Keywords

G-20, Accountability, Governance, Global governance, Systematic review.

Introduction

The Group of Twenty (G-20) is a worldwide platform that brings together 21 entities, including 19 countries, the European Union, and the African Union. The primary goal of the G-20 is to address major challenges in the global economy, such as financial stability, climate change, and sustainable development. The establishment of the G-20 took place in 1999, and it convenes yearly summits wherein leaders, ministers, and other officials from member nations invited guests to participate. The G-20 accounts for around 85% of global GDP, 75% of international trade, and two-thirds of the world population. The G-20 has assumed a significant role in global governance, particularly in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, whereby it played a pivotal role in facilitating the coordination of international reaction and recovery endeavours. The G-20 has additionally broadened its scope to encompass not only economic matters, but also the social, environmental, and political aspects of global crises.

The G-20 has received official approval for some significant international accords and projects, including the Paris Agreement on climate change, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on funding for development, and the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) (Kirton and Larionova, 2018).

Nevertheless, despite its notable accomplishments and future prospects, the G-20 encounters several critiques and obstacles that erode its credibility and legitimacy as a global governing body. One of the primary critiques pertains to the insufficiency of efficient mechanisms in place for the monitoring and enforcement of commitments made by member nations. The G-20 serves as a platform for discourse and collaboration; nevertheless, it lacks the capacity to enforce compliance or impose punitive measures to guarantee adherence to the commitments made by its members. This phenomenon has the potential to result in discrepancies between verbal expression and practical execution, as well as incongruity and lack of coherence within policy frameworks, ultimately leading to suboptimal levels of adherence and execution (Hajnal, 2019). In addition, there exists a dearth of comprehensive data regarding the efforts undertaken by nations to fulfil their commitments, resulting in a decline in confidence among the broader anti-corruption collective over the efficacy and level of ambition demonstrated by the G-20 (Transparency International, 2019). Furthermore, corruption frequently tends to be disregarded in the words and acts of G-20 leaders.

Hence, the primary objective of this article is to analyse the potential methods via which the G-20 might bolster its accountability and efficacy. This will be achieved by conducting a comparative evaluation of the current systems in place and the suggested approaches for monitoring and enforcing the G-20's pledges. This essay critically examines the existing body of research pertaining to the difficulties and opportunities associated with the governance of the G-20. This analysis examines the existing practices within the G-20 accountability system, including the peer review process, compliance reports, and engagement groups. The article additionally examines the potential of various innovative suggestions aimed at enhancing the accountability of the G-20. These proposals include the establishment of a permanent secretariat, the creation of an independent oversight body, the development of a dispute settlement mechanism, and the inclusion of other stakeholders such as civil society, academia, and international organisations. The article presents a set of policy ideas aimed at enhancing the governance and effectiveness of the G-20. The subsequent sections of this work are structured in the following manner: Section 2 delineates the methodology employed in carrying out this systematic review. Section 3 presents the findings of this systematic review categorised by each theme. Section 4 deliberates on the principal conclusions derived from this systematic review. Section 5 outlines the limitations encountered and suggests avenues for future research. Lastly, Section 6 furnishes a compilation of references.

Review of Literature

This systematic review follows the guidelines provided by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Denyer and Tranfield (2009), which include three major phases: review design, review execution, and review reporting and dissemination. The first stage of the research process includes developing the research question, developing a detailed approach, and identifying relevant literature sources. Several crucial activities are covered in the conducting phase, including doing a thorough literature search, carefully selecting relevant research, acquiring and synthesising data from these studies, and critically evaluating the quality of the included studies. The reporting and disseminating process comprises writing and delivering the review, as well as identifying its implications for theory and practice. The primary focus of this systematic review is the application of the concept of governance and its associated ideas to the G-20. Furthermore, the evaluation intends to investigate the development and application of frameworks for assessing the G-20's responsibility.

The current investigation is motivated by the fact that G-20 accountability has not been thoroughly studied or consolidated in the academic literature. In addition, this investigation is important for academics and practitioners who are interested in learning about and improving the G-20's governance and effectiveness. This systematic review followed the guidelines laid out in the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) statement (Moher et al., 2015) while developing its methodology. In order to ensure that the review process is both transparent and thorough, this checklist has been created. The protocol for this systematic review lays out the eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction process, data synthesis process, quality assessment process, and reporting standards.

