Between the 18th and 19th June 2012, the leaders of G20 summit will meet in Los Cabos, Mexico. Turkey has been nominated for presidency of the summit in the term beginning in 2015. After discussing a variety of current and long-term problems based on the agenda of 2012 which was determined with respect to the objectives and conclusions of the previous summits, the leaders will try to take important decisions concerning the current situation. The summit, which was expected to take place between September and November is taking place less than eight months later than the last summit under French presidency which took place on the 3rd and 4th November in Cannes. It has been so scheduled to avoid clashing with Mexico’s general elections, due to take place in July 2012. After the summit, which is taking place four months ahead due to political concerns, the work under Mexican presidency will continue until November.
The questions that should be asked here are: since when and on which issues have the G20 countries started to hold summits? Is it an efficient and effective formation? Will the G20 leaders meeting on the 18th and 19th June 2012 be able to compromise on a successful conclusion? What does this successful conclusion depend on? What are the particular concerns that might make us pessimistic or optimistic about the future of the G20? In this evaluation, the answers of these questions will be addressed and discussed with respect to the present and future of world economy and Turkish economy. 
G-20 2012 Mexico Summit Agenda and Turkey
The original G7 group was formed in 1976 by the United States of America in the midst of the two major oil crises in the 1970s, and comprised Germany, Japan, Great Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Upon Russia’s entry to the group in 1998, it became the G8, and in 1999 (following the crises in far-eastern Asia and Russia) Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union joined, transforming it to the G20. Such international institutions have always come together for the essential purpose of finding joint solutions to worldwide economic and/or political problems. They meet at a variety of different settings and at varying frequencies, using political coordination between their member countries to weather international crises.
The G20 group failed to serve as a sufficient and active organization in the years between 1999 and 2008. However, in 2008 the members of the group began to form a tighter coalition, following the financial and economic crisis which started in the U.S. and swiftly spread to other countries of the developed world. The U.S. in particular encouraged an increasing frequency of meetings between member countries. The G20 countries met in Washington (the USA) from 14-15th November 2008, in London (UK) on 2nd April 2009, from 24-25th September 2009 in Pittsburgh (the USA), and in Toronto (Canada) from 26-27th June 2012. During these meetings, they determined the structure and the content of the agenda for the following years. Following these meetings, the G20 countries also met in the Seoul from 11-12th November 2010 during South Korea’s presidency, and then in Cannes on 3-4th November 2011 under France’s leadership.
During the summit of 18-19th June 2012 in Los Cabos, under Mexico’s presidency, the current agenda ,as determined in previous years, will be pursued according to Mexico’s own prioritization. This agenda, in summary covers the topics such as; 1) economic stability and structural reforms as fundamentals of economic growth and employment 2) strengthening the financial system to promote economic growth and promoting financial access, 3) improving the structure of international financial systems in a world where world economies are interconnected, 4) strengthening the food security and reducing the fluctuation in commodity prices, 5) the promotion of sustainable development, ‘green’ growth and ways of dealing with climate change. These key points will be discussed according to the prior preparations made in the course of November 2011 to June 2011, and the group will try to reach important joint decisions and make national targets for them.
The Secretariat of the Treasury, who is in preparation for the summit at Los Cabos, has grouped its activities under the following categories:
(1) Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth
(2) International Financial Structure
(3) Reforms to the Financial Sector and Spread to the Financial Substructure
(4) Energy and Commodity Markets
(5) Governance of Disaster Risk
(6) International Trade (Refraining from Economic Protection and the Conclusion to Negotiations Regarding Doha Development Agenda)
(7) The Social Impact of Employment and Globalization
(8) Fighting Corruption
(9) Money Laundering and Fighting the Funding of Terrorism
(10) Development (Food Security, Infrastructure and Green Growth)
Since the first of these areas will focus on the financial problems and the inability to create growth and employment in the developed economies (resulting from the fact that current global financial-economic crisis is stemming from a United States and European Union core), this situation might lead to internal struggles of the leaders of the developed economies, as well as a general lack of negotiation (esprcially considering the short-term negative impact of current Eurozone crisis on the agenda in Mexico), particularly between the US and China. Therefore, it is possible that the outcome will be far weaker and more vague than expected. 
If decisive steps are not taken at the G20 conference with regards to reforming the international financial structure and overhauling economic organization, then the responsibility for future international financial crises- for failing to prevent or predict them- will, of course, lie mainly on the shoulders of the leaders of the G20 countries.
