This paper identifies some of the key characteristics of the emergence of a “new multilateralism.” It offers a number of practical recommendations on how to get the best out of the multilateral development system (MDS) in an increasingly complex environment.

The MDS is a set of institutions and norms that have guided development cooperation since the secondworld war. It has been based on a number of underlying principles that can be summarized as follows: doing no harm to others, solidarity with developing countries, and sharing the burden of investing in global public goods. The MDS has used a broad range of instruments but ultimately the test of its effectiveness is that it enables a collective response to solving a particular problem that is preferred to individual country responses.

To be effective, multilateralism must be a choice that is made because it is the most effective or efficient instrument available to a government. Multilateralism should not become a way of abdicating leadership. It must be a way of exercising it. For a new multilateralism to take root, what is needed is a robust approach to the use of multilateralism as an instrument of choice by a large number of member states.

The MDS has evolved over time and continues to evolve. Initially, it was organized by a small group of like-minded countries with a common vision and principles, and was designed to share the financial burden of development cooperation and to implement programs of support in an effective way. But over the last two decades there have been strong forces reshaping the system. These include shifts in economic size and the emergence of the growth economies, the increasing differentiation among developing countries and the recognition that substantial investment in global public goods is needed to reap the benefits of globalization and reduce the costs. Today, the MDS is continuing to evolve in response to the need to accommodate emerging state powers and non-state actors (business, civil society, and others) as well as the need to broaden responsibility for collective responses.

Agenda 2030, the program for sustainable development endorsed by 193 member states of the United Nations in September 2015, provides important signals for how the MDS institutional landscape should evolve over the next few years. Agenda 2030 is truly multilateral as it underlines the importance of a “goals, targets, and results” framework for every country, against which progress can be transparently monitored. But it also shows where the current MDS falls short. Agenda 2030 is universal in its scope and vision, while the MDS is still mostly organized with a frame that divides the world into developed and developing countries. Agenda 2030 is ambitious and requires solutions at scale, while the MDS today is fragmented and project-oriented. Agenda 2030 argues for integrated solutions extending across development, peace, environment, and humanitarian realms, while the MDS is siloed in its approach. Agenda 2030 calls for contributions from a range of actors, beyond governments, while the MDS, at its core, remains largely intergovernmental. Agenda 2030 requires the mobilization of substantially greater resources from all sources, domestic and external, public and private, while the MDS has focused largely on aid and budgetary contributions from member states. Finally, Agenda 2030 recognizes the importance of investing in global (and regional) public goods and starts to define other means of implementation, highlighting where gaps in the system exist.

Downloads

• Download the full paper (PDF)

Event Information

U.S. policy towards South Asia has changed considerably over the last seven decades. The nature of U.S. engagement with different countries in the region has varied over time, as has the level of U.S. interest. While India and Pakistan have received the most attention from Washington, the United States has also been engaging with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, albeit to different degrees. 

On May 19, The India Project at Brookings hosted a panel discussion exploring the past and present U.S approaches towards South Asia, based on Senior Fellow Stephen Cohen’s new book, “The South Asia Papers: A Critical Anthology of Writings” (Brookings Institution Press, 2016). Panelists also assessed the Obama administration’s policies toward the region, and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the next U.S. administration. Fellow Tanvi Madan, director of The India Project, moderated the discussion.

After the discussion, the panelists took questions.

Video

• U.S. policy toward South Asia: Past, present, and future

Audio

• U.S. policy toward South Asia: Past, present, and future

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160519_south_asia_transcript

INTRODUCTION

As a mechanism for controlling climate change, the Kyoto Protocol has not been a success. Over the decade from its signing in 1997 to the beginning of its first commitment period in 2008, greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial countries subject to targets under the protocol did not fall as the protocol intended. Instead, emissions in many countries rose rapidly. It is now abundantly clear that as a group, the countries bound by the protocol have little chance of achieving their Kyoto targets by the end of the first commitment period in 2012. Moreover, emissions have increased substantially as well in countries such as China, which were not bound by the protocol but which will eventually have to be part of any serious climate change regime.