The literature sources utilised for this systematic review were obtained exclusively from the Scopus database. Furthermore, it is imperative to incorporate grey literature sources into our research endeavours. These sources encompass reports generated by esteemed international organisations, esteemed think tanks, reputable non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and esteemed government agencies. The search methodology employed in this systematic review involves the utilisation of a combination of keywords that are relevant to the subject matter under study. The aforementioned keywords encompass crucial elements such as the "G-20," denoting the group of twenty major economies, "G-20 economies," referring to the economies of these countries, and "G-20 countries global governance," signifying the collective efforts of these nations in global governance. Additionally, the term "framework" pertains to the structure or system within which these endeavours are conducted, while "accountability" underscores the importance of being answerable for actions and decisions made. Moreover, "governance" signifies the process of governing or managing affairs, and "Effectiveness" highlights the degree to which desired outcomes are achieved. Lastly, "mechanism" denotes the means or method employed The search strategy also encompasses the utilisation of Boolean operators, namely AND, OR, NOT, truncation symbols denoted by *, quote marks " ", and brackets (), to optimise the accuracy and pertinence of the search results. The search approach was implemented in the title, abstract, and keyword sections of each source.

Methodology and Analysis

Explore the Research Articles in Scopus Databases

The process of selecting research for this systematic review includes evaluating the titles and abstracts of the identified studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. The research paper is written in the English language. It falls within the publication period of 2010 to 2023. The subject matter of the study pertains to the G-20, specifically focusing on issues of accountability. The study explores the realm of governance or global governance. It adopts a framework, theory, or model to analyse the topic. Furthermore, the research paper takes the form of a literature review, systematic review, or meta-analysis. The studies that satisfy all of these criteria have been incorporated into this systematic review. The studies that fail to meet any of these criteria are eliminated from this systematic review. The whole texts of the papers that were included are obtained and evaluated for eligibility using identical criteria. Any inconsistencies or ambiguities encountered throughout the process of selecting studies for inclusion are addressed through deliberation or seeking input from other scholars. The primary objective of this systematic literature analysis is to analyse the application of governance concepts and their underlying theories to the G-20, as well as the development and utilisation of frameworks for evaluating G-20 accountability. The review delineates four primary themes within the existing body of research. These themes encompass (1) the conceptualization and various aspects of G-20 accountability; (2) the obstacles and potential advantages associated with G-20 accountability; (3) the currently implemented and suggested procedures for G-20 accountability; and (4) the consequences and assessment of G-20 accountability. The review comprehensively examines the primary discoveries, deficiencies, and ramifications associated with each issue, while also offering recommendations for prospective investigations.

Screening of Initial Articles

The chosen temporal scope for this study encompasses the years 2010 through 2023. The review focused on selecting research publications that were published exclusively in the English language and appeared in journals, conferences, and books indexed by Scopus. The summary of the keyword search is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Scopus Database Search Summary (2013-2023)
Keywords	Count
("G-20")OR("G-20 ECONOMIES")OR("G-20 COUNTRIES")AND("GLOBAL GOVERNANCE")OR("FRAMEWORK")OR("ACCOUNTABILITY")OR("GOVERNANCE")OR("EFFECTIVENESS")	30
ACCOUNTABILITY	2
GOVERNANCE	10
EFFECTIVENESS	4
FRAMEWORK	17
MECHANISM	4

The G-20 is an international platform that seeks to tackle significant matters pertaining to the global economy, encompassing areas such as financial stability, climate change, and sustainable development. Nevertheless, the G-20 encounters several critiques and challenges that erode its credibility and legitimacy as a global governance instrument. One of the primary critiques pertains to the insufficiency of robust procedures in place to monitor and enforce the obligations undertaken by member nations. The G-20 serves as a platform for discourse and collaboration, it lacks the capacity to enforce compliance or impose punitive measures to guarantee adherence to the commitments made by its member states. This phenomenon may result in discrepancies between verbal communication and practical execution, lack of coherence and consistency in policy-making, and limited adherence and execution.

