Between Hub Status and Parallelism: Examining the G20-BRICS Dynamics in Global Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, the G20 needs to be examined as a decentred focal point in the global system. The dominant formative image of the G20 has been that of a 21st C concert of powers. Yet, as witnessed by the ongoing dynamics of the summit process, the G20 has become fragmented. As the G20 has moved away from its apex function, it has become a nexus forum/networked focal point. Of key importance in this context is the role of the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. At the same time as this major challenger is increasingly embedded at the hub of global governance represented by the G20, it is also engaged in a diverse array of parallel initiatives. In terms of their informal modes of operation, the G20 and the BRICS share some marked similarities. As the roles of networked fora are consolidated, the diversity of activities expands to incorporate a range of state and non-state actors. However, at the same time the club culture of both the G20 and the BRICS is contested, reducing the like-mindedness associated with traditional concerts of power.The conceptual arguments developed in this paper are illustrated and reinforced by recent practices, including the Hangzhou G20 and the Goa BRICS summit. The global system is in the midst of a protracted period of discontinuity characterized by profound and intense tension between the push for a consolidated form of institutional synergy (with the G20 as the hub focal point) and the pull towards potential fragmentation (with the BRICS as the core agent of change). The nature and impact of this dynamic will animate the central debate over global governance in the 21st C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".