Although the protocol has not been effective at reducing emissions, it has been very effective at demonstrating a few important lessons about the form future international climate agreements should take. As negotiations begin in earnest on a successor agreement to take effect in 2012, it is important to learn from experience with the Kyoto Protocol in order to avoid making the same mistakes over again and to design a more durable post-2012 international agreement.

The first lesson is that a rigid system of targets and timetables for emissions reductions is difficult to negotiate because it pushes participants into a zero sum game. To reach a given target for global greenhouse gas concentrations, for example, countries must negotiate over shares of a fixed budget of future global emissions. A looser target for one country would have to be matched by a tighter target for another. It is clear that this has been an important obstacle for much of the history of negotiations conducted under the auspices of the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change, not just the Kyoto Protocol. From the beginning, developing countries have refused to participate in dividing up a fixed emissions budget. Not only that, but many observers have argued that if such a budget were ever to be divided, it should be done on the basis of population rather than the historical emissions which were the basis of the Kyoto Protocol.

A second lesson is that it is difficult for countries to commit themselves to achieving specified emissions targets when the costs of doing so are large and uncertain. At its core, the targets and timetables approach requires each participant to achieve its national emissions target regardless of the cost of doing so. Countries facing potentially high costs either refused to ratify the protocol, such as the United States, or simply failed to achieve their targets. Countries on track to meet their obligations were able to do so because of historical events largely unrelated to climate policy, such as German reunification, the Thatcher government’s reform of coal mining in Britain, or the collapse of the Russian economy in the early 1990’s.

The third lesson is perhaps the most important of all: even countries earnestly engaged in a targets and timetables process may be unable to meet their targets due to unforeseen events. Two excellent examples are New Zealand and Canada. No one anticipated during the 1997 negotiations that a decade later New Zealand would be facing a dramatic rise in Asian demand for beef and diary products. The impact on increasing methane emissions in New Zealand has been so large that it has completely offset the reductions New Zealand was able to achieve in the earlier 1990’s via reduced methane from declining numbers of sheep and improved sinks of carbon due to growth in forestry. Similarly, no one expected that Canada would find its tar sand deposits so valuable that extraction would be viable at oil prices reached two years ago let alone at current world oil prices.

One reason there has been so much interest in a targets and timetables strategy has been a widespread misunderstanding about the precision of scientific knowledge regarding the climate. It is widely agreed among atmospheric scientists that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising rapidly, and that emissions should be reduced.1 However, there is little agreement about how much emissions should be cut in any given year, and there is no guarantee that stabilizing at any particular concentration will eliminate the risk of dangerous climate change. Yet it is often implied that climate science translates directly into a specific emissions target and a fixed emissions budget.2 On the contrary, however, the uncertainties still remaining in the science are important and should be a core consideration in the design of climate policy.

All of the lessons above illustrate problems inherent in the targets and timetables approach. First, it forces countries into confrontations during negotiations over shares of a fixed global emissions budget. Second, committing to achieve a rigid emissions target is difficult for countries facing uncertain and potentially very high costs. Third, unexpected events can force even well-intentioned participants into non-compliance. In the face of these problems, some observers have argued that the solution is more of the same: a broader protocol with tighter targets and deeper cuts. However, there is little reason to expect the outcome to be any different, and in the mean time emissions will continue to rise. A better approach would be to recognize that focusing on targets and timetables has undermined the ultimate goal of actual emissions reductions, and that it is critical to move negotiations in a new direction. The Hokkaido Summit to be held in Japan this year is an important opportunity to make that shift, and to move the focus of climate change negotiations in a more realistic direction.

