Would the G-8 Be More or Less Effective if Expanded To Include Other Countries?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
July 11, 2008
G8 Flags and Logo

Earlier this week, leaders of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – met in Toyako, Japan for their annual summit. As in past years, the G-8 invited leaders from other countries – including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa – to join them.

Would the G-8 be more or less effective if it were formally expanded to include other countries?



July 12, 2008

RB in Indonesia writes:

G8 also invited Indonesia too.

New Mexico, USA
July 15, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I'd say broader participation isn't as important to effectiveness as a broader mindset would be.

It seems the hopes of humanity are riding on the back of a snail. Though it is pointed generally in the right direction at least.

Faster please....

Kentucky, USA
July 15, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

That is a tough question because to answer that, you have to look at one's facts and assumptions about the current G-8 now and then at the proposed countries. When you ask the question if it would be more or less effective with the addition of other countries it immediately brings to mind a closer question which is: "How effective are the G-8 Summits now?" From issues like pedophile and terrorist database merging, to the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, and many others, how effective have these procedures been in impacting the countries involved? Are they helping or is it all just paper-pushing? The answer to that question is beyond the scope of my understanding but I am certain there are think tanks currently tracking and compiling data on just this thing.

Personally, I would say that a group like the G-8, which invites a lot of other participants anyway, will be more effective in implementing their plans if the considered countries fit certain criteria, Namely: how Willing (a prerequisite) and Able (a factor) are the aspirants in making the proposed changes happen, and, what can they bring to the table to help other countries implement and complete these changes?

In short, I think the answer to the proposed question could only be answered on a case-by-case basis. I'm looking forward to reading the other blogger's comments!

July 16, 2008

Matt in Canada writes:

It appears as though the risk inherent in *not* expanding the G8 is the possibility that emerging economies will being to coalesce into their own strong institutions, thereby curtailing the ability of the existing American-led organisations to manage the global economy and set its direction.

Great blog!

United States
July 17, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

We know from many academic studies that as the number of participants increases, it takes longer to obtain agreement on any subject.

We also know this by observing the U.N. If the G-8 expanded, less would be accomplished. If the entire U.N. membership were included, little or nothing would be accomplished in the short time they have to meet.

Perhaps the G-8 was originally created precisely because the U.N. was so ineffective and inefficient?


Latest Stories