is strongly opposed to TTIP.

As politics turns inward looking in several developed countries, in an effort to appease the growing opposition to globalisation and its side effects, the G20 will find it even harder to seal new binding multilateral initiatives. And indeed, the WTO has recently recorded the largest increase in trade restrictions among G20 economies since it started collecting data in 2009.

However, growing anti-globalisation sentiments are a peculiarity of some advanced economies, whereas emerging G20 members generally preserve an open stance to trade and investment. This should come as no surprise, as over the past 15 years globalisation has helped lift millions out of extreme poverty, particularly in Asia. We can therefore expect an even further acceleration in the eastward shift in economic power and leadership, as China and India will take an increasingly predominant role in the G20.

If the forum wants to preserve its legitimacy, multilateralism, and global economic integration, a strong political message should come out of the next G20 Summit in September. In Hangzhou, leaders must show that the world’s economic steering committee is not deaf to rising anti-globalisation sentiments. In doing so, it should acknowledge that unfettered globalisation might stimulate global growth but nonetheless poses both economic and political challenges.

The G20 should commission the IMF and OECD to produce wide-ranging in-depth studies on the social consequences of globalisation and the origins of anti-globalisation movements, as has been done for structural reforms over the past year.

Understanding the exact origins of discontent will help shape an effective response. At the moment, many questions remain unanswered. The exact interaction between globalisation, agglomeration effects, and robotisation must be explained in order to understand whether what is needed is more redistribution, investment in human capital, or physical and digital infrastructure to integrate depressed regions further into the global economy. In light of this research, concrete recommendations could be ready by the German G20 presidency next year.

In 2002, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan gave a passionate speech at Yale University warning of the potential political backlash if the social, as well as economic, consequences of globalisation were left unattended. The time has come for global leaders to make sure that, over a decade later, his plea for “inclusive globalisation” is finally answered.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The EU needs a Brexit endgame

Britain and the EU must try to preserve the longstanding economic, political, and security links and, despite the last 31 months spent arguing over Brexit, they should try to follow a new path toward convergence.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 31, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

What does a possible no-deal Brexit mean?

With Brexit getting closer, it is still extremely difficult to predict which one of the possible outcomes will materialise. Guntram Wolff examines what exactly it would mean for the UK to 'crash out' of the EU, for both parties.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: The economics of no-deal Brexit

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by senior fellow Zsolt Darvas to rake through the possibilities and probabilities inherent in a no-deal Brexit scenario, covering trade, the Irish border, citizens' rights and the EU budget.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

EU budget implications of a no-deal Brexit

A no-deal Brexit would mean the UK’s contributions to the EU budget fall to zero as of March 30th 2019. The author here calculates an estimate of the budget shortfall that would have to be covered in this case, and how the burden would fall across different member states.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the European Union prepared?

The author, based on a note written for the Bundestag EU Committee, is exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU, assessing preparations on the EU side and providing guidance on the optimal strategy for the EU, depending on the choices made by the United Kingdom.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

German Bundestag

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the EU prepared?

Hearing on Brexit in the EU Committee of Bundestag on 14 January 2019, exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU and assessing preparations on the EU side.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, German Bundestag, Testimonies Date: January 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s view of the trade war has changed—and so has its strategy

The truce agreed on by China and the United States at the sidelines of the recent G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires doesn’t really change the picture of the U.S.’s ultimate goal of containing China. The reason is straightforward: The U.S. and China have become strategic competitors and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, which leaves little room for any long-term settlement of disputes.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Brexit: Now for something completely different?

The life of Brexit. After a week of ECJ rulings, delayed votes, Theresa May’s errands across Europe and the vote of no confidence, we review the latest economists’ opinions to try to make sense of what has changed and what hasn’t.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 17, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

How a second referendum could be the best way to overcome Brexit impasse

A new vote based on the revocation (or not) of Article 50 would give the UK government a clear signal to proceed in one direction or another, and thus trim down the number of options being touted – most of which are unworkable as things stand.

By: Maria Demertzis and Nicola Viegi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

The world deserves a more effective G20

As the presidency shifts from Argentina to Japan at Buenos Aires (and then to Saudi Arabia) it is worth asking why the G20 has endured this long and what it needs to remain relevant in a dramatically changed world.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 29, 2018
Read article

Opinion

Buenos Aires summit is a good place to start fighting back against destructive unilateralism

Ten years after the G20 proved its effectiveness in dealing with the global financial crisis, it needs to step up its efforts to overcome a political crisis, fuelled by destructive unilateralism, that threatens international governance on trade, investment and tax.

By: Uri Dadush, Axel Berger, Andreas Freytag, Simon J Evenett, Christian von Haldenwang, Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, Raul Ochoa, Agustin Redonda and Karl P Sauvant Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 28, 2018
Load more posts