Revision as of 03:02, 8 April 2011 editCurb Chain (talk | contribs)18,691 edits →Statistics: wp:table: extraneous formatting should be avoided← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:34, 22 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,429,481 edits Added work. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Amigao | #UCB_toolbar | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Term for a group of four emerging national economies}} | |||
{| class="infobox" border="1" cellpadding="4" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 35em; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%; clear: right" | |||
{{About|the term championed by Goldman Sachs|the intergovernmental organisation|BRICS|other uses}} | |||
|- | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2024}} | |||
!'''Brazil, Russia, India, China''' | |||
{{Infobox geopolitical organization | |||
|- | |||
| name = BRIC | |||
|] | |||
| image_map = BRIC.svg | |||
<hr /> | |||
| alt_map = Brazil, Russia, India, and China | |||
'''BRICs''' | |||
| org_type = Foreign investment strategies grouping | |||
| membership = {{hlist | ] | ] | ] | ] }} | |||
| GDP_PPP = $49.967 trillion | |||
| GDP_PPP_year = 2022 | |||
| GDP_nominal = $27.107 trillion | |||
| GDP_nominal_year = 2022 | |||
| established_event1 = Term coined by ] | |||
| established_date1 = 2001 | |||
| established_event2 = ] closes BRIC fund | |||
| established_date2 = 2015 | |||
| area_km2 = 38,464,219 | |||
| population_estimate = 3,157,441,470 | |||
| population_estimate_year = 2022 | |||
}} | |||
'''BRIC''' is a term describing the foreign investment strategies grouping ] that stands for ], ], ], and ]. The separate ] would go on to become a political and economic organization largely based on such grouping.<ref>{{cite web |title=New era as South Africa joins BRICS |url=http://www.southafrica.info/global/brics/brics-080411.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110418004139/http://www.southafrica.info/global/brics/brics-080411.htm |archive-date=18 April 2011 |access-date=19 June 2012 |publisher=SouthAfrica.info}}</ref> The grouping has been rendered as "'''the BRICs'''", "the '''BRIC countries'''", "the '''BRIC economies'''", or alternatively as the "'''Big Four'''".<ref name="original">{{cite book |last1=O'Neill |first1=Jim |author-link1=Jim O'Neill (economist) |url=https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/archive/archive-pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf |title=Building Better Global Economic BRICs, Global Economics Paper No: 66 |date=30 November 2001 |publisher=Goldman Sachs}}</ref><ref name="howsolid">{{cite book |author1=O'Neill, Jim |author1-link=Jim O'Neill (economist) |url=https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/archive/archive-pdfs/how-solid.pdf |title=How Solid are the BRICs? Global Economics Paper No: 134 |author2=Dominic Wilson |author3=Roopa Purushothaman |author4=Anna Stupnytska |date=1 December 2005 |publisher=Goldman Sachs |access-date=27 March 2024}}</ref><ref>Dominic Wilson, Roopa Purushothaman (1 October 2003). . Goldman Sachs.</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=21 April 2008 |title=Another BRIC in the wall |url=http://www.economist.com/node/11075147 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209050744/http://www.economist.com/node/11075147 |archive-date=9 February 2015 |access-date=28 July 2014 |newspaper=The Economist}}</ref> | |||
; {{flagcountry|Brazil}} | |||
: ]: ] | |||
The term was first coined by economist ] and later championed by his employer ] in 2001. O'Neill identified the four countries as ] and rising ]s which were at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. Goldman Sachs, of which O'Neill was the head of global economics research, would continue reporting and investing in their BRIC fund until 2015.<ref name="Rana Foroohar"> | |||
; {{flagcountry|Russia}} | |||
{{cite web |author=Rana Foroohar |date=10 November 2015 |title=Why the Mighty BRIC Nations Have Finally Broken |url=https://time.com/4106094/goldman-sachs-brics/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220092435/http://time.com/4106094/goldman-sachs-brics/ |archive-date=20 December 2016 |access-date=6 December 2016}} | |||
: ]: ] | |||
</ref> In a 2023 retrospective article, O'Neill commented that after the term's initial proposal, it gained an outsized popularilty in the 2000s and 2010s to explain the economic conditions of the four countries. He also conceded that the reports published by Goldman Sachs, which presented an optimistic possibility of the BRIC economies in the year 2050, were most likely not going to come true as economic downturns in the 2010s and early 2020s severely altered the trajectory of each country's economies.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=The future of the BRICS and the New Development Bank {{!}} Global Policy Journal |url=https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/global-governance/future-brics-and-new-development-bank |access-date=2024-10-23 |website=www.globalpolicyjournal.com}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Jim O'Neill |first=Lord O'Neill of Gatley |date=2024 |title=The future of the BRICS and the New Development Bank |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.13195?saml_referrer= |journal=Policy Insights|volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=383–388 |doi=10.1111/1758-5899.13195 }}</ref> | |||
