BRICs, the now familiar term for Brazil, Russia, India,China and the growth of their economies and influence, have formalized theirclub and extended their reach by inviting South Africa to join. But do theirmeetings and joint statements really allow them to punch above their individualweight? What do these countries share beyond a common interest in bolsteringtheir global clout?
The most durable thing about the BRICs is the acronymitself. They cannot be ignored “ emerging markets accounted for two-thirds ofglobal economic growth over the past five years, a figure that could rise to asmuch as 75 percent by 2015. But combining individual countries into classesbased on catchy acronyms adds neither influence to their groupings nor insightinto their futures. There are four main reasons why the BRICs will neverfunction as a single coherent interest group.
First, we often say BRICs when we really mean China. In thepost-World War II era, the Group of 7 major industrialized countries set theinternational agenda, and the United States was the driving force. But China’sdominance of the BRICs is even more pronounced. With a gross domestic productof $7.3 trillion, the Chinese economy is the second largest in the world “ andlarger than all the other BRICs put together. South Africa’s economy is roughlyequivalent to that of China’s sixth largest province. Developments inside China“ from its resource appetites and cyber capacity to its political and militarymight “ will drive the actions of the other BRICs. Russia, India and Brazilwill be responding to China, both cooperatively and antagonistically, much morethan they will coordinate with it.
Second, when it comes to their political systems, the BRICsare apples and oranges ... and pears and pineapples. Brazil and India aredemocracies; Russia and China are autocracies. But Brazil’s democracy is muchmore centralized and less diverse than India’s. With more than a dozen officiallanguages and a remarkably decentralized structure, India is a challenge allits own. It is also the least international in its outlook: despite apopulation of 1.2 billion people, India has about the same number of diplomatsas little New Zealand. In Russia, Vladimir Putin uses hollow democraticinstitutions to secure one-man rule. China’s leadership is a cohesive group ofparty men, aligned in their most basic interests, who negotiate over thedetails of reform to preserve an increasingly untenable status quo rather thanto undertake a large-scale overhaul. The bottom line: if you wanted to pickfour major global economies with as little as possible in common in theirpolitics, the BRICs would be a decent bet.
Third, their economic systems are wildly different as well.In Russia and China, the state is the dominant force in the economy. There aresignificant economic reasons for both to move away from a state capitalistsystem that will decay over time, but both governments have politicalincentives to keep things as they are to protect the near-term security oftheir governments. Brazil and India lean closer to free market capitalism thanto the state-dominated variety.
Nor are the BRICs particularly tied to one another. Brazilhas deepened commercial ties with China, its largest importer, but Russiaaccounted for just 2 percent of China’s trade in 2011, and China and India haveno bilateral trade agreements. There are still no direct flights betweenBeijing or Shanghai and Mumbai. Each BRIC depends more on its ties with Americaand Europe than with other members of its club.
Finally, there is the difference in their most immediateneeds. Russia and Brazil are major resource exporters. China, on the otherhand, is the second largest importer of crude oil, and India is fourth. Butbeyond the competing interests of buyers and sellers, there are the frictionswithin these groups.
India and China are not yet seriously competing with oneanother for resources, but as the demographics shift in the two countries andas India becomes more urban and spends more on its infrastructure, thefrictions will grow. Take water, for example: China and India are home to 37percent of the global population, but only 10.8 percent of its water. Thepopulation will grow “ and so will strains on that water as industrializedprocesses and more upscale (and water-intensive) eating habits take hold.
In short, the BRICs can agree to disagree with the globalstatus quo. They will sometimes use their collective weight to obstruct U.S.and European plans. But the BRICs have too little in common abroad and too muchat stake at home to play a single coherent role on the global stage.
IanBremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of ``Every Nation for Itself:Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.''
