In the previous lesson, what we did was talk about the Group of Seven, formerly the Group of Eight since the suspension of the Russian Federation. This was a conversation about the seven largest economies in the world, except for China, owing to the fact that they were a non-liberal dictatorship. This lesson is going to focus on the broader group that exists in the global economy, known as the G20. We'll talk about, again, the impact of the G20, the development and assessment of the G20, examining its strengths and weaknesses.
as part of the Edexcel specification. This is again looking at the final of our institutions, should I say, on the role and significance of the G20 as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the G20. After this we will talk about the way in which the global economy and global economic governance deals with the issue of poverty, which is going to be two lessons examining the idea and issues related to poverty development and development theories.
So as I mentioned in the previous lesson, we discussed the nature, role, and importance of the G7, the group of seven of the most developed economies in the world. The group of 20 is a little bit different. So the group of 20 looks firstly to quell some of the heaviest critiques which are levied against the G7. So some of the third world approaches to international relations, some of the more, or should I say less, neoclassist economic theorists would suggest that there are a number of different critiques that you can levy against the G7, one of which is the perpetuation of a north-south divide. Owing to the fact that the G7, the group of seven, consists of a number of economies including the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan, these are all global north countries.
These are all north. countries that are developed and are part of the global north and so there is none of this north no there is no development of groups that are part of the global south the developing world this makes sense owing to the fact that the developing world will not have a number of the largest economies inside it however this levies critiques against this glowing growing distinction and delineation that can be made between the north the global north the global south the limited number of economies is almost entirely limited to the development of Western economies, with the notable exception of Japan, which some may argue, in fact, is westernised to an extent. The idea of Western economies does not just mean economies that are part of the Western world, like Europe and the Americas.
They also refer to various different elements of the economy, so things like the way in which the economies perpetuate neoliberal standards of global governance, the ways in which... These economies perpetuate things like democracy and human rights, all of which are considered, at least considered, to be westernized principles and westernized ideas. You can argue against this in the comments if you wish. So therefore, as a result of these kinds of critiques that you can levy against the quite exclusive and limited group known as the G7, the G20 represents instead the top 20 economies of both global north and global south. developed and developing.
Taken collectively with the additional membership of the European Union, just like with the G7, the G20 represents nearly 85% of the global economy. It's essentially the entire world, barring a number of very minor exceptions in terms of economic standards, not in terms of their importance in the world itself, in terms of international relations, but more so in terms of their impact on the global economy. Just like with the G7, the G20 holds a number of annual meetings, they will discuss a number of social, economic, environmental issues, and they will produce statements of intent on the future direction of policy in these particular fields. Again, just like with the G7, the statements of intent and the discussions and meetings that are had are non-binding and do not represent any kind of commitments which would hold up in international law, for example.
have any kind of binding commitments on an international scale. They are instead just general statements of intent for the future, general statements of intent about the direction of policy that ought to be taken in a particular area and in particular fields. When we take an assessment of the G20, let's think about some of the ways in which we can critique this particular institution.
One such critique is its lack of relevance. It is heavily critiqued for lacking any kind of relevance in today's international political sphere. The influx of nationalist leadership such as Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping, as well as international events such as Brexit, show signs of a growing shift towards isolationism in the international community.
This is obviously then perpetuated with a number of conflicts which have broken out, civil wars and international armed conflicts, which are seeming to be in growing number, at least in recent. in recent years. So we have, for example, quite a groundbreaking attack on the state of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in 2022. We also have the ongoing war that is taking place as we speak at the time of recording in 2024 between Israel and Palestine. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is at a point and a height at which has not been seen since potentially the early 2000s in the Second Intifada.
Now, The influx of leadership such as Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping also spreads signs of this growing lack of internationalism among different members. Putin's relationship with the rest of the world is as bad as it could possibly be owing to the Russian invasion of the state of Ukraine. The Trump administration's impact on the international community has also seen to be something of a dreadful impact essentially.
trade wars with China, the moving of the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, again signifying a real heightening of tensions between those two particular parts of the world, Trump's very poor relationship with Iran, as well as Trump's quite fruitful relationship with a dictator such as Putin. Xi Jinping is very similar in the sense of having nationalist tendencies in a dictatorship. All of which really...
signs show a lack of internationalism, something the G20 would be essentially best placed and best suited to combat. A group of 20 states that are all working together in an international community to try and solve a lot of the global economic, social and environmental problems. Stability and collective security are also concerns which have been growing in years.
As we know, and as I've just mentioned, we have... two major conflicts taking place at least on a really quite a large international scale Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine in addition to a number of internal armed conflicts in places such as Africa and Sudan for example as well as other conflicts which are taking place around the world and things for example conflict in Myanmar all of which are are all showing signs of a lack of internationalism among the G20. There is also this critique for the lack of achievements that have been made by the G20.
The G20 have been very limited in terms of the achievements that have been made. However, you could make a counter-argument to the critiques of the G20 in making the view that the G20 has at least brought some leaders, some heads of state, together to discuss international issues. For example, one of the highly publicized issues that were taking place during the Trump administration was, of course, the relationship between the US and China with their trade war that had taken place and been imposed by the Trump administration.
The G20 actually offered an opportunity for Trump and Xi Jinping to actually coordinate and to communicate with each other on an international level at one such meeting, something the G7 wasn't going to allow and accommodate. owing to the fact that China is not a member of the G7, but is a member of the G20.