@article{Cooper2015,
title = {MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? },
author = {Andrew F. Cooper},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.6.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv005},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-07-28},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {95-114},
abstract = {Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit.},
note = {article},
keywords = {BRICS, Collective Action, G20, G7, global governance, Global Projection, middle powers, MIKTA, Multipolarism, Rise of the Informals},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Alexandroff2015,
title = {Global Summitry: Its Meaning and Scope Part One},
author = {Alan S. Alexandroff and Donald Brean},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.1-2.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv006},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-07-20},
journal = {Global Summitry },
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {1-26},
abstract = {This article by the Senior Editors describes the scope and areas of interest of the new Global Summitry journal. Given the breadth of the topic, the article is divided into two parts, with the second to appear in the next issue. The narrative begins with an account of the current state of the global order and goes on to develop a working definition of global summitry. It looks at various facets of the concept with particular emphasis on the fact that global summitry is more than periodic, highly visible gatherings of leaders. We propose the “Iceberg Theory” of global summitry, metaphor for the substantial ongoing below-the-surface activity that gives support to the leaders’ ensemble. We distinguish global summitry from global governance while raising to prominence the many actors and international arrangements in global governance today. The article outlines the historical evolution of summitry, highlighting “revolutionary” changes over the last two hundred years. As its subtitle signals, the Journal is committed to a multidisciplinary approach that will engage economists, lawyers, and historians as well as experts in international relations.},
note = {Feature},
keywords = {Actors, Arrangements, Bretton Woods System, Cooperation, Definition, Disorder, global governance, Global Order, global summitry, Human Conduct, Iceberg Theory, League of Nations, Order, Power, Rise of the Informals, UN},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Rimmer2015,
title = {A Critique of Australia’s G20 Presidency and the Brisbane Summit 2014},
author = {Susan Harris Rimmer},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.3.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv004},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-30},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {41-63},
abstract = {This article seeks to evaluate Australia as host of the Brisbane G20 Summit in 2014. The Australian G20 government, it appears, aimed to move the G20 from focusing on just responding to the financial crisis to a future growth orientation concentrating on structural reforms. To achieve this, Australia chose a narrow economic approach to the agenda. The Presidency sought to avoid engaging with broader security or climate change challenges. This effort to narrow focus and move away from a “war cabinet” approach met, however, with quite mixed success. A strong performance at the regulatory level, an emphasis on economic fundamentals and a place-branding approach to the Leaders’ Summit, all efforts of the Australian host, appear to have been insufficient for Australia’s G20 Presidency. Three additional factors seem necessary for a middle power like Australia to have impact on hosting the Leaders’ Summit:

evidence of substantial and effective political leadership;

a credible outreach narrative to citizens broadly that emphasizes the unique perspective of the Host; and

a serious investment in the troika style leadership of the Summit.

This essay raises questions over Australia’s leadership of the G20, and then examines important broader questions of G20 leadership concerned with this institution’s overall effectiveness and the success of the outreach efforts.},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Accountability, Australia, Brisbane Summit, Economic Growth, G20, Gender Progress, Host Year, Infrastructure, Legitimacy, Middle Power, Outreach Strategy, Presidency, Public Diplomacy, Tax Systems, Track Two},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Callaghan2015,
title = {G20 Growth Targets: Help or Hubris? },
author = {Mike Callaghan},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.2.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv002},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-15},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {27-40},
abstract = {Notwithstanding much rhetoric from the G20, the global economy remains subpar. The new element at the 2014 Brisbane Summit was the adoption of a growth objective—lifting output by 2.1 percent in 2018. Will this be a game changer? The key is whether the policy measures tabled in Brisbane are implemented. The monitoring of progress in implementing the commitments will be central to G20 credibility. In particular, the reports presented by the IMF and OECD in 2015 must be robust, comprehensive, and transparent. But the G20 has to avoid being trapped and its credibility severely dented with false precision over the growth target. The estimates are uncertain and the country growth strategies have to be dynamic and respond to new challenges.},
note = {Policy Watch},
keywords = {Brisbane Action Plan, Business Environment, Competition, Employment, G20, Growth Targets, Infrastructure, National Policy, Policy Watch, Trade},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Loukianova2015,
