Mapping G8/G20 Accountability Dr. Marina Larionova Higher School of Economics, Moscow

Accountability gap establishment and actions without a formal act of authorization standards for accountability sanctions information

Four accountability aspects Transparency provision of evidence base individual data for each member Consultation recommendations Evaluation scorings or ratings Correction prerogative of the affecting actors

G8/G20 Accountability Map

Fourfold Accountability Framework how transparently G8/G20 pursue the delivery of the GPG within their mission? how consultative their policy processes in respect of providing that GPG are? how well their performance is evaluated in regard to furthering that GPG? how well they correct their shortcomings in promoting the particular GPG? adapted from Jan Aart Scholte concept

So, what’s to be done 1. Not the quantity but the quality of accountability should be addressed. 2. Provision of evidence base on individual members’ compliance: transparency and basis for evaluation. 3. More explicit evaluation through use of a scoring system or ratings. 4. Recommendations – to promote consultation process. 5. Monitoring reports should not be the end of the process, but the beginning of an open dialogue. 6. Consistent methodology and regular release of reports – to improve the epistemic quality and track accountability dynamics. 7. Hence, possibly: promote the principals’ engagement with the agents, including the NGOs and the academic networks.

What role for the academic institutions and NGOs to build the pluralistic accountability system 1. Feasible objective: contribute to the reputational accountability of the principals; 2. Rational choice: build on our strengths, which are information and academic quality; 3. Promote transparency providing expertise and information; 4. Enhance the epistemic quality of the accountability by asking the right questions and building our own and wider public capacity to interpret the data provided by other agents and the G8/G Developing relevant recommendations to be heard and possibly improve the consultation.

What is the way forward? Can we agree on commonly identified objectives for the way forward? What are the immediate, mid-term and long-term objectives? What methods do we employ for achieving them? Do we have the capabilities?