Governance networks shaping the G20 through inclusivity practices

The New G20 Politics of Global Economic Governance

“…The present article indicates the limited influence of states' strategic authority in a world of increasingly complex, pluralist, and networked governance, where key policy issues are con tested by competing governance networks linked through often transnational professional ecol ogies [Karlsrud, 2016;Luckhurst, 2019c;Seabrooke, 2014]. Even in those states, such as the BRICS members, where governments prioritize sovereign authority and independence, sov ereignty does not equate homogeneity or uniformity among policymakers.…”

“…The G20 influenced the global economic architecture through significant new political and networked governance practices [Baker, Carey, 2014;Eccleston, Kellow, Carroll, 2015, pp. 301-3;Luckhurst, 2019c]. The greater pluralism and complexity of postCold War global governance, in terms of organization, actors and policy issues, augmented the authority and influence of more heterogeneous actors.…”

“…The focus here on global governance networks, rather than broader civil society inclu sion, indicates the limits of this form of inclusivity. G20engaged global governance networks are heterogeneous but often consist of professionalexpert and elite actors [Luckhurst, 2019c;Stone, 2015]; hence, not only state representatives, but also not all citizens. These networks often provide links to broader groups and civil society, however, thus increasing the scope for policy engagement and public diplomacy.…”

“…Advocates of this broader agenda were able to articulate it with the signifier "legitimacy," thus constituting a normative trap [Schimmelfennig, 2001] by rhetorically linking the expanded G20 agenda, including issues of sustainable development, with legitimacy. This was because the expanded agenda was advocated by representatives of developing states, so the increasing dis cursive imbrication of global governance legitimacy with inclusivity undermined the capacity of G7/8 governments to ignore the priorities of developingstate governments; hence the former were less able to dominate the G20 policy agenda [Luckhurst, 2019c].…”

Social closure and the reproduction of stratified international order

“…40 Large advocacy organisations, such as Oxfam, ActionAid, the Gates Foundation, and ONE, have a long history of engaging in summitry and have no shortage of capacity to engage in this environment. 41 Moreover, by working with umbrella organisations like Interaction in the United States and Bond in the United Kingdom, even smaller, less well-resourced organisations are able to substantively participate in the summitry process. The collectivist ascription thus serves to marginalise particular actors regardless of any individual attributes of any particular organisation.…”