( original article link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039410.2025.2490696#abstract )
Benedicte Bull and Dan Banik, in Forum for Development Studies, “The Rebirth of the Global South: Geopolitics, Imageries and Developmental Realities” (2025), explore how the idea of the Global South has returned to the centre of global political debate. They argue that
although widely used, the term remains complex and contested. It is best understood not as a fixed group of countries, but one shaped by shared experiences of inequality, colonial histories, and demands for a fairer global order.
The authors outline five distinct interpretations of the Global South. It has been described as a collective of developing nations, a loosely defined geographic zone, and a continuation of political projects rooted in anti-colonial solidarity, such as the Non-Aligned Movement.
Others frame it as a diplomatic platform for coalition-building or as a conceptual space for imagining alternative models of global justice. The term is invoked by coalitions such as the G77 and BRICS to articulate shared concerns over inequality in global governance. It also features prominently in major forums like the G20, most recently under Brazil’s presidency in 2024. However, the term remains uneven. Countries like China and Russia claim to be part of it, even though they hold significant global power. This shows that the Global South is not a unified or static identity, but a flexible label used for different actors.
Bull and Banik also analyses the role of the Global South in a changing world order. As U.S. leadership becomes less predictable and institutions of the liberal world order face crisis, countries like China, India, and Brazil have stepped up their influence. As Ikenberry notes, the liberal order is in flux, and influential countries in the Global South are strategically balancing between the U.S., China, and other powers to pursue their own interests.
South–South Cooperation (SSC), especially led by China, is reshaping development models and global governance. However, SSC is a broad, dynamic category, encompassing diverse models and actors. Initiatives such as the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA), the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), and new partnerships—like the one between ASEAN and Chile as Bull and Banik analyses—reflect this diversity. However, this does not always mean more justice or equality. SSC is driven by both shared goals and self-interest, and its
outcomes are mixed.
The article also looks at how norms like democracy and environmental responsibility are handled in Global South partnerships. While some fear authoritarian powers could weaken global commitments, examples like Latin American responses to Venezuela’s 2024 elections suggest that democratic norms are still defended by key Global South actors. Similarly,
China’s investment treaties now include more environmental clauses, though implementation remains uneven.
In their conclusion, Bull and Banik argue that the Global South should not be seen as one force, but as a diverse and contested space of struggle over ideas, resources, and power.
They emphasise that the Global South is increasingly visible in global debates, including the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, the deepening climate crisis, and the setbacks in
achieving the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But the internal inequalities, political tensions, and strategic rivalries within the Global South itself must also be taken seriously.
This complexity has been amplified by recent developments in global economic policy. The resurgence of U.S. protectionism under the Trump administration, marked by a significant expansion of tariffs, has disrupted global trade flows and diminished the influence of liberal economic institutions. At the same time, the dismantling of USAID – one of the major aid
agencies of the ‘Global North’ – and the withdrawal of other U.S.-led development initiatives have reduced Washington’s presence in several key regions, creating greater room for countries such as China, India, Brazil, and emerging Middle Eastern powers to expand their influence through SSC and bilateral agreements.