: ]: ] | |||
The acronym was co-opted by the countries themselves beginning in the late-2000s. The ] in 2009, which founded the BRICS organisation, was held between the leaders of the four countries, with later summits involving ] beginning in ].<ref name="timesonline.co.uk">Halpin, Tony, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110902095602/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6514737.ece|date=2 September 2011}}, '']'', 17 June 2009.</ref><ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com">{{cite web |last=Graceffo |first=Antonio |date=21 January 2011 |title=BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical hessboard |url=http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/2/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110126031749/http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/2/ |archive-date=26 January 2011 |access-date=14 April 2011 |publisher=Foreign Policy Journal}}</ref> O'Neill commented on the 2010 summit by drawing a distinction between his BRIC term and the BRICS organisation, arguing that South Africa was too small as an economy to join the BRIC ranks.<ref>Reuters 2011 Investment Outlook Summit, London and New York, 6–7 December 2010</ref> In further comments in 2023, O'Neill stressed that he "never encouraged them to develop a political club" and that the organisation appeared to exist just as "a club that the ] is not a part of."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-14 |title=Lord Jim O'Neill: 'I never intended for BRICs to become a political club' |url=https://www.etfstream.com/articles/lord-jim-o-neill-i-never-intended-for-brics-to-become-a-political-club |access-date=2024-10-23 |website=ETF Stream |language=en}}</ref> | |||
; {{flagcountry|India}} | |||
: ]: ] | |||
: ]: ] | |||
; {{flagcountry|China}} | |||
: ]: ] | |||
: ]: ] | |||
<hr /> | |||
{{Collapsible list | |||
|title=''']''' | |||
|Total : '''$18,486 billion''' (2010 estimate) | |||
|{{flagcountry|China}} $10,084 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|India}} $4,001 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|Russia}} $2,219 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|Brazil}} $2,182 billion}} | |||
{{Collapsible list | |||
|title=''']''' | |||
|Total : '''$10,676 billion''' (2010 estimate) | |||
|{{flagcountry|China}} $5,745 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|Brazil}} $2,024 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|Russia}} $1,477 billion | |||
|{{flagcountry|India}} $1,430 billion}} | |||
{{Collapsible list | |||
|title=''']''' | |||
|Total : '''38,518,338 km2''' (2010 estimate) | |||
|{{flagcountry|Russia}} 17,075,400 km2 | |||
|{{flagcountry|China}} 9,640,821 km2 | |||
|{{flagcountry|Brazil}} 8,514,877 km2 | |||
|{{flagcountry|India}} 3,287,240 km2}} | |||
{{Collapsible list | |||
|title=''']''' | |||
|Total : '''2,851,302,297''' (2010 estimate) | |||
|{{flagcountry|China}} 1,336,970,000 | |||
|{{flagcountry|India}} 1,179,618,000 | |||
|{{flagcountry|Brazil}} 192,787,000 | |||
|{{flagcountry|Russia}} 141,927,297}} | |||
|} | |||
==Reports== | |||
In economics, '''BRIC''' is a grouping ] that refers to the ] of ], ], ] and ], which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. It is typically rendered as "the '''BRICs'''" or "the '''BRIC''' countries" or alternatively as the "Big Four". | |||
<!-- Deleted image removed: ], India]] --> | |||
=== O'Neill's thesis (2001) === | |||
In 2001, ], a global economist at ] at the time, proposed that the ] of ], ], ] and ] is such that they could become among the most dominant economies by 2050.<ref name="askexpert"> | |||
{{cite news|title=Ask the expert: BRICs and investor strategy|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c8192f64-6a66-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html|work=Financial Times|date=6 November 2006|access-date=28 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150425020625/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c8192f64-6a66-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html|archive-date=25 April 2015|url-status=live}} | |||
</ref> At the time, these countries encompassed over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and held a combined ] (PPP) of $20 trillion. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage and were among the largest and fastest-growing ]s.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} | |||
Politically, they have taken steps to increase their cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the ] position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting ] from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Apec and the Rise of China|last=Lok-sang Ho|first=John Wong|publisher=World Scientific|year=2011|pages=118}}</ref>{{Clarification needed|reason=What nuclear cooperation is being referred to?|date=October 2024}} | |||
