Appendix 1: Ranking Commitments Manual
Appendix 2: G8 Statement on Regional Issues
The 2001 G7 Communique proved to be less productive than the 2000 G7 Communique, judged by the number and range of identifiable, specific, future-oriented commitments issued by the leaders. Together, the document issued by the leaders at Genoa offered 10 commitments. Of these, one came from the issue area of World Economy, two from Trade, five from Strengthening the International Financial System, and two from HIPC. This contrasts with the 12 commitments identified in the Okinawa G7 Communique, which contained four identifiable commitments from HIPC, three from International Financial Architecture, three from Global Financial System, and two from Nuclear Safety.
Although it is difficult to assess whether the 2001Genoa G7/G8 Summit was more productive than Okinawa, a partial estimate is available by comparing those issue areas where commitment data in the main G7 and G8 communiqués, produced by the same methodology, do exist.
Launching a New Trade Round:
Strengthening the International Financial System:
In order to assess the productivity of the Genoa Summit, it is important to assess not only the overall number, but also the ambition and significance of each individual commitment the Summit generated. Led by Diana Juricevic, the G8 Research Group is devising a scale to rank commitments according to their level of ambition-significance. Outlined below is the evolving framework for ranking commitments according to their level of ambition-significance. An ambitious commitment is one that clearly identifies a goal, clearly identifies measures to attain that goal, and clearly identifies a target date at which time that goal is to be completed. A significant commitment is one that is timely, novel, and has appropriate scope. A commitment that is both "ambitious" and "significant" satisfies the above six criteria.
The ambition-significance ranking is scored out of a possible six points corresponding to the six criteria. A score of 6 entails both a high level of ambition and a high level of significance. A score of 3 entails a high level of ambition but has no level of significance. A score of 0 entails no level of ambition and no level of significance.
The coding manual for assessing the ambition-significance of each individual commitment is presented immediately below.
The results for the G7 Communique are listed immediately below.
|Commitment||Goal||Measure||Target Date||Timeliness||Scope||Novelty||Total ( x/6)|
1. Does the commitment identify a goal?
Yes = 1 point
No = 0 points
2. Does the commitment identify measures to attain the goal?
Yes = 1 point
No = 0 points
3. Does the commitment identify a target date at which time the goal is to be completed?
Yes = 1 point
No = 0 points
Is the purpose of the commitment to respond to a current crisis?
Is the purpose of the commitment to prevent/address a future crisis/issue?
Is the commitment directed only at G8 countries?
Is the commitment directed at countries outside G8 membership?
Is the commitment referring to an issue that was addressed in previous summits?
Is the commitment referring to an issue that has not been addressed in previous summits?
* Note that the scoring criteria for (4), (5), and (6) is specific to the particular commitment to be ranked. Take the issue of scope, for example: at times, it is appropriate for a particular commitment to be directed only at G8 countries (in this case, a score of 0 would be allocated), while at other times it is appropriate for the commitment to be directed outside G8 membership (in this case, a score of 1 would be allocated). Every effort has been taken by the Research G8 Group to minimize the measurement error associated with this ranking process, including the implementation of a two-stage verification process to ensure that, if there is a bias in the ranking, this bias is applied consistently across all commitments and across all issue areas.
Taken together, these criteria suggest that each individual commitment, and through normal or weighted averages an entire summit, can be judged as follows:
0 = No Ambition, No Significance
1 = Low Ambition, No Significance
2 = Moderate Ambition, No Significance
3 = High Ambition, No Significance
4 = High Ambition, Low Significance
5 = High Ambition, Moderate Significance
6 = High Ambition, High Significance
Before applying this framework to the entire set of commitments, it must be noted that ranking commitments by ambition-significance is an arduous task involving several methodological challenges. In this exercise, the G8 Research Group is attempting to quantify an essentially qualitative enterprise. Every effort has been made to reduce the level of measurement error and simultaneity bias. Nevertheless, these two problems still exist. As a result, there tends to be a systematic overstatement of the level of ambition-significance for each commitment as well as a systematic overstatement of the level of compliance. Given the fact that the G8 Research Group has been examining this issue from a political science perspective and not from an economics perspective, no regressions have been employed and the corresponding economic techniques to correct for simultaneity bias have not been used.
With these caveats, the ambition-significance framework specified above has been applied, on a trial basis, to the commitments in the G7 Communiqué and the G8 Communiqué, as noted above. The results for the G7 Communique are listed immediately below.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
G8 Genova Plan for Africa
|Commitment||Goal||Measure||Target Date||Scope||Novelty||Total ( x/6)|
Prepared by , Ella Kokotsis and Diana Juricevic, University of Toronto G8 Research Group, June 2001.
||This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library and the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.|
Please send comments to:
This page was last updated February 04, 2004.
All contents copyright © 1995-2004. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.