As for the issues of development, or rather for the “green growth for sustainable development” and “food security”, as well as for the “instability in energy prices”, these in my opinion must be discussed at Los Cabos, and if necessary must be among the most important topics up for discussion at future G20 summits. Due to its geographical location, Turkey is one of the countries likely to be most affected by the negative consequences of global warming and climate change, and so I predict that Turkey will, during its presidency in 2015, put particular emphasis on these issues.
When the international crisis eased off a little in 2010, it seemed that the concomitant anxieties regarding international trade protection also decreased. Yet as the Evenett protection report, which was published on 14 June 2012 using the data of Global Trade Alert (www.globaltradealert.org) Databank, shows, complaints arising from the intensification of protectionist measures in trade (both in public and private sectors) have actually increased. Furthermore, according to the report, G20 countries are responsible for most of the protectionist measures starting from November 2008. For this reason, the G20 countries clearly need to make joint decisions as soon as possible in order to reduce the protectionism, and to do this without waiting for action from the WTO member- countries outside of G20. Because, there is no empirical evidence understating the benefits of free trade on the path to international sustainable development. On the contrary, the one-off increase in prosperity which will arise from opening up the world’s economies is a precondition for the increase in the wealth of poorer countries, insufficient though it may be. In fact, there are strong findings in the economics literature showing that the improvement of institutions and development in technology in open economies will increase prosperity and development.
As for the governance of risk disaster, which has been brought to forefront by Mexico’s own preference, Turkey is expected to share its own experiences with other countries based on a scientific report. The problem is that it may not be realistic to expect or request the discussion of such issues at G20 conferences in the future due to their secondary nature. This is because the G20’s contemporary agenda is already significantly occupied by many urgent and important matters.
A Few (Likely) Organizational Problems at the G20 Summit
One of the first problems which come to attention about the G20 summit in Mexico, and one which I touched upon earlier, is the fact that the president country has held its presidency for significantly less than the usual 10-12 month period, thanks to the political concerns of politicians in the president country. I personally believe that such arbitrary decisions should be avoided at future summits. This random approach is likely to have a negative effect on the future effectiveness and activity of the G20.
A second organizational issue, which ought not to be downplayed, is the fact that some of the official websites detailing previous summits (as happened to the websites of Britain’s presidency in 2009 and South Korea’s presidency in 2010) have later been taken offline. Although it is claimed that the contents of these websites were transferred to the next-term presidencies and most details of the G20 are generally available on the Toronto Information Centre’s website anyway (www.g20.utoronto.ca), I still believe that websites set up by the president countries should be protected as both a simple and useful means of accessing information.
A third problem concerns the fact that there are plans for another important meeting immediately following the G20 summit in June 2012. Following the preliminary meetings that begin on the 13th June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, leaders and representatives of 193 countries from the public and private sector will be meeting on the 20-22nd June 2012 at the “Rio+20 Worldwide Summit” (www.uncsd2012.org) to discuss “Sustainable Development”. This summit is a continuation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCED which was first set up in 1992, and is a 20-year anniversary of this first meeting. The 10-year anniversary was observed in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in Johannesburg.
The main aim of the Rio+20 Worldwide Summit is “to push” the world economy to the path of “sustainable development”, following the successful efforts and developments in this field over the last 20 years. It is hoped that at the meeting the governments will come up with practical preventative measures based on clear and fixed objectives in order to ensure sustainable development. It is only through this way we can fight poverty without damaging the environment. Turkey’s Ministry of Development has prepared a draft agenda to be pursued at the Rio+20 summit. This includes (1) Development of energy, food and nutrition security in poor countries (2) The gradual decrease of fossil fuel subsidies and (3) Increasing the measures required to protect oceans. However according to the BBC and other news sources, it seems that there is no firm consensus on the details of the agreement emerging from the preparatory meetings in Rio as of 16th June 2012.
Yet the issues of “Green Development” and “Sustainable Development” remain part of the agenda for the G20 countries, if in reduced form. The fact that there is no real break between the two summits, and the existence of various disagreements, delays and lengthy diplomatic negotiations prior to signing a new international agreement at the Rio+20 summit can be seen as a bad luck for G20 Summit.
