ABSTRACT
G20 summits after 2010 all saw varying, and generally increasing, degrees of dissension and dispute that hampered the forum's utility to deliver on remaining desired goals, as the boundary of the crisis-induced common narrative was reached. Macroeconomic disputes in the G20 reflected similar paradigm maintenance and conflict over aspects of the international political economy narrative in the past. Toronto's narrative contradicted the pro-regulation, pro-stimulus message that had come from Pittsburgh only a few months earlier. In addition, the UK leadership changed in May 2010, and the country was suddenly a stalwart supporter of austerity as opposed to stimulus. Participants in the Toronto summit recall what a difference this made to the balance of the debate between Keynesians and those calling for austerity. A single issue dominated the summit debates in Seoul: a dispute between key G20 members, and in particular the US and China, over the causes of and cures for global imbalances and currency mismatches.
