Measuring Compliance

How do we measure compliance? The compliance studies build on the methodology first developed by George Von Furstenberg and Joseph Daniels in “The Meaning and Reliability of Economic Summit Undertakings, 1975-1989” and essentially follow a three-level measurement process:

1. Full or nearly full compliance with a commitment is assigned a score of +1.

2. A score of -1 indicates complete or nearly complete failure to implement a commitment.

3. An “inability to commit” or a “work in progress” is given a score of 0.

An “inability to commit” refers to factors outside of the executive branch that impede implementation. A “work in progress” refers to an initiative that has been launched by a government but has not yet been completed by the time of the next Summit, and whose results therefore cannot be judged.

What Is the Compliance Time Frame? g8 Compliance Time Frame

G8 commitments are assessed from the conclusion of one Summit to the beginning of the next — so the time frame spans one year. Why? Because commitments in the leaders’ documents are made on an annual basis, so the span of one full year is used to assess whether compliance has in fact occurred. Some commitments may be “re-iterated” — which means they were made at previous Summits but haven’t yet been completed because one year didn’t allow enough time for their implementation. If the leaders re-iterate their commitments, they are still counted as distinct commitments and hence measured.

A one year time frame also coincides with the annual cycle of national political agendas — such as budgets and state of the union addresses — which vary from year to year — so the annual Summit cycle accounts for variations that occur on a yearly basis.

G20 Compliance Timeframe

G20 commitments are assessed from the conclusion of one Summit to the beginning of the next. Since 2008 the time lapse between G20 summits has varied from 5 months to 8 months. Why? The frequency of G20 summits has varied due to the global financial crisis and the increased necessity of cooperation.

The G20 communiqué has outlined specific as well as general timeframes for implementation. Generally speaking, the assessment is based on a summit to summit timeframe. To reiterate, if there is no specific reference made to a past/future date, it should be interpreted as to mean since the last/at the next summit. In certain instance the G20 has identified specific timeframes of; shot-term, medium-term and long-term. Each is defined as follows: short-term is measured from summit to summit, medium-term, is from the summit cycle until five years. Long term is any commitment with a delivery date of over five years. Like the G8, some commitments may be reiterated. If the leaders reiterate their commitments, they are still counted as distinct commitments and hence measured.

Currency

When reporting currency, if it is not outlined in the guidelines it should be in constant US dollars for the most recent year.

Scoring

Compliance is measured on a three-point scale, where each member is awarded a -1, 0 or +1 for each commitment. Thus when average scores for each commitment and member are being calculated, they can range between -1 and +1.³

The following is an example of how compliance should be reported for an individual commitment:

Country	Lack of Compliance	Work in Progress	Full Compliance
Canada			+1
France			+1
Germany			+1
Italy	-1
Japan			+1
Russia		0
United Kingdom			+1
United States			+1
European Union			+1
Average Score			+0.67