The Journey of the g7+: 15 Years of Unity and Resilience
Reframing the narrative around “fragility”
The contested notion of “fragility” has often been oversimplified within the narratives common in the international development discourse. Policymakers and observers equated fragility with state failure, attributing it to a lack of willingness or capacity on the part of both leaders and citizens. This perspective has reinforced the misconception that only low-income or war-torn countries experience serious challenges in governance, overlooking the complex and context-specific factors that contribute to fragility in a wide range of settings. This view ignored dynamics that can exist even in seemingly stable regions, such as social inequality, weak rule of law and economic vulnerability. When states are labelled “fragile,” national ownership of reform can get side-lined by the enforcement of externally imposed solutions. These often fail to consider national leaderships, community structures and the existing systems of conflict-affected countries. In addition, these countries often endure the stigma of fragility and external perceptions that often undermine their sovereignty, limit investment opportunities, and limit the effectiveness of existing international support.
Over time, however, the lens through which the international community views fragility has been shifting. High-profile governance crises in middle-income regions, natural disasters, and pandemics have all exposed vulnerabilities not limited to low-income or conflict-affected areas. In fact, the condition of fragility encompasses multiple dimensions and factors that have a deep influence in the trust between society and institutions. These factors relate to governance capacities, security and justice mechanisms, economic opportunities, social relations, human capital and environmental conditions. Recognizing the complexity of fragility is essential for designing effective responses. The g7+ has been instrumental in reshaping global understanding of fragility – not as an isolated issue, but as a systemic challenge that requires inclusive, adaptive, and context-specific solutions to foster resilience and sustainable development.
Policymakers now understand that fragility spans governance, security, justice, economic stability and social well-being. States can be fragile in some dimensions yet more solid in others. This broader lens allows for more effective initiatives to strengthen institutions, invest in infrastructure and improve social services. The goal is to address the unique challenges that each nation faces, without stigmatization. This more nuanced perspective acknowledges how issues such as wars, instability, corruption or climate change can undermine public trust in authorities, spark discontent and stall development. Some countries have emerged from conflict yet still struggle with their justice systems or basic service delivery. Other countries face social and political unrest despite having strong financial resources.
Such complexities highlight why “one-size-fits-all” solutions have fallen short in ensuring development for everyone. Global frameworks have gradually evolved, culminating in the new Sustainable Development Goals which claim to “leave no one behind”. Yet, persistent obstacles remain related to fragmentation in aid practices, unpredictable funding, ad-hoc and short-lived support, limited political will, rigid instruments for implementation and risk aversion from aid institutions.
The g7+ has played a key role in urging international actors to embrace this broader perspective on fragility. Formed by a group of conflict-affected countries, this intergovernmental platform challenges the idea that fragility is merely a label for “failed” nations. Instead, member states view fragility as a condition requiring special support along a spectrum towards resilience, as all countries can face temporary moments of crisis, rebuilding or transformation. By doing so, the group has pushed global institutions to provide more suitable, context-specific and long-term support to the so called “fragile states”. The core message is that sustainable development is only possible when there is peace and national ownership. This approach counters traditional donor-driven agendas that disregard local contexts. It demands for tailored, risk-tolerant and long-term policy frameworks, with equal collaboration among diplomatic, development and humanitarian actors to reach more enduring solutions. As a result, institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian and African Development Banks and Inter-American Development Bank have created fragility-oriented units and frameworks, gradually changing their focus from an essentialist view of “fragile countries” to a more dynamic understanding of “fragile and conflict-affected situations”. Through continuous advocacy, the g7+ has helped pave the way for the emerging global consensus that “fragile states” need targeted assistance that respects their own path towards resilience and development.