Who belongs on the G20?
In a new paper, Alex Brill and James Glassman propose imposing standards for membership in the G20. They note correctly that the economic steering group’s membership was determined without explicit criteria and that members aren’t held to any binding standard of conduct. The authors claim that the murkiness surrounding members’ qualifications fatally undermines the group’s ...
In a new paper, Alex Brill and James Glassman propose imposing standards for membership in the G20. They note correctly that the economic steering group's membership was determined without explicit criteria and that members aren't held to any binding standard of conduct. The authors claim that the murkiness surrounding members' qualifications fatally undermines the group's legitimacy:
In a new paper, Alex Brill and James Glassman propose imposing standards for membership in the G20. They note correctly that the economic steering group’s membership was determined without explicit criteria and that members aren’t held to any binding standard of conduct. The authors claim that the murkiness surrounding members’ qualifications fatally undermines the group’s legitimacy:
Remarkably, since its founding thirteen years ago, the G20 has lacked transparent rules governing its membership. As a result, there has been an erosion of trust among the nearly two hundred nations that are not part of the group but are affected by its decisions. Without legitimacy, the G20 cannot lead.
Instead, they propose using World Bank and IMF data to rank countries by their economic size and strength, record on abiding by international laws and regulations, and by the centrality of the national financial sector. Applying these standards, they find that four current members wouldn’t make the cut: Russia, Mexico, Argentina and Indonesia. They would be replaced by Malaysia, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland.
The full paper is well worth a read, although I think the authors significantly overstate the degree to which clear standards would boost the body’s legitimacy; reams of World Bank data won’t convince those outside the charmed circle that the circle isn’t defective. What’s more, the authors don’t make clear how improved legitimacy, even if it could be attained, would produce results. The G20’s problems, it seems to me, have less to do with global standing than with its own inability to form a meaningful consensus.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