The analysis of 30 search results (refer to Table 1) revealed that the majority, around 76.7%, of the results were classified as research articles. Conference papers accounted for 3.3% of the findings, while book chapters constituted 16.7%. Reviews made up the remaining 3.3% of the search results. Figure 1 illustrates the publication of papers pertaining to the G-20 from the years 2010 to 2023. Figure 2 depicts the utilisation of diverse methodologies across several domains within the field of Economics. Additionally, it has been observed that the United States holds a prominent position in conducting research on accountability and processes within the G-20 framework.

Articles Reading and Selection of Articles to Review

The author has read the abstract of all selected 30 articles and papers which are open access and subscribed to the Institute. After a thorough reading, it has been decided to select the articles focused on site selection, G-20 economies, accountability, global governance, mechanisms, and effectiveness.

Results of the Systematic Review of the Literature

This section summarises the key areas in the G-20 countries where the application of various has been implemented to analyse and assess the governance, global governance, mechanism, and effectiveness. Nelson (2010) examines the shift from the G-7 to the G-20 as the principal platform for global economic coordination. This report examines the challenges and arguments associated with the aforementioned transition, as well as the efficacy and inclusiveness of the G-20 in tackling global economic concerns. In the study conducted by Norton (2010), an in-depth analysis is undertaken to explore the origins and evolution of the G-20 as a significant global governance framework, with a particular focus on its emergence in response to the Global Financial Crisis. The framework under consideration raises important questions regarding its potential and implications for international economic cooperation, including the possibility of establishing a new global financial system. The study conducted by Ramos et al. (2012) aims to comprehensively analyse the multifaceted changes that transpired within the global capitalist system in response to the financial crisis of 2008. Furthermore, it delves into the subsequent ramifications of these transformations on the G-20, a prominent international forum. The central focus of this study is to thoroughly analyse the significant contributions made by key actors, namely the United States, China, Germany, and Brazil, in shaping the dynamic role of the G-20 within the domain of global economic governance.

In the study conducted by Halkos and Tzeremes (2013), an examination is undertaken to investigate the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and governance measures among the G-20 economies throughout the period spanning from 1996 to 2010. The research findings demonstrate a non-linear correlation and substantial disparities among nations, emphasising the intricate interplay between emissions and governance elements across diverse regional and developmental settings. Faruqee and Srinivasan (2013) critically examine the Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) implemented within the G-20 framework, with a particular focus on its significance in facilitating policy coordination for the purpose of global economic recovery subsequent to the financial crisis. The statement highlights the capacity of the G-20 to strengthen mutual confidence and foster cooperative measures among its member countries in tackling economic difficulties. The research conducted by Butler (2013) examines the G-20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth that was implemented as a reaction to the financial crisis of 2008. This study examines the advancements in policy coordination and the obstacles encountered in the pursuit of increasing global economic stability through the G-20. The study conducted by Liu (2014) investigates the involvement of China in the process of global governance reform, with a particular emphasis on its actions during significant moments such as the negotiation of the WTO Doha Round and the G-20 Process. The results highlight China's active involvement in reform suggestions while maintaining pro-development ideals, thereby enhancing our comprehension of China's policies for global governance.

Acaroğlu and Baykul (2020) undertook a comparative examination of solar thermal technical systems within the G-7 and G-20 nations. This study emphasises the alignment of market and regulatory trends in developing nations, offering essential recommendations for achieving sustainable advancements in renewable energy. Chodor (2021) conducts an analysis of the factors contributing to deadlock within the G-20 following the occurrence of the global financial crisis. This study examines the effects of shifts in economic power and evolving ideology on the G-20's capacity to effectively address global imbalances. The study conducted by Gautam and Lal (2021) examines the correlation between entrepreneurship dynamics and economic growth within the G-20 economies. The study reveals a strong positive association between entrepreneurial endeavours, economic advancement, and competitiveness, underscoring the need to foster innovation for the sake of progress. Ji and Lim (2022) provide insights into diverse dimensions of global governance, encompassing China's involvement in reform efforts as well as the complexities and potential advantages associated with international platforms such as the G-20. The aforementioned statement highlights the intricate nature of international economic cooperation and emphasises the necessity of employing flexible and cooperative strategies to effectively tackle urgent global challenges.

