World's Seven Most Industrialised Countries Group is zero

Since its establishment in the 1970 ' s, the group of the seven most industrialized countries has become increasingly insignificant in a world of rising powers. An institution that excludes BRIK countries while still holding cripples like Italy can hardly claim the legitimacy needed to exercise world economic leadership

Although US President Donald Trump's appearance at the 7th Group Summit (G7) in Kekbek last week was not well received, I feel that I am sympathetic with his scepticism towards this group. I have long suspected that annual meetings of leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States serve some valuable purpose.

After 2001, when I created the BRIC acronym, I predicted that increasing the economic importance of Brazil, Russia, India and China will eventually require a significant change in world economic governance. Minutely, I noticed, world government bodies should include at least China, if not all of them.

At the same time, I noted that there were few reasons for France, Germany and Italy to be represented individually, because they have a common currency, a monetary policy and a common fiscal political framework (the latter at least principle). And I also questioned why Canada and the United Kingdom should be included on the list of the world's largest economies.
It has already been 17 years, and G7 follows very few reasons to keep workers of the busy member states. Yes, it follows to contain seven Western democracies with the largest, but not at large. Currently, Canada's economy is not much larger than Australia's, while Italy's economy is only slightly larger than Spain's.

G7 is an archefact of a past era. In 1970, when G5 expanded to include Canada and Italy, the new group truly dominated the world economy. Japan was in boom, and many believed it would reach US size; Italy was on the rise; and no one was thinking about China at that time. But this year, China is expected to cross the entire eurozone. And only its growth rate within two years is effectively similar to the economy of all of Italy. Moreover, India's GDP is so much larger than Italy's, while Brazil in the crisis is nearby.

In other words, the only legitimacy that can be claimed by the G7 is that it represents some major democracies. But 85% of the rise in world production (in U The DS) since 2010 has come from the US and China, and almost 50% has come from China itself. Another 6% have come from India, while the value of Japanese and EU economies has actually declined

Seeing these realities, the G7 could be much more important if Canada, France, Germany and Italy were replaced by China and India, while the entire Eurozone could be enough with a single delegation. But, of course, there is already an organ representing the 7 G& countries as well as the BRIC: Group 20, which was created in 1999.
Since the first formal summit of 2008, the G20 has served clean purpose as a forum for the world's top economies. For a smaller group to have legitimacy, it must also have the legitimacy of the G20. The representation of democracies with the largest economies in the 1970s is not enough anymore. After all, both India and Brazil have functional democracies and may soon become richer than France and the United Kingdom.

Trump provoked outrage when he asked last week for G7 to re-admission Russia, which was ousted after an annexing the Crimea in 2014 by Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it is worth asking what global challenges the G7 is currently capable of handling, in addition to close economic issues. From terrorism to the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change, these are hardly problems that can be solved without the help of non-member countries in G7. And although Western media presented Trump as the black sheep at the summit, Italy also has a government that supports reconciliation with Russia.

The latest G7 circus has added to the impression that Western policymakers are unable to understand some of the world's most urgent issues. It was clear that world financial markets expressed very little concern about the turmoil in Kebek. Among other things, however, this may simply reflect that G7 is no longer important.
Looking forward, it is clear that the G20 offers a better forum for world governance than G7 provides in the current situation. Although a greater number of participants make it more difficult to achieve valid consensuss, it is also more representative. More important, the G20 includes countries that will be necessary for solving world problems now and in the future.
Once that is said, we should add that a group of representatives may still have a role to play in the future along with the G20. But only if he's properly conceived. To that end, leading research institutions of the world must begin to offer specific ideas about the future of world government. For my part, I will look forward to leading this task when I assume the post of Chairman of Chatham House next month.

/Project Syndicate