Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Given our pluralistic world today, the G8 or rather G7, is an anachronism. How has the club of Western nations managed to prevail over its four decades of existence? This question is even more relevant in the light of the rise of the G20 at the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008. By making use of the concept of self-legitimation, this paper seeks to gain a better understanding of how both informal institutions ended up in a state of coexistence rather than with the replacement of the G8 by the G20. The main argument is that both needed (and still need) to carefully position themselves as distinct from each other in order to prevail and to inspire adherence. By including visual data and examining two informal institutions rather than formalized international organizations, the analysis complements concurrent research on the legitimation efforts of international institutions. The article traces three modes of public self-legitimation: legitimation policies, legitimation talk and nonverbal self-presentation. Based on textual analysis and a reconstruction of ideal-typical summit photographs (1975–2013), this contribution shows how both institutions present themselves as inclusive, accountable managers for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, a normative as well as a de facto division of labor makes it more likely for today’s G7 to prevail, even in – or even because of – today’s more pluralistic world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennifer Gronau (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: