G7 Research Group G7 Information Centre
Summits |  Meetings |  Publications |  Research |  Search |  Home |  About the G7 Research Group
 
University of Toronto

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 4: Cross-Country and Cross-Issue Comparisons

Table 4.1: Debt Relief: Comparison of US vs. Canadian Compliance with G7/8 Debt Relief Commitments, 1996-1999

Commitment* Official Reaffirmation Bureaucratic Review Budget Allocation New/Altered Programs Full Implementation
(Yes/No)
Compliance Score**
(+1, 0, −1)
Level of Significance
(z/10)
Adjusted Compliance Score***
Lyon 1996
1. USA Yes – – Yes No 0 0.80 0.00
2. Canada – Yes Yes Yes Yes +1 0.80 0.80
Denver 1997
1. USA Yes – Yes Yes Yes +1 0.45 0.45
2. Canada Yes Yes – – No 0 0.45 0.00
Birmingham 1998
1.USA Yes – – – – +1 0.70 0.70
2. Canada Yes Yes – – No 0 0.70 0.00
Cologne 1999
1. USA Yes – Yes Yes Yes +1 0.80 0.80
2. Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes +1 0.80 0.80

* The terms "Official Reaffirmation", "Bureaucratic Review", "Budget Allocation", "New/Altered Programs", and "Full Implementation" are used to categorize the outcomes of commitments made by both countries based on a five-point scale defined in the Methodology section of the paper.

** The Compliance Score is based on a three-level measurement process defined in the Methodology section of the paper.

***This Compliance Score is adjusted for levels of significance. This is achieved by multiplying column seven with column eight.

[back to top]

Table 4.2: International Trade: Comparison of US vs. Canadian Compliance with G7/8 International Trade Commitments, 1996-1999

Commitment* Official Reaffirmation Bureaucratic Review Budget Allocation New/Altered Programs Full Implementation
(Yes/No)
Compliance Score**
(+1, 0, −1)
Level of Significance
(z/10)
Adjusted Compliance Score***
Lyon 1996
1. USA Yes – – Yes No 0 0.70 0.00
2. Canada – – Yes Yes Yes +1 0.70 0.80
Denver 1997
1. USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes +1 0.40 0.40
2. Canada Yes – – – No −1 0.40 −0.40
Birmingham 1998
1. USA Yes – – Yes No 0 0.70 0.00
2. Canada Yes Yes – Yes Yes +1 0.70 0.70
Cologne 1999
1. USA – Yes Yes Yes Yes +1 0.80 0.80
2. Canada – Yes Yes Yes Yes +1 0.80 0.80

[back to top]

Table 4.3: Debt Relief: Summary Comparison of US vs. Canadian Compliance with the most significant G7/8 Debt Relief Commitment: 1996-1999

United States
Year 1. Compliance
(Score = +1)
2. Non-Compliance
(Score = −1)
3. In Progress
(Score = 0)
Net Level of Compliance
[(1) − (2)]
Net Level of Compliance Adjusted for Significance**
1996 0 0 0 0 0.00
1997 +1 0 0 +1 0.45
1998 +1 0 0 +1 0.70
1999 +1 0 0 +1 0.80
Total +3 0 0 +3 1.95
Canada
Year 1. Compliance
(Score = +1)
2. Non-Compliance
(Score = −1)
3. In Progress
(Score = 0)
Net Level of Compliance
[(1) − (2)]
Net Level of Compliance Adjusted for Significance**
1996 +1 0 0 +1 0.80
1997 0 0 0 0 0.00
1998 0 0 0 0 0.00
1999 +1 0 0 +1 0.80
Total +2 0 0 +2 1.60

[back to top]

Table 4.4: International Trade: Summary Comparison of US vs. Canadian Compliance with the most significant G7/8 International Trade Commitment: 1996-1999

United States
Year 1. Compliance
(Score = +1)
2. Non-Compliance
(Score = −1)
3. In Progress
(Score = 0)
Net Level of Compliance
[(1) − (2)]
Net Level of Compliance Adjusted for Significance**
1996 0 0 0 0 0.00
1997 +1 0 0 +1 0.40
1998 0 0 0 0 0.00
1999 +1 0 0 +1 0.80
Total +2 0 0 +2 1.20
Canada
Year 1. Compliance
(Score = +1)
2. Non-Compliance
(Score = −1)
3. In Progress
(Score = 0)
Net Level of Compliance
[(1) − (2)]
Net Level of Compliance Adjusted for Significance**
1996 +1 0 0 +1 0.70
1997 0 −1 0 −1 0.40
1998 +1 0 0 +1 0.70
1999 +1 0 0 +1 0.80
Total +3 −1 0 +2 1.80

* The terms "Compliance", "Non-Compliance", and "In Progress" are used to categorize the outcomes of commitments made by both countries based on a three-level measurement process defined in the Methodology section.

**Adjusted Compliance levels are calculated by multiplying column 5 with column 8 in Table 4.1 (for debt relief) and column 8 in Table 4.2 (for International Trade)

[back to top]

Table 4.5: Summary Table: Comparison of Compliance Scores*

  United States Canada Canada and United States
  Debt Relief International Trade Average Debt Relief International Trade Average Overall Average
1996 0% 0% 0% 80% 70% 75% 37.5%
1997 45% 40% 42.5% 0% 40% 20% 27.5%
1998 70% 0% 35% 0% 70% 35% 35%
1999 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Total 71% 46% 58.5% 58% 69% 63.5% 45%

*All values are in percentage terms.


G7 Information Centre
—
Top of Page
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.
X      Facebook      Instagram      LinkedIn

All contents copyright © 2026. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.