In this paper, we discuss an alternative framework for international climate policy, the McKibbin-Wilcoxen Hybrid3—an approach that focuses on coordinated actions rather than mandated, inflexible outcomes. Rather than committing to achieve specified emissions targets, participating countries would agree to adopt coordinated actions that are clear, measurable and enforceable within national borders. Because it does not start from a fixed emissions target (although an emissions budget does guide the design of the actions we propose), the Hybrid avoids all three of the problems discussed above. Shifting to an approach based on agreed actions, rather than specific emissions outcomes, will be a critical step in the evolution of climate negotiations. It will also make national policy actions more feasible than fixed targets, since a target would be little more than a hopeful pledge given how little is known for certain about the costs of reducing emissions.

Moreover, a framework based on common actions rather than common targets is particularly useful for accommodating the needs of developing countries. Developing countries face even greater uncertainty about their future economic growth prospects and future emissions paths than developed countries, and certainly do not want to undermine their development prospects by committing to an excessively stringent emissions target.

To illustrate the differences between the targets and timetables approach and one based on the Hybrid, we present a number of numerical simulations of the world economy using the G-Cubed global economic model. We focus particular attention on two of the problems with targets and timetables: the high stakes involved in negotiating over emissions budgets, and the risks stemming from uncertainty about costs. We first show that the outcome of a Kyoto-style targets and timetables policy with global emissions trading depends significantly on the allocation scheme for the emissions targets. We present one set of results using an allocation based on historical emissions and another set of results based on an equal per capita allocation. The results show how different the national costs of the policy will be depending on how emissions rights are allocated. We then examine the performance of the Kyoto-style allocation under one source of uncertainty: the rate of growth in developing countries, particularly China and India.

Downloads

• Download

Event Information

The drawing of legislative district boundaries is among the most self-interested and least transparent systems in American democratic governance. All too often, formal redistricting authorities maintain their control by imposing high barriers to transparency and to public participation in the process. Reform advocates believe that opening that process to the public could lead to different outcomes and better representation.

On January 20, Brookings hosted a briefing to review how redistricting in the 50 states will unfold in the months ahead and present a number of state-based initiatives designed to increase transparency and public participation in redistricting. Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellows Micah Altman and Michael McDonald unveiled open source mapping software which enables users to create and submit their own plans, based on current census and historical election data, to redistricting authorities and to disseminate them widely. Such alternative public maps could offer viable input to the formal redistricting process.

After each presentation, participants took audience questions.

Learn more about Michael McDonald's Public Mapping Project »

Video

• Injecting Transparency into Redistricting
• GOP Could Re-Draw 145 Districts
• Towards a New Political Culture
• Coalitions Pushing for Greater Transparency
• The Public Mapping Project

Audio

• Toward Public Participation in Redistricting
• Toward Public Participation in Redistricting
• Toward Public Participation in Redistricting

Transcript

• Download Micah Altman's and Michael McDonald's Presentation (.pdf)
• Download Tim Storey's Presentation (.pdf)
• Download Clare Dyer's Presentation (.pdf)
• Download the Redistricting Authority in the States Factsheet (.pdf)
• Download Micah Altman's and Michael McDonald's Report (.pdf)
• Download the District Builder Summary (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 0120_redistricting_altman_mcdonald
• 0120_redistricting_storey
• 0120_redistricting_dyer
• 0120_redistricting_authority
• 0120_redistricting_report
• 0120_redistricting_summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In November 2008, President George W. Bush convened the first G-20 summit in Washington to address the worst global financial economic crisis since the Great Depression. This summit provided a long-overdue opportunity for a dramatic and lasting change in global governance. This was followed by the election of Barack Obama, who had campaigned on a distinctly different foreign policy platform compared with his Republican rival, Senator John McCain. These two events were no mere coincidence.

The global crisis has moved the United States, along with the rest of the world, toward a new global economic order, with the G-20 summit as one of the principal manifestations of the new global governance system. Of course, movement toward this new economic arrangement and progress toward reformed global governance are not inevitable. It will take a clear and sustained commitment to a new set of values and strong leadership, especially from President Obama and the United States, to ensure that the G-20 summit is not a short-lived exception to what had been a long-standing stalemate in global governance reform. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms. Whether or not this happens will depend to a significant extent on the direction chosen by President Obama.