Two Factual Facts About G20
I believe that at least these two facts should be kept in mind while evaluating the activities, performance and the future of G20:
(1) The G20’s activities must be conducted in an environment of complex and simultaneous financial, public debt, international trade, ecology (global warming and climate change), energy, food and poverty/hunger crisis since 2006. 
The reason why G20 has become more active starting from 2008 is the need to form a force against the financial crisis that started in the US in the years 2006-2007 and spread to the rest of the world in 2008. However, the attempts to create a political coordination among countries and to fight the Great Recession force G20 to take a larger number of issues to the agenda than normally planned due to the complex variety of factors which create and nurture the global economic crisis environment. This fact is creating an inevitable concentration and diversification pressure on the G20 agenda.
Furthermore, the current crisis environment in the global economy created a need among economists to replace the dominant “new classical” approach which Furthermore, the complex worldwide financial crisis of the years 2006-2012 has created a strong and urgent need for a new economic approach to replace traditional “new classical” approach, which made “the use of complex mathematics and econometrics an objective rather than a tool”
The debate between orthodox and heterodox economics which is gaining popularity thanks to the contemporary financial crisis has not yet had a sufficient (positive) impact on the curricula of the economics departments in universities. However, I hope it is acknowledged that there is a need to apply interdisciplinary approach to economics in which institutions, ecological system and history will be three fundamental cornerstones.
(2) On the other hand, it may be the case that the main issues regarding the G20’s present and future actually stem from the fact that agenda of the G20 summit span the aims of a variety of different worldwide/international groups and platforms. This situation has been summarized with the help of selected major topics from the agenda and organizations in Table 1. The overlap between the main interest areas of organizations and platforms detailed in the rows of the table and the contemporary agenda worked on by the G20 between 2008-12 has been demonstrated in the “black” boxes. Only the G20 issues considered “relatively minor” by the OECD have been shown in “grey” boxes in the Table. If the same method were applied to other organizations and platforms, the areas of overlap in the table would also increase.
Table 1 demonstrates the degree to which the G20 is engaged in “role stealing” from a variety of international organizations and platforms, and this highlights an important point with respect to the performance of the G20. It may be thought that because the G20 consists of relatively fewer countries than the other organizations and platforms, it can take decisions about its main concerns and aims in a straightforward and swift manner compared to the other broader organizations. But this phenomenon also implies that the decisions and actions taken by the G20 will be meaningful if only they are supported and accepted by organizations and platforms with a broader participatory base. This two-way reality has a great significance with regard to the determination of the G20’s agenda and the organization’s performance.
Some Issues and Flaws about the G20 Meeting 2012, Mexico
Now, we can put aside the organizational issues which I touched upon earlier and, bearing in mind the two factual proofs I outlined, we can look more closely at the various issues, weaknesses, uncertainties or potential strengths within the G20 organization.
The excessive complexity and lack of consistency and realistic approach within the G20, At the G20 summits, a wide variety of issues are discussed simultaneously through a number of concentrated discussions of the agenda. It is therefore not an unlikely conjecture that this diversity and complexity will have a negative effect on the G20’s success rate. When determining the G20’s contemporary agenda, the following issues need to be taken into account. (1) The importance of the issues (2) their urgency and (3) the expectancy of reaching to a conclusion in a short or long time. Therefore, it is important to have a realistic approach to the summit’s goals, and to avoid the following topics for the good of the G20 countries and the worldwide economy, namely (1) Issues which appear to be of less importance (2) Issues which appear to be less urgent and (3) Issues which can only be resolved with difficulty and over a longer period of time. Yet it is rather difficult to agree that the G20 has been successful in these areas to date. 
Contemporary issues invading the agenda of the summit. It is often the case that a number of important developments in the world economy or in regional politics has a tendency to infiltrate the agenda of the G20 Summits and shift the discussions which were planned earlier towards contemporary developments. For example, at the summit in Toronto (2009), the main issue under discussion was “the fiscal crises of developed countries”, in Seoul (2010) it was that period’s “currency wars” and in Cannes (2011) it was “the Eurozone crisis”. It is predicted that the Eurozone issues will also make their mark on the agenda at Los Cabos (2012). The debt crisis, which deepened with the internal political conflict in Greece, the financial crisis which could not be postponed/avoided any more in Spain and the expectancy of a new debt crisis in Italy led to the arguments concerning a fiscal union, banking union and political union within the EU throughout the first half of 2012 It is clear that such sudden developments should not spoil the agenda during the presidency of Russia, Australia and Turkey following that of Mexico.
