Today global governance gives an increasingly prominent role to the Gs process of high-level meetings. Where the latter half of the 20th ­century—in global governance terms—was focused on the United Nations and Bretton Woods organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the 21st century will be shaped by these groupings of particular countries.

Recently, the G-20 has been especially prominent, with its leaders’ meeting first in Washington then in London with a third now planned for the United States in September. These meetings have positioned the G-20 as the policy nexus for tackling the global financial crisis. Given the likely emergence of the G-20—or a slightly smaller or larger grouping (let’s call it a “G-x”)—it is worth exploring how these groupings became so influential.

What Are the Gs and Where Did They Come From?
In some ways it is easier to answer what the Gs process is not. It contrasts significantly with the more traditional UN and Bretton Woods systems. There are no founding documents, no big buildings, nor any permanent organizations.

As the British government described the G-7/8 Summit before hosting it in Birmingham in 1998, that series of summits of leading industrial powers is “an informal organization, with no rules or permanent Secretariat staff.” The heart of this G-x system is the meetings themselves, and the opportunity for leaders to sit down and tackle weighty issues. Summits have allowed leaders to know one another on a strongly personal basis and to understand the domestic political pressures each works under.

But this informal system is not just for leaders. It has also fostered more informally networked cooperation. That is leaders and officials at various levels—ministers, regulators, judges—meeting with their counterparts. Indeed, the original founding organization was a completely informal gathering of finance ministers. The finance ministers of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States met in March 1973 in the White House library and were dubbed the “Library Group.” Soon thereafter Japan’s minister joined. This group met periodically until the first leaders’ summit at Rambouillet in November 1975.

An Evolving System
This early origin points to an additional feature of the Gs: their capacity to evolve. The original G-5 finance group was a meeting of five ministers. Yet by October 1975 it was decided that the first leaders’ summit at Rambouillet would include six leaders, with the addition of Italy. Canada was added to the group the following year, and the group became the G-7. In 1977 the European Union representative was added, and Russia was invited to join in 1998—though there remain economic matters for which the G-7 meet as a subset, hence the G-7/8.

Since 2003 the G-8 Summit has reached out to the Group of 5 (G-5) powers, also known by the acronym BRICSAM: Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and Mexico. The German Summit in 2007 began a regular structured dialogue process that includes the G-5. It remains an open question—to be answered possibly at the upcoming Italian Summit—whether any of the G-5 will be invited into the G-8 as full members, rather than guests.

This evolution highlights one of the features that contrast with the UN and Bretton Woods systems. The Gs process is focused around governing “clubs,” and the various club architectures seek to bring to the table those viewed as necessary to be effective.

Questions of Legitimacy
This architecture has not gone without criticism. For years now, the G-7/8 has been criticized for illegitimacy, since it includes only the developed and industrialized nations. Much has been made of the fact that increasingly powerful large nations, such as China and India, have not been invited permanently to the annual leaders’ summit.

With the potential emergence of a new G-x grouping to include such pivotal powers, the loose structure of the Gs could prove invaluable, even in the face of legitimacy concerns. Compare the history of the G-7/8 with the effort to reform membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC). As a creature of the UN Charter, with the associated challenges of amending a treaty with 192 states parties, the UNSC has been unable to escape its past and the dilemma of permanent members who owe their seats to their World War II victory more than 60 years ago. Likewise, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank executive boards have hardly changed since 1944.

Is G-20 the New G-8?
The geopolitics of a G-x process is complicated and growing more so. One source of confusion is the use of the same shorthand to refer to multinational coalitions within global trade talks: G-22, G-20, etc. Even the process of finance and leadership is difficult to comprehend. The networked organizations that form part of the constellation of the G groupings are extensive. In 1999, following the Asian financial crisis, 20 finance ministers and central bankers started meeting regularly, and it is this ten-year-old G-20 grouping that formed the foundation of the G-20 leaders’ summit that emerged in the last ten months. Meanwhile, there have been continued gatherings of G-7/8 foreign, environment, and trade ministers. This is indeed a fast-moving governance world.

So, has the evolution now reached a certain apex with the G-20 or will it take some other G-x form? It is notable that many analysts assumed immediately that the G-20 leaders’ summit had overtaken the G-7/8. With the emergence of the G-20, the G-7/8, many assumed, would fade away. That scenario is certainly possible, but it is too early to tell. The G-7/8 has a quite different purpose with its foundational mission being to promote open democracy, individual liberty, and progress. The G-7/8 has focused on development in Africa, climate change, and international stability issues, while the G-20 leaders have remained more narrowly focused on financial stability and global economic health. And a number of G-7/8 leaders, especially smaller members such as Canada and Italy, are not in a rush to melt into the G-20.

Resource
Follow an award-winning team of reporters in two Stanley Foundation radio documentaries, “Brazil Rising” and “India Rising,” as they search for answers and explore the complexities of what many believe will be the world’s next superpowers.