The study theorizes the functional scope of IIGOs, assessing their ability to facilitate state interactions.
Informal intergovernmental organisations (IIGOs) like the G20, the G7, and BRICS have become key pillars of the post-Cold War multilateral system. IIGOs lack a legal foundation and a permanent secretariat or staff—yet states now use them to govern global issues ranging from artificial intelligence to nuclear non-proliferation. This raises a critical question: are IIGOs viable vehicles for supporting sustained and structured state interactions? I address this question by theorising IIGOs’ functional scope. Building on the institutional design literature, I disaggregate the notion of formality into organisational properties (P)—centralisation and independence—and relate these to organisational functions (F). Because IIGOs lack independence from member states but may achieve centralisation, the P-F framework suggests that IIGOs can enhance negotiation stability, information dissemination, and issue linkage. In turn, they struggle to support cooperation through initiation and enforcement. A case probe of the G20’s organisational structure and operations lends plausibility to these conjectures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Hagebölling (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: