of progress made on climate policies at the G-20.

It's the body that should be leading  Covid recovery, economic recovery,  

but it's also hopelessly divided  between its internal membership.

That, to me, makes it a disappointing G20.

Despite its early promise, the G-20  has often been criticized for failing  

to tackle the most pressing  global issues of our time.

But how and why did the bloc come into existence?

What challenges has it faced?

And are the criticisms really warranted?

The G-20, or Group of Twenty,  

is an informal meeting of twenty  of the world's largest economies.

It was born out of the G-7,  or Group of Seven, in 1999,  

with one main purpose: global financial stability.

At the time, the world was in the process  of recovering from a financial crisis,  

which originated in Asia in 1997 and  spread across international stock markets.

The finance ministers and central bank  governors for the G-7 met in Washington  D.C.

following the crisis and realized they  couldn't sufficiently address vulnerabilities  

in the global financial system without expanding  the number of economies sitting around the table.

So, they proposed a new forum, which would eventually include

the G-7 countries and 13 other “systemically significant economies.”

The forum was initially confined to just the finance ministers and

central bank governors of the 20 members.

Guest countries, as well as international and regional organizations,

would also be invited to attend.

But heads of state didn't get involved until nearly a decade later

when another, bigger financial crisis came along.

The G-20 leaders meeting was  the result of an accident. 

The big accident was the global  financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Kishore Mahbubani was the president of the United  Nations Security Council in the early 2000s.

He explained to me how the G-20  meetings expanded in scope.

The United States realized that it was in  its interests, to have a leaders meeting,  

to try and find a solution to  the global financial crisis.

And I will say, that was the finest  moment of the G-20 leaders meeting,  

especially the second leaders meeting in London.

They came up with a global stimulus  package that essentially saved the world,  

and it saved the world because  everybody participated in it.

Even China, which had not  been very badly affected,  

was prepared to commit $50 billion, for  a $1 trillion global stimulus package.

Collectively, the G-20 bloc  makes up over 80 percent of  

global gross domestic product and  75 percent of international trade.

The G-7 is a sunset organization, and  the G-20 is a sunrise organization.

When the G-7 leaders meet, they claim  to speak on behalf of the world.

But they represent less than  10% of the world's population.

Whereas I think the G-20 represents  60% of the world's population.

While the G-20 may indeed be a more representative body than the G-7,

it doesn't mean impactful solutions, like the global stimulus package

that emerged out of the 2009 summit, come easily.

In fact, much of the heavy lifting is done in the lead-up to these meetings.

The G-20 presidency rotates  each year among its members.

In the absence of a permanent secretariat,  a “troika,” which consists of the current,  

previous, and incoming presidencies,  shapes the agenda, while ensuring the  

continuity of tasks and goals from previous years.

This work is divided into two streams:  a finance track and the Sherpa track.

All agenda items under the finance  track are handled by the members'  

finance ministers and central bank governors.

They work in conjunction with the G-20  leaders' personal representatives,  

known as “sherpas,” whose remit  includes a wider spectrum of issues.

Both tracks feature a series of  ministerial meetings, working groups,  

conferences and engagements with  non-governmental organizations.

Francesco Mancini is a non-resident senior  adviser at the International Peace Institute  

and a professor at the National University of  Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

The G-20s are actually quite informal,  if you compare them to the traditional  

very stiff kind of diplomatic  chambers of the United Nations.

It was born, the G-20, as a tool to address macroeconomics and financial  issues.

But today, the agenda is much broader.

They discuss unemployment, corruption, climate  change, digital technology, you name it.

We all remember the summits, because that's  

the moment when the presidents  and the prime ministers meet.

But in reality, there has been already  many meetings through the year.

At the end, there is generally a communique,  a statement that is built on consensus.

The key word, here, is consensus.  So, how often is that achieved?

Unfortunately, the United States,  lost interest in the G-20.

In fact, a former director of the  National Intelligence Council told me

very frankly, he said: Kishore, I know why  a small state like Singapore likes multilateral  

institutions, because it enhances your  ability to influence other countries.

Whereas for a great power like the United States,  multilateral institutions, constrain them.

If, for example, we think about President  Trump, where he actually withdrew from the Paris  

Agreement, which triggered the G-20 to actually  reinforce their commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Normal language like international cooperation  and trade were not used in the communique,  

because the U.S. was against it. I think  since then, things got a little better.

But reality is that the tariffs that Trump put  

in place are still there. So,  the division is still there.

In 2014, Russia was suspended  from what was then the G-8,  

following the annexation of Crimea,13 before  it decided to permanently leave in 2017.

And then in 2022, there were calls for it to be  

excluded from the G-20 meetings  after its invasion of Ukraine.

And that's an absolute mistake.  Because at the end of the day,  

Russia is a key player in the world,  as are all other great powers.

And it's better to have them all  in one room talking to one another.

And there's not just internal  divisions within the G-20.

Protests have been a regular feature at  the summits - a clear indication of public  

discontent regarding the bloc's ability to  address key global problems, or lack thereof.

In 2018, market research firm YouGov  polled inhabitants of five G-20 member  

countries about their perception of  the bloc's problem-solving abilities.

The results were not encouraging.

Those residing in Argentina, which  held the G-20 presidency that year,  

had the most positive perceptions  of the forum, followed by Russia.

It was a different picture in  the U.K., Germany and the U.S.,  

where only a third of those  polled viewed the G-20 favorably.

There are also questions  over the G-20's exclusivity.

A report as far back as 2011 by the Danish  Institute for International Studies termed the  

G-20's “institutionalized practice” of inviting  representatives from under-represented regions  

as “concession at the margins,” while also  criticizing its move of “permanently excluding  

173 countries” as a fact that “undercuts  its claim to representational legitimacy.”

11 years on, those 173 countries continue to  be excluded from the G20's membership. So,  

is there hope for a more inclusive future?

Why should like 10% of the world's  population hold 40% of the seats  

of G20? That's not right. It just reflects the  fact that they are economically more powerful.

But in the world of tomorrow, let's say  if you exclude a country like Nigeria,  

which by current projections, will have a  larger population than China by the year 2100,  

then you are not having a representative  body that represents the world of things.

So, I think there needs to be constant  reshuffling of the membership of the  

G20 to reflect not yesterday's  powers, but tomorrow's powers.

The most representative body in the world is  the General Assembly of the United Nations,  

for every country is present with one vote.

But we also know that it's very  hard for this body to be effective.

So, I wouldn't go for a G-50, I think will be  a big challenge to make any concrete decision.

While the informal nature of the G-20 means  there are no binding resolutions or sanctions,  

advocates say the forum is invaluable in  fostering conversations between leaders.

We have to remember that  there is a lot of bilateral  

activities happening during these meetings.

In the past, we might remember where  

Trump and Xi Jinping agreed in not  implementing tariffs for that time,

or where President Biden and Macron of  France had the opportunity to meet again,  

after the U.K. and U.S. and Australia,

kicking out France, from a submarine  nuclear agreement with Australia.

The G-20 leaders' meetings themselves  often don't accomplish very much.

But when you have bilateral meetings on  the side, they can be incredibly important.

Even if there's no consensus among the leaders,  that doesn't mean that meeting has failed,  

because there may actually have been a  better understanding that is developed.