The president’s vision of inclusion and openness and his approach to governing, which favors innovative and far-reaching pragmatic responses to key national and global challenges, make him a great candidate for this role. In due course the G-20 summit can also serve as a platform for addressing other pressing global issues, including trade, climate change, energy and food security and reform of global institutions. To achieve such an outcome, President Obama and other world leaders need to demonstrate a clear vision and strong leadership starting at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh and beyond.

“Old Economic Order” versus “New Economic Order”

From recent debates on foreign policy and global governance, we have identified two different perspectives or sets of principles underlying the approaches toward U.S. and global foreign policy. Table 1 summarizes the key elements of what we call the “Old Economic Order” in juxtaposition to the “New Economic Order.”

Table 1: Old versus New Economic Order

(Note: This table is adapted from one first presented by the authors in a seminar at the IMF in June 2007. See www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2007/glb/bl030607.pdf )

In the Old Order, the nation state is the point of departure, stressing the importance of sovereignty and national interest as the key principles driving a unilateral and assertive foreign policy. In contrast, the New Order’s starting point considers that we live in a global society, where interdependency and recognition of common interests are the key principles to be pursued in reciprocal relations and with mutual respect across borders. Under the Old Order the rules of national power politics prevail, as competing blocs and fixed alliances strive for predominance, with “hard power” if necessary. Instead, the New Order operates on the basis of a new multilateralism, which builds on the prevalence of global networks in all spheres of life and multiple coalitions across borders, where bargaining for compromise and the tools of “soft power” prevail. Finally, the Old Order promotes the notion that a single economic and political model should prevail, while the New Order accepts that different economic and political models coexist and compete side by side.

In the most simple terms, the Old Order broadly reflects the principles underlying the foreign policy agenda of the Bush administration and Senator John McCain’s presidential platform, while the New Order approximates those underpinning the platform of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and of his administration’s foreign policy stance. Key elements of the Old Order (except the last one) have also been attributed to the current foreign policy approach of Russia, while New Order principles can be ascribed to the European Union.

In fact, what is reflected in these two approaches is the difference between twentieth-century principles of foreign policy versus principles appropriate to today’s realities. We believe there are three interrelated sets of drivers of change that necessitate moving from the Old Order to the New Order. These drivers include the changing global demographic and economic balance, emerging global threats and the need for a more effective global governance system.

Drivers of Change

The first driver of change is the shifting global demographic and economic balance. By 2050, the world population is projected to reach 9.1 billion, up from 6.4 billion today, with the increase occurring almost entirely in today’s developing countries. China is widely predicted to be the largest economy in the early 2040s, with the U.S. economy in second place and India’s in third. Other emerging market economies, including Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, will be important economic players, while individual European countries will recede in importance. Continental Eurasia will be the new hub of global integration as China, India, Russia, the European Union and the Middle East’s energy-producing countries knit their economies ever closer together. The United States will remain a superpower, but only one among others. Together, the major world powers will have to confront the fact that people in poorer and weaker states will feel left behind. Simultaneously, cross-border networks—economic and political, public and private, elite and grassroots, legitimate and illegitimate—will continue to grow and will weaken the traditional hold states have over the economic, financial, social and political actions of their citizens. These networks will create bonds that will either reinforce or undermine global stability.

The second driver of change is a set of emerging global threats:

• The current financial and economic crisis—triggered by poor macroeconomic management and lax financial regulation—reflects the realities of long-term financial imbalances among key economies. It proves the difficulties of managing a highly interdependent global financial system in the absence of agreed-upon global financial surveillance, supervision and regulation. It is likely that risks of global financial stress will continue in the coming decades.
• Global disparities will increase as the rich and the rapidly growing economies do well, while many poor and stagnating countries are left behind. There is potential for rising disparities within countries, too. These inequities will reinforce risks of domestic and cross-border conflict and terrorism. At the same time, the United States and other industrialized countries face a progressive loss of traditional industries, jobs and wages. Aging populations and overburdened pension systems will challenge their fiscal stability and may lead to groundswells of anti-globalization sentiments.
• Rising food and energy prices, environmental threats and the risks of global epidemics—reinforced by population pressures—particularly affect the poorest countries.
• Growing global interdependencies across borders and sectoral lines mean that individual countries can no longer address these threats alone and that a global response has to be coordinated across sectors.