title = {Improving Nuclear Security—One Summit at a Time },
author = {Anya Loukianova},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.5.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv003},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-15},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {84-94},
abstract = {In the spring of 2016, the United States, will welcome more than fifty world leaders to cap off a series of summits focused on reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism. Begun by President Obama in 2010, the Nuclear Security Summits (NSS) have repeatedly tested these leaders’ ability to make ambitious national and collective pledges to secure nuclear materials and radiological sources. This article offers a background on the three past NSS, highlights some of the notable achievements of the NSS process, and discusses the remaining difficult tasks that still lie ahead.},
note = {Article},
keywords = {2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, Communique, Gift Baskets, Governance, House Gifts, Inter Alia, Moscow, NSS, Nuclear Materials Security, Nuclear Security, Prima Facie, Seoul, The Hague, Washington},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Martin2015,
title = {International Migration and Global Governance},
author = {Susan F. Martin},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv001},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-05-12},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {64-83},
abstract = {This article discusses: current trends in international migration, highlighting why global governance of international migration is needed; explores reasons why this form of global governance has lagged behind others; and reviews the steps that have been taken since the early twentieth century to foster greater international cooperation. In recent years, states appear more willing than before to discuss issues of mutual concern although actual decision-making on these issues remains elusive. The article concludes that although an international migration regime is unlikely to be in place any time soon, the prospects for progress in this area are better today than any time in the past century.},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Climate Change, Economic Integration, Geopolitical Interests, GFMD, Global Forum, global governance, High Level Dialogue, HLD, International Cooperation, International Migration, IOM, Post Cold War, Post World War, Security Interests, Technological Innovation, Transnationalism, UNHCR},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Tiberghien2013,
title = {The G20's Role in the Reform of the International Monetary System: Present Record, Potential, and Scenarios},
author = {Yves Tiberghien and Xu Hongcai},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Tiberghien-and-Xu.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-06-00},
journal = {Global Summitry - BePress},
volume = {1},
abstract = {With the acceleration of globalization, global markets have experienced an historic period of rapid expansion.
The expansion of these markets has unleashed prosperity gains around the globe, most recently in large
emerging market economies. However, it is now clear that this economic globalization has far outpaced the
development of finance and monetary systems. The 2008 global financial crisis and the ensuing years of
financial volatility have brought home the deficiencies in the architecture of governance undergirding global
financial markets and the inherent instability of a global monetary system that relies on one currency. In this
increasingly volatile and uncertain context, it is crucial that systematically-large powers cooperate on the
coordination of their macro-economic policies to prevent destructive zero-sum game behaviors, the
advancement of global institutions to monitor and stabilize global financial markets, and to manage key
episodes, such as the recent Eurozone difficulties. In fact, the G20 Leaders Summit was created in November
2008, in part, to secure these three key areas.
This article analyzes the results, constraints, and potential of the G20 process so far. It argues that more
attention should be given to the rebalancing and institutionalization of the IMS, even though it is a complex
issue area, and one where optimal arrangements are hard to design and where key powers suffer from
conflicting national interests.},
keywords = {3 Ring Structure, BIS, Conflicted Virtue, Contagion Effect, Dollar Centered, Excess Global Liquidity, FSB, G20, G8, Global Economic Governance, global governance, global markets, global summitry, IMF, IMS, international affairs, international monetary system, international politics, N-1 Problem, New Triffin Dilemma, SDRs, Summits, USD, Wealth Generating Mechanism, World Bank Governance},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Cooper2013,
title = {Middle Power Leadership and the Evolution of the G20},
author = {Andrew Cooper and Jongryn Mo},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Cooper-and-Mo.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-05-00},
journal = {Global Summitry - BePress},
volume = {1},
abstract = {Global power is becoming more diffuse, smarter, and more asymmetric. In developing this extended
argument, we make four points. First, the G20 Seoul Summit in November 2010 showed that the G20 is
becoming increasingly embedded as the hub of global economic governance. Second, a strong G20 has
positive attributes for global governance. Third, a main driving force for the ascent of the G20 has been and
will continue to be middle power leadership. This article, therefore, will concentrate in the following on the
role of Canada, Australia and South Korea but, there is some considerable potential for this role to be
appropriated by other countries. Fourth, the rise of middle powers in global governance reflects the changing