The acronym was coined by ] in a 2001 paper entitled "Building Better Global Economic BRICs".<ref>{{cite news | url = http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/goldman_sachs_jim_oneill_interview.fortune/index.htm | title = For Mr. BRIC, nations meeting a milestone | first = Beth | last = Kowitt | publisher = CNNMoney.com | date = 2009-06-17 | accessdate = 2009-06-18}}</ref><ref>'' and ''Global Economics Paper 134, How Solid Are the BRICs?''</ref><ref>Economist's 2008 article</ref> The acronym has come into widespread use as a symbol of the shift in global economic power away from the developed ] economies towards the developing world. | |||
==="Dreaming with BRICS: The Path to 2050" (2003)=== | |||
According to a paper published in 2005, ] and ] were the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed, as they were already members of the ].<ref name="Ref-1">{{cite web |title=How Solid are the BRICs? |publisher=Global Economics |url=http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/how-solid-doc.pdf |format=PDF|accessdate=2010-09-21}}</ref> | |||
The BRIC thesis recognizes that ], ], ] and ] have changed their political systems to embrace global ].<ref> | |||
{{cite journal|last1=Farah|first1=Paolo D.|title=Five Years of China's WTO Membership: EU and US Perspectives on China's Compliance with Transparency Commitments and the Transitional Review Mechanism|journal=Legal Issues of Economic Integration|date=2006|volume=33|issue=3|pages=263–304|doi=10.54648/LEIE2006016 |s2cid=153128973 |url=http://paolofarah.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/paolofarahliei263-304.pdf|access-date=28 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814141608/http://paolofarah.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/paolofarahliei263-304.pdf|archive-date=14 August 2014|url-status=live}} | |||
</ref> Goldman Sachs predicts that China and India, respectively, will become the dominant global suppliers of ]s and ], while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. Of the four countries, Brazil remains the only ] that can continue all elements, meaning manufacturing, services, and resource supplying simultaneously. Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers. | |||
In 2016, an Australian economist predicted that in 2050, China and India will be first and second respectively in terms of GDP per capita spending, surpassing the United States. Brazil was predicted to be in the fifth position. This was attributed due to the global economic center shifting from the Atlantic to the Asia Pacific region.<ref> | |||
Several of the more developed of the ] countries, in particular ], ], ] and ], are seen as the most likely contenders to join the BRICs. Some other developing countries that have not yet reached the N-11 economic level, such as ], aspire to BRIC status. Economists at the ] 2011 Investment Outlook Summit, held on 6–7 December 2010, dismissed the notion of South Africa joining BRIC.<ref></ref> Jim O'Neill told the summit that he was constantly being lobbied about BRIC status by various countries. He said that South Africa, at a population of under 50 million people, was just too small an economy to join the BRIC ranks.<ref>Reuters 2011 Investment Outlook Summit, London and New York, 6–7 December 2010</ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www.antarajatim.com/lihat/berita/186206/indonesia-the-fourth-largest-in-gdp-in-2050-analysts |title=Indonesia the Fourth-Largest in GDP in 2050: Analysts |author=Chandra Hamdani Noer |date=22 October 2016 |access-date=24 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161024231829/http://www.antarajatim.com/lihat/berita/186206/indonesia-the-fourth-largest-in-gdp-in-2050-analysts |archive-date=24 October 2016 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> | |||
===Follow-up report (2004)=== | |||
] has argued that, since the four BRIC countries are developing rapidly, by 2050 their combined economies could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. These four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bricnation.com/?p=24 |title=bricnation.com |publisher=bricnation.com |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref><ref>http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/801.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-3F579BCE-819F182C</ref> | |||
The economics team at Goldman Sachs released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC study in 2004.<ref name=":0"> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227020712/http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf |date=27 February 2008 }} – Goldman Sachs Research Report | |||
</ref> The report states that in the BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000 will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade. This predicted a massive rise in the size of the middle class in these nations. The report also includes calculations that in 2025, the number of people in BRIC nations earning over $15,000 would reach over 200 million people. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first China and then a decade later India would begin to dominate the world economy. However, it was noted that despite the balance of future growth swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the average level of individuals in the more ] will continue to far outstrip the BRIC economic average for the foreseeable future.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
