WDEV special: Subscribe now and get 4 weeks free >>> here
deutschsprachige Version

Our new website address:  

Home Mission Statement Subscriptions Sample Copies Services Blogs Background Links Archives

Volume 2017
Volume 2016
Volume 2015
Volume 2014
Volume 2013
Volume 2012
Volume 2011
Volume 2010
Volume 2009
Volume 2008
Volume 2007
Volume 2006
Special Reports
For subscribers only
Show memo
Show shopping cart
Proceed to check-out
Your account
Europe Global Environment & Development The New South From G8 to G20 The Development Agenda UN Reform Global Finance Doha Final The Euro-zone in Crisis Eastern Europe

The Never-ending Story of ECOSOC Reform

L-27 as emerging alternative to G-8?

Many critics accuse the G-8 of being unrepresentative and lacking in transparency and demand that the group be replaced by a democratically legitimate decision-making body under the United Nations in which countries of the Global South are equally represented. They often overlook the fact that such a decision-making body already exists in the form of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC. The Council, however, has so far been politically insignificant. By Jens Martens.


All attempts at basic reform and upgrade have thus far been unsuccessful. With the decisions taken at the 2005 World Summit and the report of the UN “Coherence Panel” (>>> The Coherence Panel’s Mixed Bag of Proposals), new and remarkable reform recommendations are now on the table. Is this another chapter in the never-ending story of ECOSOC reform, or could it be more?

* The birth defect of ECOSOC
The structural weaknesses of the United Nations in the area of international economic and financial policy is based on a constructional flaw in the UN Charter. The founders of the United Nations defined “international social and economic cooperation” as one of the core tasks of the international organisation in 1945, and created ECOSOC as one of the six main bodies of the United Nations (in addition to the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the UN Secretariat). Nevertheless, ECOSOC – unlike the Security Council – was placed under the authority of the General Assembly (Art. 60 of the Charter). Since the beginning,- therefore, ECOSOC has always only been a second-class body. It is permitted to submit recommendations but it is not granted decision-making power.

A further problem with the Council is its size. With a total of 54 members, ECOSOC is too small to function as a representative forum for discussion of economic and social matters. Many countries of the G-77 do not feel adequately represented in it. As a coordinating and decision-making body, however, it is too large. Most industrialised countries dismiss it as cumbersome and ineffective. Consequently, the important development debates of the last decades did not take place in ECOSOC but at the UNCTAD conferences and later at the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank as well as at the international conferences of the United Nations.

Composition of the ECOSOC

Region  Number of seats 
Africa  14 
Asia  11 
Eastern Europe 
Latin America and the Caribbean  10 
Western Europe and other  13 
Quelle: UN   

* 50 years of reform efforts
For the past 50 years there have been continued attempts to either reform ECOSOC or to create an entirely new global decision-making body for economic and social matters. Recommendations from expert commissions and government initiatives have in the meantime amassed enough to fill libraries. In its 1995 report, the Commission on Global Governance presented its proposal for a “Global Council”. Similar ideas were brought forth in subsequent years, albeit under new names (World Economic Council, Council for Sustainable Development, Global Governance Group, Economic Security Council, etc.). The collective goal of these initiatives was to create a global decision-making body that was more competent and more authoritative than ECOSOC, while at the same time more representative and open than the Security Council or the G-8.

In 2002, the French president Jacques Chirac took up the idea and called for the creation of an Economic and Social Security Council. The German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, has also repeatedly advocated the creation of a Global Council.

There are different ideas as to how such a Council should be created and where it should be located. Currently, there are three options on the table:

* Creation of a G-20 or L-20+ outside the UN: In order to address the criticism of the exclusivity of the G-8, there are diverse proposals to expand, add or even replace the group. A prominent advocate for this concept is the former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin with his proposal for an L-20 (“Leaders 20”). Similarly, in its final report for September 2006, the International Task Force for Global Public Goods comes out in favour of an “L-25” (also see W&E-Background July-Aug 2006).

* Creation of an Economic Security Council: The recommendation to create an Economic Security Council has appeared in many reform initiatives since the mid-1980s. It is envisioned as a new economic policy decision-making body under the umbrella of the UN and on par with the Security Council. It should either supersede ECOSOC or assume some of its functions. This requires an amendment in the UN Charter, which has to be passed by resolution and ratified by a minimum of 128 states (including the Permanent Members of the Security Council) – an as yet hopeless endeavour.

* Upgrading ECOSOC: To many it seems nonsensical to create a new Global Economic Council when there already exists a body (the ECOSOC) that could take over global economic steering and coordinating functions – if it were appropriately upgraded. Such an upgrade does not require an amendment to the Charter. It does, however, require a change in the political will of members states. In the run-up to the 2005 World Summit, there were pragmatic proposals regarding an upgrade, some of which can be found in the outcome document of the summit. However, so far governments have not implemented these recommendations.

* Incremental reforms …
In the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit, governments endorsed the idea of ECOSOC as the main UN body dealing with economic and social matters. In order to strengthen its political significance, the Council is to meet once a year on a ministerial level. Its task should first and foremost consist of monitoring the implementation of the internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs. Every two years it should serve as a high-ranking “Forum for Development Cooperation” in order to analyse trends in international development policies and to facilitate coherence between the development goals and policies in other sectors.

Upgrading ECOSOC to a kind of “International Development Council” could be a step forward. At the same time, however, its mandate would be narrowed down to development issues. Its competencies in the area of human rights have already been transferred to the newly created Human Rights Council. International economic, monetary and trade policy decisions would continue to be dealt with outside of the UN. The United Nations would leave these issues to the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.

Whether nonetheless the ECOSOC will gradually be strengthened depends primarily on the willingness of governments to accept its bigger role in development policies. In the follow-up to the World Summit, they have so far been unable to reach an agreement.

… or the big hit after all?
In its recommendations for the reform of ECOSOC, the report of the “Coherence Panel” goes well beyond what could have been expected, given its composition (mostly incumbent politicians and diplomats) and the arduous reform debates at the UN level. What is highly surprising is the suggestion to create, within the framework of ECOSOC, a Global Leader’s Forum (L-27). The Forum would comprise the heads of state of half its members, rotating on the basis of equitable geographic representation. It would not have a decision-making function, but a broader thematic mandate. The report formulates the role of the Forum as follows:

- Provide leadership and guidance to the international community on development and global public goods issues.

- Develop a long-term strategic policy framework to secure consistency in the policy goals of the major international organizations.

- Promote consensus-building among governments and integrated solutions for global economic, social and environmental issues.

Such a L-27 Forum would strengthen the UN in the area of international economic, social and environmental policy both symbolically and politically. It would be a more “democratic” counter-model to the exclusive club of the G-8. Until now, such recommendations mostly came from NGOs and were dismissed as unrealistic and naïve by governments. It is therefore extraordinary that in addition to the Prime Ministers of Norway, Pakistan and Mozambique, fellow panel members Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bush administration’s Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Josette Sheeran, are supporting such an initiative. Whether this will increase the chances of the proposal being realised remains to be seen.

Jens Martens is the director of the Global Policy Forum Europe in Bonn.

Posted: 19 November 2006

Recommended citation: Martens, Jens (2006), ‘The Never-ending Story of ECOSOC Reform: L27 as emerging alternative to G-8?’, World Economy and Development In Brief, Issue 5/Dec (at www.wdev.eu)

>>> Download PDF [150 KB]

More on the subject:
>>> Special feature: UN Reform

How Wolfowitz Continues the Crisis


Top of page

Imprint General Terms and Conditions RSS Feeds Site Map