The study conducted by Pradhan et al. (2022) examines the interplay between the advancement of information and communication technology (ICT) and the process of innovation among the G-20 nations. This study elucidates the causal links between the aforementioned variables, providing insights into their long-term dynamics spanning multiple decades. In their study, Alola et al. (2022) examine the impact of economic freedom on environmental sustainability within the G-20 economies. The analysis uncovers intricate interconnections among economic freedom, actual income levels, utilisation of renewable energy, and environmental conditions, providing suggestions for governmental interventions aimed at fostering sustainable growth.

The study conducted by Yu-Ke et al., (2022) examines the causal relationship between energy consumption, natural resources, and volatility in carbon emissions within the G-20 countries. This observation underscores the complex interplay between the utilisation of natural resources and the generation of carbon emissions, hence proposing potential policy frameworks aimed at safeguarding the environment. Ji and Lim (2022) examine the rise of the G-20 as a significant forum for international economic collaboration and policy synchronisation following the Global Financial Crisis. This paper examines the rising position of China within the G-20 and the issues it encounters in the dynamic global scene. Kumar and colleagues (2023) offer significant contributions to the understanding of the interdependencies among commodities, cryptocurrencies, and capital markets in the context of global crises such as COVID-19 and geopolitical occurrences like the Russian-Ukraine crisis. This resource provides significant information for making investing and risk management decisions. The study conducted by Ma et al. (2023) investigates the correlation between green finance, renewable energy, economic recovery, and environmental performance within the G-20 countries. This statement highlights the significance of both economic and environmental sustainability and offers policy implications for promoting green innovation.

Discussion

The concise evaluations of different studies offer a limited but informative overview of the wide-ranging and complex research carried out in the realm of the G-20 and global governance. In this discourse, we shall examine a number of overarching themes and insights that have been derived from these investigations.

China’s evolving role: Numerous scholarly investigations, such as the works of Liu (2014) and Ji and Lim (2022), underscore the proactive involvement of China in the process of global governance transformation. China has adopted a proactive approach in advocating for reforms, particularly within international platforms such as the G-20. This statement underscores the nation's dedication to pro-development values, while also refraining from assuming an assertive leadership position.

Environmental sustainability: The significance of environmental sustainability within the G-20 is shown by research conducted by Ma et al. (2023) and Yu-Ke et al. (2022). These studies highlight the intricate interplay between economic growth, green finance, and environmental performance. The authors offer policy ideas aimed at promoting green innovation and effectively tackling environmental concerns.

Economic coordination: The topic of economic coordination and policy collaboration within the G-20 is examined in scholarly works authored by Butler (2013) and Faruqee and Srinivasan (2013). The user emphasises the importance of platforms such as the G-20 in effectively handling global economic crises and fostering mutual confidence among member nations.

Financial regulation: The impact of prudential regulatory aspects on banks' risk is the subject of investigation in a study conducted by Cabrera et al. (2018). The study highlights the significance of government support and the designation of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) in this context. This statement underscores the continuous endeavours to enhance financial regulation within the G-20. In his work published in 2015.

Global energy governance: Downie (2015) examines the deficiency in global energy governance and explores the possibilities of the G-20 in mitigating this concern. The statement emphasises the necessity of adopting more comprehensive and interconnected strategies in global energy governance, in light of the significant shifts occurring in global energy markets.

Complex dynamics: The G-20 is characterised by complex dynamics, as evidenced by many scholarly investigations conducted by Halkos and Tzeremes (2013) and Chodor (2021). These studies shed light on the numerous and frequently non-linear interconnections that exist within this international forum. The findings demonstrate that there is considerable variation in governance measures and effects among countries, highlighting the intricate interplay between emissions and governance issues within diverse contexts.