The report also highlights India's inefficient ] at the time as well as the dramatic under-representation of these economies in the global ]s. The report also emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the ], while per-capita income levels remained far below the norm of today's industrialized countries. This phenomenon, too, will affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the enormous potential markets in the BRIC countries. This would present itself in the automobile and other manufactured goods markets, as companies would produce far cheaper goods affordable to the consumers within the BRIC economies in lieu of the luxury models that may traditionally bring the most revenue. The report cites India and China as examples of countries which had already begun making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector respectively in the global arena, with developed economies already taking note of this.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the ] has done.<ref>{{cite web |title =Brazil, Russia, India And China (BRIC) |publisher=Investopedia |url=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bric.asp |accessdate=2008-05-11}}</ref> However, there are some indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL071126420080608?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 | title=BRICs helped by Western finance crisis: Goldman | date=2008-06-08 | work=Reuters}}</ref><ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite news| url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/russia/article3941462.ece | work=The Times | location=London | title=Russia shows its political clout by hosting Bric summit | date=2008-05-16 | accessdate=2010-04-26 | first=Carl | last=Mortished}}</ref> On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in ], and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of an equitable, democratic and ] ]. Since then they have met in ] in 2010 and will meet in China in 2011.<ref>Halpin, Tony (2009-06-17). "Brazil, Russia, India and China form bloc to challenge US dominance". '']'', 17 June 2009. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6514737.ece.</ref> | |||
=== "India's Rising Growth Potential" (2007) === | |||
==Thesis== | |||
A second follow-up report was compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi in January 2007. The report unveiled updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth trends in India since 2003. Goldman Sachs asserts that "India's influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs research". They noted significant areas of research and development and expansion that is happening in the country, which the report predicts would lead to the prosperity of the growing ]. Demographically, India had 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world at the time. Based on trends at the time, an estimated 700 million Indians will move to cities by 2050. Such a demographic change would have significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services.<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential"> | |||
{{cite web |last1=Podar |first1=Tushar |last2=Yi |first2=Eva |date=22 January 2007 |title=India's Rising Growth Potential |url=http://www.gbv.de/dms/zbw/526507837.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729035455/http://www.gbv.de/dms/zbw/526507837.pdf |archive-date=29 July 2014 |access-date=22 July 2014 |website=GS Global Economic website |publisher=Global Economics Paper No. 15 2}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the ] (in US$) by 2043. At the same time, the report indicated that Russia, while continuing its dominance of the ], would continue to struggle economically, as its population declines.<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential" /> | |||
], ]]] | |||
], ]]] | |||
], ] ]] | |||
], ]]] | |||
Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of ], ], ] and ] is such that they could become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050. The thesis was proposed by ], global economist at Goldman Sachs.<ref> from the ], Monday 2006-11-06 09:55</ref> These countries encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and hold a combined ] (PPP) of 18.486 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage. These four countries are among the biggest and fastest growing ]s.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} | |||
==="EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape" (2010)=== | |||
However, it is not the intent of Goldman Sachs to argue that these four countries are a political alliance (such as the ]) or any formal trading association, like ]. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their political cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the ] position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} | |||