The third driver of change is the growing and widespread recognition that the current system of global governance has become increasingly fragmented, ineffective, outdated and resistant to change. This systemic weakness is reflected in the persistent stalemate on many of the pressing global issues—most notably the Doha trade round—but also on global poverty, climate change and the risk of pandemics. Moreover, global institutions have become unrepresentative in the face of the changed global economic and political balances. Hence their legitimacy is suffering badly, and yet there is stalemate in the reform of individual international organizations.

Together, these three factors have made the principles of the Old Order irrelevant and strongly point in the direction of a New Order. They represent the new reality for governments, citizens and international institutions and force them to adopt new principles and reform existing institutions.

While the drivers are strong and the new global reality is seemingly unassailable, change is not inevitable. Old habits die hard. In the United States, traditions of self-reliance and “exceptionalism” continue to shape Americans’ views of the rest of the world. At the same time, the widespread belief in the virtues of unfettered markets and low taxes, the influence of special interests for protection (agriculture, labor, old industry, banking) and the prevailing fractiousness of political decision-making may well undermine President Obama’s efforts to move toward a new global paradigm. Compounding the entrenchment of the Old Order, new nations that are still recovering from centuries of colonialism—facing economic and political instability and wishing to catch up with the successful industrial countries—are lured to a strong sovereign nation state, unfettered control over their borders and their citizens, and a confrontational approach to foreign policy. Even the much admired willingness of the Europeans to give up sovereignty in favor of supranational institutions has its limits, not least when it comes to giving up their prerogatives of dominating the governing boards of the international financial institutions and other global forums.

Leadership, conviction and persistence will be required among many actors on the global stage to ensure there is progress toward effective reform of global institutions. This potential for change is exemplified by the recent emergence of the G-20 summit as a vehicle for global governance.

The G-20 Summit—Origins, Options and Obstacles

Origins. The G-20 summit had its origins in the annual meetings of the G7—the leaders of a group of seven major Western industrial countries who gathered annually starting in the 1970s, initially to enhance economic and financial policy coordination in reaction to a major financial crisis. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the G8 was formed by the addition of the Russian Federation. The G8 increasingly became preoccupied with global economic and political issues—in effect assuming the role of a global steering group. But widespread criticism began to mount about its role. The G8 summits were seen as ritualistic in process, ineffective in impact and increasingly unrepresentative in the face of global population and economic shifts, and hence lacking in legitimacy as a global steering group. The onset of the global financial crisis in mid-2008 pushed President George W. Bush into convening the G-20 Summit on November 15, 2008.

The ministerial-level G-20 was first created in the aftermath of the 1997-98 East Asia financial crisis. By convening representatives from 10 industrialized economies and 10 emerging market economies, the G-20 presented a much more geographically and culturally diverse group than the G8. With about 90 percent of the world’s economy and two thirds of the world’s population, the G-20 is also much more representative than the G8. Emerging market economies have been fully engaged in managing the proceedings of the meetings of G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors. It is therefore not surprising that there had been persistent calls by some experts and politicians for using the G-20 as a platform to replace the G8. While moving from G8 to G-20 summit might not create an optimal global steering group, it is a pragmatic and effective step, especially in response to crisis.