Should the president country’s influence on the priorities of the summit be limited? The fact that the president country and the initiative of its leaders are primarily responsible for the determination of the summit’s priorities can sometimes disrupt the continuity of the G20’s structural tendencies and the time it takes to come to decisions (for example, France under Sarkozy). As the fact that 7-9 of the G20 countries are having or are about to hold elections during 2012 implies, the changes in country leadership may also have negative effects on the summit- even if they are only minor. This point must not be allowed to limit the long-term presence and significance of the G20.
Some of the natural limitations faced by the G20. Even if the countries of the G20 can agree among themselves about some of the contemporary agenda, they still may not be able to come up with worldwide solutions to them. The best example of this might be the decisions which can be taken at the G20 summits about “the international trade of goods and services”, a topic which falls into the remit of the World Trade Organization. Such decisions require the final say from the WTO, and there is little real point in discussing and reaching conclusions about such topics at the G20, as decisions made at WTO meetings require unanimous approval from member countries.
As the worldwide Great Recession resides, there will be a greater disparity in the mutual interests of the developed and developing countries in the G20. It is generally accepted by many economists that swift and successful responses to the international crisis were made at the Washington (November 2008) and London (April 2009) meetings. This was done through the discussion of (1) Joint financial and fiscal development (2) The provision of extra funds to the IMF and (3) The creation of new laws for the financial sector. The problem is that as the effects of the global financial crisis ease off, there will increasingly be a disparity in the interests of the developed and developing countries of the G20. Many observers have frequently suggested that these changes will reduce the effectiveness of the G20. This loss of enthusiasm and disintegration of shared interests, if it does happen, may create a crisis of presence and significance of the entire G20 group, especially in the view of the countries which are about to take the presidency of the G20. From this point of view, as I touched upon before, it is of paramount importance that all the member countries continue to desire to make a significant contribution to the interests of the G20. If not, the G20 may be condemned to staying idle until the next major global crisis.
Should the structural organization of the G20 be changed? This question arises perhaps as a natural result of the issues touched upon above, and may beg the question as to whether the G20 requires a fixed secretariat, like the one which was formed when the GATT was transformed into the WTO. However, this possibility will not be considered by the G20 members probably because of the risks of “role stealing” from other organizations and platforms, as well as of “bureaucratic inertia”.
The commitments of the G20 countries and the observation of their fulfilment, or lack of it. As far as the decisions made at the G20 summits are concerned, the number of commitments made by the member countries is far less important than how many of them are fulfilled, and in which timescale.This point is of vital importance with regards to both the performance of the G20 and the way it is perceived from the outside. Although there are periodic reports prepared to hold the G20 countries accountable to their national commitments, yet there is (for now) no institution in place for those countries who fail to uphold their commitments, and this might be a useful change for the future of the G20.
Is the lack of a leader country in the G20 a problem? It is a contention commonly made and is trying to be proved by economists, political theorists and historians that the worldwide economic power is shifting from the U.S. to countries like China and India. According to polls conducted in 14 countries by telephone or face-to-face by the Pew Research Centre (pewresearch.org) in 2008, the dominant belief is that China is the “leading economic force in the world” (Rampell, 2012). Furthermore, according to the estimate of The Economist Online (2011), China may indeed overtake the U.S. in terms of its Gross Domestic Product in the very near future, possibly 2018-2021. But in contrast to this tendency neither the U.S., nor China or any other powerful country has been able to undertake the responsibilities of “leadership” in the past as they have been expected to do so. As a result of this, the economist Nouriel Roubini and the political theorist Ian Bremmer have been referring to this international political and economic governance as “G-Zero World” since the beginning of 2011.  They believe that during this period – which they think will be “temporary”-, the G20 will- as a result of a greater number of countries being admitted, and their interests becoming increasingly diverse- become a leaderless platform for “lack of compromise”, instead of one for solutions. They contend that this deficit or lack of “cooperation leadership” is postponing and making more difficult to solve the global economic problems. Furthermore, according to the writers, the economic actors around the world (especially large companies) are waiting for this political and economic uncertainty to be over,while hoping that it is temporary. However the longer they “wait” (for example before making new or additional investments), the deeper and bigger will be the impacts of this new (temporary) order on the global economy.