nature of power as well as the changing structure of the international system. We conclude with some
commentary on the sustainability of middle power leadership within the evolving pattern of global
governance.},
keywords = {BRICS, economics, eurocrisis, G20, G8, global governance, global summitry, great powers, international, international affairs, international politics, middle powers},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dobson2013,
title = {The Cameron Government and Gx Leadership},
author = {Hugo Dobson},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hugo-Dobson.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-05-00},
journal = {Global Summitry - BePress},
volume = {1},
abstract = {Despite the plaudits and high expectations, David Cameron’s role as a leader and innovator in Gx summitry
appears overhyped. Upon closer inspection, his contribution to global summitry has lacked originality, vision,
and coherence. This article will bring aspects of UK policy into relief by means of a close reading of the report
Governance for Growth: Building Consensus for the Future. It will then account for these failings by relating the
conclusions of this specific case study to the government’s overall foreign policy. The article focuses on the
role of David Cameron and the Conservative Party specifically because, on the one hand, Gx summitry is a
process that stresses the role of individual leaders; while, on the other hand, the coalition’s foreign policy
appears to be an area in which the Liberal Democrats have exerted little influence as coalition partners. ‘Same
bed, different dreams’ may be the political reality but little has emerged to suggest that different dreams have
impacted on outcomes.},
keywords = {Cameron government, David Cameron, G20, G8, global governance, global summitry, growth, international affairs, international politics, national security, UK, United Kingdom},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Qobo2013,
title = {The Newly Emerging Powers and South Africa's Global Strategy},
author = {Mzukisi Qobo},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mzukisi-Qobo.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-04-00},
journal = {Global Summitry - BePress},
volume = {1},
abstract = {It is widely recognized that BRICS countries will become the main drivers of global growth in the next several
decades. This economic power-shift, however, has not yet translated itself into political agenda-setting
authority. The lack of congruence between political and economic power in global redistribution of power is
the main theme I explore in this paper. In undertaking the critical assessment of the notion of global power
redistribution I borrow from theoretical approaches associated with Susan Strange on structural (and agendasetting)
power and Joseph Nye on ‘soft’ and ‘smart’ power. This paper deals in particular with two questions.
The first concerns the extent to which the global power-shifts, largely occasioned by the rise of emerging
powers, are changing the global landscape of ideas, norms and leadership, especially in global governance
institutions such as the G20.
The second dimension that this paper examines is South Africa’s place in the world, looking in particular at the
country’s recent membership to the BRICS Forum, as well as its involvement in various multilateral bodies
such as the G20. As such, it is interested in understanding how South Africa perceives its identity and
influence in a changing world, as well as how the country is responding to global redistribution that is
underway.},
keywords = {Brazil, BRIC, BRICS, China, emerging powers, G20, G8, global governance, global strategy, global summitry, Goldman Sachs, India, international affairs, middle powers, N-11, Russia, South Africa, structural power},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Draper2013,
title = {The Shifting Geography of Global Value Chains: Implications for Developing Countries, Trade Policy, and the G20},
author = {Peter Draper},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Peter-Draper.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-04-00},
journal = {Global Summitry - BePress},
volume = {1},
abstract = {This paper discusses the two broad, contradictory trends are at work in the global economy: economic
globalization through multinational corporation production networks and global divergence through
economic crisis policy responses.
Reductions in transportation and communications costs have allowed firms to operate global value chains that
take advantage of differences in national comparative advantage both through intra-firm trade and through
networks that link teams of producers. Increasingly, countries specialize in tasks rather than products. This
promotes global economic convergence and integration.
However, the second trend pertains to economic crisis policy responses and is one of divergence. Associated
with this is the ever-present threat of a destructive spiral of trade protectionism, competitive currency
devaluations, and consequent disintegration. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has played a critical role
in stemming the tide of protectionism. Unfortunately, WTO member states remain unable to conclude the
Doha Development Round. Fortunately, the resilience and increased interdependence of the global economy
also played a key role in containing protectionism.
This paper will discuss the increasing importance of global production chains as reflected in the rising trade in
intermediate inputs, and the steps the international community must take to successfully maintain and grow
these production chains.},
keywords = {Developing Countries, G20, Global Value Chains, GVC, MNC, PTA, Shifting Geography, Trade Policy, Trade Rules, WTO},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}