Options. Will the G-20 be a short-lived experiment or will it prove an effective tool of global governance? Various options are under debate among experts and practitioners. One possibility is to return to the G8 summits like the one Italy hosted in 2009 and Canada plans to host in 2010. There is concern that the G-20 format is too unwieldy for effective exchanges among the key players. Hence, there will be continuing debates about reducing the size of the summit to somewhere between thirteen and sixteen members, as reflected in the recent proposal by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to create a G14. However, there are pressures to expand the number of participants to include more countries and to expand regional representation. Then there are proposals to develop a constituency-based approach to membership, with universal participation as in the case of the international financial institutions. Further, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a United Nations Commission chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz propose to establish an Economic Security Council at the UN.

None of these options will likely materialize in the foreseeable future. Instead there are two probable outcomes: The first is the continuation of the G-20 summit with a gradually expanding mandate beyond the current crisis. For this to be successful, it is critical that the G-20 format proves its effectiveness in the coming months and years. This outcome has three requirements: that the number of participants does not expand; that participants focus on a limited number of action items; and that a small but effective secretariat is established to support and monitor the G-20 summit with logistics and technical expertise.

The most likely alternative to the G-20 summit is what is frequently referred to as “variable geometry.” Under this scenario, selected world leaders would convene on specific topics in shifting constellations, with participation of the most important actors decided separately for each topic. For example, the G-20 might continue to meet on global financial and economic matters for some time to come, while different groups would convene for action on climate change, nuclear proliferation or other topics. Support for this plan appears to be emerging from the Obama administration. It co-convened the summit on climate change at the tail-end of the 2009 G8 Summit, hosts the September 2009 G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh and has called for a summit on nuclear non-proliferation in the spring of 2010. The challenge for summits of “variable geometry” is the ever-shifting number and composition of participants, the difficulty of systematic organization and follow-up and continuing debates about who would convene the summits, when, and with what participation.

Obstacles. As we look ahead, we see a number of challenges for the evolution of global summits beyond the G8, whether toward an effective G-20 or some alternative, especially summits of variable geometry. These challenges emanate from the diverging interests of four sets of players: the United States, Europe, the new emerging powers and the rest of the world.

For the foreseeable future, active U.S. leadership is needed to overcome inertia and collective action problems in addressing global challenges and breaking the stalemate in global governance reform. The Obama administration appears to strongly support a paradigm shift toward a new global order, but so far has not announced its position on summit modalities.

Europe is a key player and has proven a major obstacle to global governance reform as it continues to claim far too many chairs at the G-20 (and in other global forums and institutions) for its economic and demographic weight. In effect, Europeans can either retain their over-representation, which gives them a fragmented voice and weakens their influence while also weakening the global institutions; or they can bundle their votes, chairs and voice for greater impact and to ensure more effective international organizations. Unfortunately, the current stalemate on internal EU governance reform blocks any new European approach to global governance reform.

The new emerging powers, especially China, India and Brazil, will face the challenge of moving beyond their traditional role of the “excluded” and “representatives of the South.” They will need to accept co-responsibility for solving global problems and creating effective global governance institutions. They will have to look beyond issue-specific South-South coalitions to North-South coalitions where it is in their and the global interest (e.g., the push for international financial institution reform, for EU for consolidation, for the completion of the Doha Round, etc.). There are hopeful signs that this is beginning to happen. South Korea’s leadership of next year’s G-20 represents a critical test of whether the new powers are ready to participate and conduct a G-20 forum at the leaders’ level, not only ministerial.

Finally, there is the challenge of how to include the “excluded.” The G-20 is much more inclusive than the G8, but it still leaves out a majority of countries with a third of the world’s population. Options for associating the rest of the world with the summit include ad hoc outreach (as the G8 has done), expanding regional representation (as already practiced with the EU), introducing a constituency approach (as for the IFIs) and seeking a closer alignment with the UN (perhaps through an Economic Security Council). With the exception of the first two—which risk further expanding the number of participants at G-20 summits—none of the other options are likely to materialize soon. However, G-20 leaders will have to be sensitive to the needs of the “excluded” and ensure that the interests of the poorest countries are not neglected.