There is no expectation that the G20 leaders who will come together from 18-19 June 2012 in Mexico will be able to solve this issue of “cooperation leadership”. In fact, it seems that this issue will continue to effect G20 summits in the future.
In the existing complex global economic and political atmosphere, it seems that the G20 organisation’s job is rather a difficult one, especially when one considers the questions and problems detailed in this report. Yet the fact remains that the G20 countries can take some steps towards solving or at least lightening some important and urgent issues that may concern the activities of other international organisations and platforms.
Turkey puts an important political emphasis on the G20 group. For this reason, we may contend that Turkey is a more active participant in the G20 than many other of its member countries. As a result of its political interest and willingness, Turkey will be the host country of the preparatory meetings of the G20 in 2015 and, ultimately, will host the leaders’ summit. As it prepares for its presidential term, Turkey, like Russia and Australia, should bear in mind all the points that have been drawn to our attention in this paper. In this way, Turkey may be able to learn some lessons from the mistakes of the inability to create a succesful agenda with respect to continuity, urgency, importance and selectiveness between terms as well as of inability of some countries/leaders in fulfilling their tasks. It is of great importance for Turkey to start preparations for the 2015 summit early, to be careful, realistic and selective when determining the summit’s agenda in order to maintain a successful summit.
During this term it will also be most suitable for Turkey to give a primary importance to the issue of “green growth for sustainable development from an environmental perspective” with a long-term approach on national and global levels. If the G20 countries, who have a big share on production and trade of international goods and services, decide to work together, this will have a huge positive impact on the inevitable transformation process in the global energy system, the fight against global warming, poverty and hunger
But it is important to make one thing clear, namely that if the issues of “a new financial structure” and “the reform of financial organisations” (which seem to be solvable more quickly compared to other topics), are not brought to a concrete solution during the presidencies of Mexico, Russia and Australia, they may even infiltrate the agenda of the G20 in 2015. In this respect, it is clear that big steps on financial issues are needed to be taken in Mexico.
Prof. Dr. Aykut Kibritçioğlu, Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Economics, Section for Economic Development and International Economics
Please cite this publication as follows:
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (June, 2012), “The Present and Future of the G20 from the Perspective of the Global Economy and Turkey”, Volume I, Issue 4, pp. 49-60, Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London: ResearchTurkey (http://researchturkey.org/p=1379)
Bijian, Zheng (2011): “Toward a Global Convergence of Interests”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 15–17.
Bremmer, Ian (2012): Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World. Portfolio (Penguin).
Bremmer, Ian, ve Nouriel Roubini (2011): “A G-Zero World: The New Economic Club Will Produce Conflict, Not Cooperation”, Foreign Affairs, 90(2): 2–7.
Dadush, Uri ve Kati Suominen (2012): “Is There Life for the G20 Beyond the Global Financial Crisis?”, Journal of Globalization and Development, 2(2): Article 7.
Eichengreen, Barry, ve Richard Baldwin (derl.) (2008): What G20 Leaders Must Do To Stabilise Our Economy and Fix the Financial System. Londra: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) & VoxEU.org.
Evenett, Simon J. (derl.) (2012): Débâcle: The 11th GTA Report on Protectionism. Londra: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (2011a): “2006-2011 Küresel Ekonomik Krizinin Bileşenleri ve Karmaşıklığı”, İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, Sayı 9 (Temmuz): 30–34.
Kibritçioğlu, Aykut (2011b): “Avro Bölgesi Ülkelerindeki Güncel ‘Borç Krizi’”, İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, Sayı 10 (Ağustos): 30–41.
Larionova, Marina (2010), “Assessing G8 and G20 Effectiveness in Global Governance So Far”, International Organisations Research Journal, 5(31): 99–120. Güncelleştirilmiş versiyonu (2011):www.g20.utoronto.ca/events/111107-larionova.pdf
Moyo, Dambisa (2011): “How to Get America Back on Track”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 31–33.
Rampell, Catherine (2012): “Putting China’s Economic Power in Perspective”, The New York Times (EconoMix), 15 June.
Roubini, Nouriel (2011): “It Is a G-Zero, Not a G-20, World”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 27–30.
Qureshi, Z. (2010): “G20: Global Growth and Development Agenda”, International Organisations Research Journal, 5(31): 25–30.
Spence, Michael (2011): “The Middle Income Transition in China and America’s Need for Structural Change”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 21–26.
Stiglitz, Joe (2011): “Where the G-20 Stands”, New Perspectives Quarterly, 28(2): 18–21.