According to a 2010 report from Goldman Sachs, China might surpass the United States in equity market capitalization terms by 2030 and become the single largest equity market in the world.<ref name=emequity>{{cite book|author1=Timothy Moe|author2=Caesar Maasry|author3=Richard Tang|title=EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape (Global Economics Paper No: 204)|date=8 September 2010|publisher=Goldman Sachs|url=http://www.dasinvestment.com/fileadmin/images/pictures/0809_Global_Econ_Paper_No__204_Final.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708233332/http://www.dasinvestment.com/fileadmin/images/pictures/0809_Global_Econ_Paper_No__204_Final.pdf|archive-date=8 July 2011}}</ref> By 2020, America's GDP might be only slightly larger than ]. Together, the four BRICs may account for 41% of the world's market capitalization by 2030, the report said.<ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/09/08/goldman-onwards-and-upwards/ |title=Goldman predicts: onwards and upwards for emerging markets |publisher=Blogs.ft.com |date=8 September 2010 |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628095028/http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/09/08/goldman-onwards-and-upwards/ |archive-date=28 June 2012 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> | |||
=== Further developments === | |||
===(2003) ''Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050''=== | |||
By 2015, Goldman Sachs quietly closed down its BRIC fund after lost 88 percent of its asset value since 2010, instead channeling the fund into emerging markets countries.<ref name="Rana Foroohar" /> Jim O'Neill, the inventor of the term "BRIC", was the former chief economist of Goldman Sachs and retired from the firm in 2013.<ref>{{Cite press release |title=Jim O'Neill to retire from Goldman Sachs |date=5 February 2013 |publisher=Goldman Sachs |url=http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/comments-and-responses/current/jim-oneill-to-retire-from-goldman-sachs.html |last1=Blankfein |first1=Lloyd C. |last2=Cohn |first2=Gary D. |access-date=14 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130208093123/http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/comments-and-responses/current/jim-oneill-to-retire-from-goldman-sachs.html |archive-date=8 February 2013 |author-link1=Lloyd Blankfein |author-link2=}}</ref> | |||
The BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China<ref>, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Kluwer Law International, Volume 33, Number 3, pp. 263-304, 2006. by </ref> have changed their political systems to embrace global ]. Goldman Sachs predicts that China and India, respectively, will become the dominant global suppliers of ]s and ], while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. It should be noted that of the four countries, Brazil remains the only nation that has the capacity to continue all elements, meaning manufacturing, services, and resource supplying simultaneously. Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers to India and China. Thus, the BRICs have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc to the exclusion of the modern-day states currently of ] status. Brazil is dominant in ] and ] while Russia has enormous supplies of ] and ]. Goldman Sachs' thesis thus documents how commodities, work, technology, and companies have diffused outward from the ] across the world.''' | |||
The head of emerging markets for Morgan Stanley Investment Management, ], released a book in 2012 entitled ''].'' Sharma posited that such rapid growth for more than a decade is difficult to maintain, with outside commenters connecting this to the potential for the BRIC economies to slow their rapid economic rise.<ref name="Rana Foroohar" /> This idea was partially accepted by O'Neill in 2023, who commented that in the time since the initial proposal of the BRIC term, the BRIC economies were unlikely to reach the 2050 projections published in the Goldman Sachs reported. O'Neill attributed this to post-2012 developments including government decisions and consequences from the Great Recession and ].<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> | |||
Following the end of the ] or even before, the governments comprising BRIC all initiated economic or political reforms to allow their countries to enter the ]. In order to compete, these countries have simultaneously stressed ], ], domestic consumption, and domestic entrepreneurship. | |||
In late 2010, China surpassed ] for the first time, with China's GDP standing at $5.88 trillion compared to Japan's $5.47 trillion. China thus became the world's second-largest economy after the United States.<ref> | |||
===(2004) Follow-up report=== | |||
{{cite news|last1=Tabuchi|first1=Hiroko|author-link=Hiroko Tabuchi |title=China Replaced Japan in 2010 as No. 2 Economy|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/business/global/14yen.html|work=]|date=14 February 2011|access-date=24 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228075044/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/business/global/14yen.html|archive-date=28 February 2017|url-status=live}} | |||
The ] global economics team released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC study in 2004.<ref> - Goldman Sachs Research Report</ref> The report states that in BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000, will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade. This predicts a massive rise in the size of the middle class in these nations. In 2025, it is calculated that the number of people in BRIC nations earning over $15,000 may reach over 200 million. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first China and then a decade later India will begin to dominate the world economy. | |||
