In late 2001, Goldman Sachs published one of the hundreds of
papers and reports churned out by global investment banks every month. Often
forgotten within days and read by only a handful of people, this paper was
different. “Building Better Global Economic BRICs,” authored by Goldman’s
then-chief economist Jim O’Neill, remains one of the most influential
investment bank papers in recent memory.
اضافة اعلان
The four “BRICs” identified in the report – Brazil, Russia,
India, and China – were on the verge of a decade of robust growth and high
foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows. Brazil and Russia were leveraging
their natural resources and riding the tide of rapidly increasing demand for
their goods, notably from China. India was emerging as a major global hub for
information technology, and China was deep in a historic geo-economic transformation
that, as the author Evan Osnos has argued, was moving “one hundred times the
scale and 10 times the speed of the Industrial Revolution.”
The four countries embraced the BRIC acronym and held a
summit in 2009, shortly after the global financial crisis. The BRICs were quick
to point out that the financial crisis emanated from advanced economies, most
notably the United States. Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim even showed
visitors a giant world map turned upside down. The message was clear: the international
order was shifting, and new powers were rising. A year later, South Africa
joined, and the BRICS with a capital “S” was born.
The second decade of the BRICS wasn’t as soaring as the
first. From 2011 to 2021, most of the BRICS economies experienced sluggish
growth and decelerating FDI flows. According to a BRICS Investment Report
published by the United Nations, only South Africa saw FDI inflows grow
robustly in the second BRICS decade. That, too, has since slowed.
Today, the BRICS look nothing like the rising stars they
once were. Few investors are declaring that the next decade belongs to these
economies (except maybe India). So, if the BRICS are no longer ascendant,
what’s their significance?
That question is being debated this week at the BRICS summit
in Johannesburg. High on the agenda will be whether to admit new members. At
least nine countries from the Middle East and North Africa have expressed
interest in joining, including regional powerhouses like Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
the United Arab Emirates, and Iran. All told, some 18 countries are eyeing
membership, according to The Economist.
“When the acronym was coined, the original four countries accounted for about 8 percent of global GDP. Today, the BRICS clocks in at 26 percent…”
Opening the doors to new members would give the BRICS a
much-needed jolt. China is facing a major test as its economy slows, its
property sector implodes, and youth unemployment rises. Brazil has seen its
growth limp along at less than 1 percent for a decade. South Africa remains
mired in corruption and mismanagement, while Russia faces a long winter of
economic underperformance amid a spider web of sanctions and its own internal
mismanagement. Only India’s prospects seem bright.
Adding several new stars from the Middle East, including
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, would bring both economic dynamism and investment
heft to the group. High-growth Asian economies like Bangladesh and Indonesia
would also nudge the group’s growth prospects.
If there’s any danger for new members, it’s the emerging
sense of the BRICS as a forum for anti-West sentiment. Middle powers like the
UAE and Saudi Arabia have developed a multi-aligned approach to geopolitics.
Were the BRICS to emerge as a geopolitical counterpoint to Western powers, it
could put Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Cairo in awkward positions.
The BRICS should therefore avoid becoming a geopolitical
talk shop or a voice for the developing world. After all, the two largest
members of the current formulation – India and China – can hardly agree on
anything political. Thus, the group should remain focused on business and
trade, investment, and development, and leave the politics to other forums.
In this regard, a larger BRICS grouping can take a page from
another newly minted group of four countries gathered around a clever acronym –
I2U2 – which includes India, Israel, the US, and the UAE. The I2U2, founded in
2021, has studiously avoided politics and focused only on joint investment and
trade.
Welcoming new members to the BRICS is a wise choice. While
Brazil and India are reportedly on the fence about the idea, a bigger BRICS
grouping would bring new trade and investment opportunities and reinvigorate
intra-BRICS investment.
When the acronym was coined, the original four countries accounted
for about 8 percent of global GDP. Today, the BRICS clocks in at 26 percent,
and India, China, and Brazil are consequential economies for regional and
global trade.
But for the BRICS to remain relevant, the grouping needs new
blood. As O’Neill himself noted in a May 2022 commentary for Syndication
Bureau, “many economists, businesspeople and journalists have stopped paying
much attention to the BRICS nations’ collective actions.”
“Afshin Molavi is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy
Institute of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and
editor and founder of the Emerging World newsletter.”
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