The Economist Online (2011): “The Dating Game”, 27 December.
Truman, Edwin M. (2012): “The G-20 Is Failing”, Op-ed in Foreign Policy, 14 April.
 The Author; would like to thank contributors to the “G20 Information Meetings” organized by the Republic of Turkey’s Treasury Undersecretariat in 2011-1012 in Ankara, and to the meeting titled “Towards Los Cabos: Mexico in the G20 and Turkey’s Role” held in TEPAV on 5 June 2012 (Source: www.tepav.org.tr/tr/haberler/s/2943). He is indebted to the information generated at these meetings, and to the contributions made by the speakers and analysts, some of which have indirectly benefited this article. (Ankara, 17 June 2012)
 According to Larionova (2011), it is possible to say that between G8 and G20, there is a division of tasks in terms of what has been discussed and proposed as solutions to the existing problems during the summits. While topics such as development, political issues, energy, security and environment are covered in G8 agenda, in G20 summits, the focus is mostly on finance, economics, development, trade and energy.
 The agenda pamphlet prepared by the British Treasury in 2009 which proposes the issues to be addressed at at the summit can be found on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G-20_London_Summit, and the G20 Summit Commitments issued by the G20 leaders can be found on: www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/commitments-09-london.html
 The G20 Summit Commitments of Pittsburgh (2009) can be found on: www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/commitments-09-pittsburgh.html
 The G10 Summit Commitments of Toronto (2010) can be found on: www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/commitments-10-toronto.html
 G20 takes place in a manner in which firstly the presidency sets an annual agenda which was followed by a detailed preparation and meeting process and the leaders’ summit. According to the decisions taken in the summit, countries make some commitments which are put into practice at a national level. Afterwards, this process is being observed and evaluated.
 The agenda pamphlet prepared in Seoul in 2010 can be found on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Seoul_summit. The Summit Commitments and the Action Plan are on: www.g20.utoronto.ca/2010/g20seoul-doc.html
 The agenda pamphlet prepared in Cannes can be found on www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g20/english/priorities-for-france/the-priorities-of-the-french-presidency/the-priorities-of-the-french-presidency.75.html, The Summit Commitments can be found on: www.g20.utoronto.ca/summits/2011cannes.html
 “Sustainable growth” objective that is mentioned here mostly focuses on designing and coordinating necessary fiscal and monetary policies and increasing demand and employment to create a way-out from the financial-economic crisis (or to prevent a new crisis). Because, the concept of “sustainable growth” in the first objective is different from the concepts of “sustainable development” and “green growth” in the other objectives which put an emphasis on the well-being and presence of global ecological system.
 In the context of UNCSD, sustainable development, is defined as a development model which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. On the other hand, as the Ministry of Development states on (www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr), international organizations and platforms such as OECD and UNEP define green growth or green economy as a concept that prioritize the investment and the consumption of goods and services that promote environmental improvements.
 For a detailed analysis of components of the current global economic crisis, Kibritçioğlu (2011a and 2011 b) can be consulted. In these two studies, it is claimed that the current global economic problems cannot be reduced to the USA and EU level financial crises and that the crisis has a more complicated and multidimensional structure.
 For a detailed evaluation, criticism and discussion on G20 organization, actions and future: Eichengreen ve Baldwin (derl.) (2008), Qureshi (2010), Larionova (2011), Bijian (2011), Stiglitz (2011), Spence (2011), Roubini (2011), Moyo (2011), Bremmer and Roubini (2011), Bremmer (2012) ile Dadusch and Suominen (2012)
 The problems which can(and should) be solved at national levels with political decisions and practices of countries’ own policies are taking too much place at G20 agenda. This leads to an overload of topics. As in the case of unfair competition against Turkey which is created by new-developing countries as a result of not complying (enough) with ILO rules, if this problem is mentioned on the ILO platform instead of G20, then this overload of topics and role stealing of G20 will be prevented
 According to Reuters (15/06/2012), 2013 G20 summit is expected to be held in St. Petersburg on 05/09. It is also stated that, Russia will be focusing on the performance of the commitments by the G20 members about budget deficit policies, decreasing the debts and reforming the voting rules on IMF.
 a comparative quantitative analysis on this issue : Larionova (2011)
 See. Bremmer and Roubini (2011), Roubini (2011) and Bremmer (2012).