Compliance with G8 Commitments:
Ascertaining the Degree of Compliance with Summit Debt and International Trade Commitments for Canada and the United States, 1996-1999

Diana Juricevic, G8 Research Group, 2000

APPENDIX (continued)

Table 2: Levels of Significance

Table 2.1: Levels of Significance, Lyon 1996

Levels of Significance*	Ambition (x/5)	Novelty (x/2)	Timeliness (1 or 0)	Scope (x/2)	Score (x/10)
Lyon 1996
International Trade
1. Trade Credibility	0	0	1	2	3
2. LDC Integration	1	1	1	2	5
3. Uruguay Round Compliance	1	0	1	2	4
4. WTO Membership	1.5	2	1	2	6.5
5. Uruguay and LDC	1	1	1	1	4
6. Uruguay Round Implementation	3	1	1	1	6
7. WTO Agenda	2.5	2	1	2	7.5
8. Market Access	3	2	1	2	8
9. Customs Procedures	1	1	1	0	3
Average					5.222
Debt Relief
1. ESAF Financing	0	0	1	1	2
2. Naples Terms	3	1	1	1	6
3. Access to Development Assistance	1	0	1	0	2
4. Global Partnership for Development	3	2	1	1	7
Average					4.250

*The terms "Ambition", "Novelty", "Timeliness", and "Scope" are used to rank the commitments according to their level of significance based on a multi-level measurement process defined in the encoding manual.

[back to top]

Table 2.2: Levels of Significance, Denver 1997

Levels of Significance	Ambition (x/5)	Novelty (x/2)	Timeliness (1 or 0)	Scope (x/2)	Score (x/10)
Denver 1997
International Trade
1. WTO Membership	0.5	1	1	1	3.5
2. Policy Coordination	0	0	1	2	3
3. Market Accessibility	1	1	1	1	4
4. LDC Trade Integration	0	0	1	2	3
5. Effectiveness of WTO Plan	0	0	1	1	2
6. Export Control Regimes	0	0	1	1	2
Average					2.917
Debt Relief
1. Partnership for Development	2	1	1	1	5
2. LDC Political Reforms	1	0	1	1	3
3. Development Aid Review	0	0	1	0	1
4. Development Assistance	1	0	1	1	3
5. Development Assistance	1	0	1	1	3
6. Donor Coordination	0	0	1	0	1
7. UN Development Funds	0	0	1	2	3
8. UN Development Funds	0.5	1	1	2	4.5
Average					2.813

[back to top]

Table 2.3: Levels of Significance, Birmingham 1998

Levels of Significance	Ambition (x/5)	Novelty (x/2)	Timeliness (1 or 0)	Scope (x/2)	Score (x/10)
Birmingham 1998
International Trade
1. OECD Tax Recommendations	0	0	1	1	2
2. Non-OECD Dialogue	0	1	1	2	4
3. Customs Procedures	3	2	1	1	7
4. Customs Procedures	3	2	1	0	6
5. World Customs Organization	0	1	1	2	4
6. LLR Initiative	1.5	1	1	2	5.5
7. Regional Market Integration	0.5	1	1	1	3.5
8. WTO LDC Plan of Action	0	0	1	2	3
9. Electronic Commerce	2	2	1	0	5
10. Electronic Services	1.5	1	1	1	4.5
Average					4.450
Debt Relief
1. Development Assistance	1	0	1	2	4
2. HIPC Initiative	3	1	1	2	7
3. Export Credit Agencies	1	0	1	1	3
Average					4.667

[back to top]

Table 2.4: Levels of Significance, Cologne 1999

Levels of Significance	Ambition (x/5)	Novelty (x/2)	Timeliness (1 or 0)	Scope (x/2)	Score (x/10)
Cologne 1999
International Trade
1. Protectionism	1	1	1	2	5
2. WTO Membership	1	1	1	2	5
3. WTO Transparency	1	1	1	2	5
4. Seattle Round	1	1	1	2	5
5. WTO Effectiveness	1	1	1	2	5
6. Seattle Round	3	1	1	2	7
7. Seattle Round	1	0	1	2	4
8. Market Access	0	0	1	1	2
9. Policy Coordination	1	1	1	2	5
10. Trade Biotechnology	3	2	1	2	8
11. Trade Development	2	1	1	1	5
Average					5.091
Debt Relief
1. LDC Assistance	1	0	1	1	3
2. ODA Assistance	2	1	1	2	6
3. ODA Assistance	2	1	1	1	5å
4. OECD Aid	2	0	1	1	4
5. Koln Debt Initiative	3	2	1	2	8
Average					5.100

<= Table 1

Contents

Table 3 =>

—	This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Libraries and the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
	Please send comments to: g7@utoronto.ca This page was last updated March 17, 2026.