Conclusion

Great changes in the economic and political balance among countries, global threats and an antiquated global governance system confront the world community today. With the economic crisis as an immediate driver and a new U.S. president, the G-20 summit format has the potential to make a real shift in the global economic order in which a new set of values underpin the way countries and people cooperate across borders. To the extent that President Obama has articulated his vision of the global order and America’s role in it, we believe he is headed in the direction that stresses common interests in a global society, the need for multilateral action and understanding for alternative approaches to economic and political development. This is very promising. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms.

However, Europe, China and India are also critical for progress. Moreover, if President Obama is believed to fail the test of competence at home or a major shock hits the United States, a reversal is possible in the U.S. In any case, significant changes in global governance will take time to transpire. We may well see a long period of transition with only gradual improvement in current institutions. In the meantime, pressures for increased regionalism, bilateral deals among the big players, geopolitical competition among power blocs and growing instability and threats from the “excluded” will undermine international cooperation and the whole idea of a global order.

The G-20 summit forum represents a great opportunity for world leaders to begin to put into action the principles of a new global order. It will allow them to address the immediate global financial and economic crisis in a collaborative spirit. And in due course the G-20 summit can also serve as a platform for addressing other pressing global issues, including trade, climate change, energy and food security, and reform of global institutions. To achieve such an outcome, President Obama and other world leaders need to demonstrate a clear vision and strong leadership at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh and beyond.

Downloads

• Download

Event Information

U.S. policy towards South Asia has changed considerably over the last seven decades. The nature of U.S. engagement with different countries in the region has varied over time, as has the level of U.S. interest. While India and Pakistan have received the most attention from Washington, the United States has also been engaging with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, albeit to different degrees. 

On May 19, The India Project at Brookings hosted a panel discussion exploring the past and present U.S approaches towards South Asia, based on Senior Fellow Stephen Cohen’s new book, “The South Asia Papers: A Critical Anthology of Writings” (Brookings Institution Press, 2016). Panelists also assessed the Obama administration’s policies toward the region, and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the next U.S. administration. Fellow Tanvi Madan, director of The India Project, moderated the discussion.

After the discussion, the panelists took questions.

Video

• U.S. policy toward South Asia: Past, present, and future

Audio

• U.S. policy toward South Asia: Past, present, and future

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160519_south_asia_transcript

Editor’s Note: Brookings will hold an event and live webcast on Wednesday, August 26 to discuss the findings of the 2015 Financial and Digital Inclusion (FDIP) Report and Scorecard. Follow the conversation on Twitter using #FinancialInclusion 

Access to affordable, quality financial services is vital both for ensuring the financial well-being of individuals and for fostering broader economic development. Yet about 2 billion adults around the world still do not have formal financial accounts.

The Financial and Digital Inclusion Project (FDIP), launched within the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, set out to answer three key questions:

• Do country commitments make a difference in progress toward financial inclusion?
• To what extent do mobile and other digital technologies advance financial inclusion?
• What legal, policy, and regulatory approaches promote financial inclusion?

To answer these questions, the FDIP team spent the past year examining how governments, private sector entities, non-government organizations, and the general public across 21 diverse countries have worked together to advance access to and usage of formal financial services. This research informed the development of the 2015 Report and Scorecard — the first in a 3-year series of research on the topic.

For the 2015 Scorecard, FDIP researchers assessed 33 indicators across four dimensions of financial inclusion: Country commitment, mobile capacity, regulatory environment, and adoption of selected basic traditional and digital financial services.

The 2015 FDIP Report and Scorecard provide detailed profiles of the financial inclusion landscape in 21 countries, focusing on mobile money and other digital financial services.

On August 26, the Center for Technology Innovation will discuss the findings of the 2015 Report and Scorecard and host a conversation about key trends, opportunities, and obstacles surrounding financial inclusion among authorities from the public and private sectors.

Register to attend the event in-person or by webcast, and join the conversation on Twitter at #FinancialInclusion.