Small States and Legitimacy: The study conducted by Cooper and Momani (2014) sheds light on the crucial role played by small states within the G-20 framework, particularly in relation to the legitimacy of global governance. The aforementioned text highlights the significant role that entities like the Global Governance Group (3G) possess in shaping the global agenda and promoting a narrative that prioritises legitimacy and inclusivity. The aforementioned studies provide a comprehensive portrayal of the ever-evolving nature of global governance, wherein the G-20 assumes a prominent position in promoting global cooperation across various spheres.The significance of adaptable and collaborative techniques is emphasised in addressing urgent global concerns, ranging from economic stability to environmental sustainability. The perpetual transformation of worldwide challenges underscores the persistent significance of research conducted within the G-20 framework. Such research plays a pivotal role in comprehending and exerting influence on the course of international governance.

The recent summit signified the incorporation of the African Union into the G20, thereby broadening its representation and enhancing its diversity. The summit deliberated upon several significant geopolitical matters, including the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the situation in Afghanistan, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the matter of security in the Indo-Pacific region. The leaders have advocated for a nonviolent conclusion to the situation in Ukraine, emphasising the need to uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Additionally, the individuals conveyed their endorsement of the Afghan populace and implored the Taliban to adhere to principles of human rights and proactively combat acts of terrorism. The individuals in question reiterated their dedication to the Iran nuclear agreement and its comprehensive execution. The proponents expressed their support for the notion of an Indo-Pacific area that is characterised by freedom, openness, and inclusivity. Nevertheless, the meeting encountered several problems and received critiques. Certain commentators have put out the contention that the declaration exhibits a level of vagueness that is deemed inadequate since it fails to provide specific measures pertaining to significant matters such as climate change, global health, trade, and digital governance. It was observed that the summit did not establish a definitive objective for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or reach a consensus on a worldwide minimum corporate tax. Additionally, it was observed that the summit failed to address the escalating tensions between China and certain neighbouring countries, like India, Taiwan, and Japan. Furthermore, several analysts have said that the summit served to highlight India's status as a prominent global leader, while simultaneously concealing its multifaceted nature and prevailing challenges. It has been asserted that India curated a sanitised portrayal of itself to global dignitaries, achieved by the removal of street sellers, stray dogs, and monkeys from urban areas. Furthermore, it was contended by the critics that India's suppression of its pluralistic and secular values was evident in its choice of Sanskrit names and Hindu symbols for the summit venue and associated activities. India has been accused of exhibiting hypocrisy due to its simultaneous promotion of democracy and human rights on the international stage while adopting repressive measures against dissent and civil society within its own borders.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

These studies jointly shed light on the evolving role of the G-20 in global governance, encompassing economic coordination, environmental sustainability, and financial regulation. Prominent themes in the context of China include its proactive approach to involvement, intricate relationships, and the shift from the G-7 to the G-20. Furthermore, the aforementioned research emphasises the significance of employing adaptable and inclusive methodologies within this particular context, providing significant perspectives on the intricate and always-evolving realm of global collaboration. In summary, the examined studies offer significant insights into the complex realm of the G-20 and its dynamic role in global governance. In order to bolster its accountability and efficacy, it is imperative for the G-20 to prioritise key areas such as environmental sustainability, equitable economic coordination, and rigorous financial regulation. It is crucial to recognise the importance of studying China's proactive participation and cultivating principled ways. Furthermore, it is imperative for the G-20 to actively advocate for the implementation of consistent reporting and review processes, openness, and public involvement. Simultaneously, the G-20 should foster an environment that promotes peer pressure and accountability among its member nations. The implementation of policy coordination platforms and the ability to adjust to evolving global challenges are essential measures. By adopting these policy implications and upholding a dedication to cooperation and inclusiveness, the G-20 can persist in its role as a crucial forum for tackling urgent global challenges and promoting global stability and sustainability.

The policy implications of this research imply that numerous steps should be examined to improve the G-20's accountability and effectiveness in global governance. For starters, establishing a permanent secretariat and an independent oversight body might ensure continuity and unbiased evaluation of pledges. Second, a dispute resolution process would make it easier for member nations to resolve disputes. Third, including civil society, academia, and international organisations as stakeholders can bring varied perspectives to the table. Together with a strong peer review mechanism and compliance reports, these initiatives will increase the G-20's credibility and legitimacy as a global governance institution, allowing it to better fulfil its role in tackling global concerns.

References

Acaroğlu, H., & Baykul, M. C. (2020). A Comparative Global Overview for Flat-Plate Solar Collectors (FPSCS) in G-7 and G-20 Countries. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, 12(1), 87–98.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alola, A. A., Alola, U. V., Akdag, S., & Yildirim, H. (2022). The role of economic freedom and clean energy in environmental sustainability: implication for the G-20 economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(24), 36608–36615.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Butler, C. (2013). The G-20 Framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth: Glass half empty or half full? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(3), 469–492.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cabrera, M., Dwyer, G.P., & Nieto, M.J. (2018). The G-20′s regulatory agenda and banks’ risk. Journal of Financial Stability, 39, 66–78.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chodor, T. (2021). The G-20 since the global financial crisis: Neither hegemony nor collectivism. Global Governance, 23(2), 205–223.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cooper, A. F., & Momani, B. (2014). Re-balancing the G-20 from efficiency to legitimacy: The 3G coalition and the practice of global governance. Global Governance, 20(2), 213–232.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage Publications Ltd.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Downie, C. (2015). Global energy governance in the G-20: States, coalitions, and crises. Global Governance, 21(3), 475–492.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Faruqee, H., & Srinivasan, K. (2013). The G-20 mutual assessment process-a perspective from IMF staff. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(3), 493–511.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gautam, S., & Lal, M. (2021). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: Evidence from G-20 Economies. Journal of East-West Business, 27(2), 140–159.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hajnal, P. I. (2019). The G20: Evolution, interrelationships, documentation (p. 342). Taylor & Francis.

Indexed at Google Scholar

Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: A nonparametric analysis for the G-20. Energy Economics, 40, 110–118.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ji, X., & Lim, G. (2022). The Chinese Way of Reforming Global Economic Governance: An Analysis of China’s Rising Role in the Group of Twenty (G-20). Chinese Economy, 55(4), 282–292.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kirton, J., & Larionova, M. (Eds.) (2018). Accountability for effectiveness in global governance: The G20’s contribution. Routledge.

Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Jain, R., Balli, F., & Billah, M. (2023). Interconnectivity and investment strategies among commodity prices, cryptocurrencies, and G-20 capital markets: A comparative analysis during COVID-19 and Russian-Ukraine war. International Review of Economics and Finance, 88, 547–593.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Liu, H. (2014). China’s proposing behavior in Global Governance: The cases of the WTO Doha Round negotiation and G-20 process. Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, 57, 121–137.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ma, M., Zhu, X., Liu, M., & Huang, X. (2023). Combining the role of green finance and environmental sustainability on green economic growth: Evidence from G-20 economies. Renewable Energy, 207, 128–136.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews, 4(1), 1-9.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Nelson, R.M. (2010). The G-20 and international economic cooperation: Background and implications for congress. In The International Monetary Fund (IMF): Financial Crisis and Select Issues (pp. 63–89). Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84946829921&partnerID=40&md5=3af378f26f6d448db2ced2904cbc3229

Google Scholar

Norton, J.J. (2010). NIFA-II or Bretton Woods-II: The G-20 (Leaders) summit process on managing global financial markets and the world economy - Quo vadis. Journal of Banking Regulation, 11(4), 261–301.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Pradhan, R.P., Sarangi, A.K., & Sabat, A. (2022). The effect of ICT development on innovation: evidence from G-20 countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 12(2), 361–371.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ramos, L., Vadell, J., Saggioro, A., & Fernandes, M. (2012). The global economic Governance and the challenges of the G-20 after the financial crisis: An analysis of the positions of the United States, China, Germany and Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, 55(2), 10–27.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Transparency International (2019). ANNUAL REPORT 2019. Transparency International, International Secretariat, Berlin, Germany.

Yu-Ke, C., Awan, R. U., Aziz, B., Ahmad, I., & Waseem, S. (2022). The relationship between energy consumption, natural resources, and carbon dioxide emission volatility: empirics from G-20 economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 25408–25416.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 29-Sep-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-14051; Editor assigned: 02-Oct-2023, PreQC No. AMSJ-23-14051(PQ); Reviewed: 27-Oct-2023, QC No. AMSJ-23-14051; Revised: 02-Jan-2024, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-14051(R); Published: 01-Feb-2024