</ref> For the year 2013, for the first time China surpassed $4 trillion in world trade and become the world's largest trading country, consisting of $2.21 trillion in exports and $1.95 trillion in imports. While the United States for 11 months of 2013 world trade figure totaling $3.5 trillion and seems cannot beat China.{{Clarification needed|date=October 2024}} China's world trade balance in 2013 had a surplus of almost $260 billion, a 12.8% increased from the prior year.<ref> | |||
{{cite news |author=Angela Monaghan |date=10 January 2014 |title=China surpasses US as world's largest trading nation |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/10/china-surpasses-us-world-largest-trading-nation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170103094941/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/10/china-surpasses-us-world-largest-trading-nation |archive-date=3 January 2017 |access-date=11 December 2016 |newspaper=The Guardian}} | |||
</ref> | |||
According to the ], based on ] figures, in 2012 Brazil became the sixth-largest economy in the world by overtaking United Kingdom with $2.52 trillion and $2.48 trillion, respectively. Comparatively in 2010, the Brazilian economy was worth $2.09 trillion while UK economy was worth $2.25 trillion. The significant increases were attributed to a Brazilian economic boom in high food and oil prices.<ref> | |||
Yet despite the balance of growth, swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the average wealth level of individuals in the more ] will continue to far outstrip the BRIC economic average. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2025 the ] in the ] will exceed $35,000, whereas only about 500 million people in the BRIC economies will have similar income levels. | |||
{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17272716 |title=Brazil 'overtakes UK's economy' |date=6 March 2012 |work=BBC News |access-date=20 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710090125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17272716 |archive-date=10 July 2018 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> Since the beginning of the ], in Q3 2013 the economy of Brazil contracted by 0.5 percent compared with the previous quarter, being the first contraction since Q1 2009.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/12/04/brazil-economy-experiences-first-contraction-since-200/ |title=Brazil's economy experiences first contraction since 2009 |date=4 December 2013 |work=Fox News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809230248/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/12/04/brazil-economy-experiences-first-contraction-since-200/ |archive-date=9 August 2014 }}</ref> | |||
In June 2012, following ] (S&P) report that India's growth outlook could deteriorate if policymaking and governance did not improve, ] cut its credit outlook for India from stable to negative while maintaining its BBB− rating, the lowest ] rating. A week before Fitch released the rating, S&P stated that India could become the first of the BRIC countries to lose investment-grade status.<ref> | |||
The report also highlights ]'s great inefficiency in ] use and mentions the dramatic under-representation of these economies in the global ]s. The report also emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the ], while per-capita income levels remain far below the norm of today's ]. This phenomenon, too, will affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the enormous potential markets in the BRICs by producing, for example, far cheaper ]s and other manufactured goods affordable to the consumers within the BRICs in lieu of the luxury models that currently bring the most income to automobile manufacturers. ] and ] have already started making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector respectively in the global arena. Developed economies of the world have already taken serious note of this fact. | |||
{{cite news |url=http://in.reuters.com/article/fitch-india-outlook-revision-idINDEE85H0A020120618 |title=Fitch cuts India rating outlook to negative |date=18 June 2012 |work=Reuters |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120619231900/http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/fitch-india-outlook-revision-idINDEE85H0A020120618 |archive-date=19 June 2012 |url-status=dead }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Based on a March 2011 '']'' report, the BRIC countries counted 301 ]s among their combined populations, exceeding the number of billionaires in Europe, which stood at 300 in 2011.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Rappeport|first1=Alan|title=Brics becoming billionaire factory|url= http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc9b6d80-4a8d-11e0-82ab-00144feab49a.html|work=Financial Times|date=9 March 2011}}</ref> | |||
===(2007) ''Second Follow-up report''=== | |||
This report compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi gives insight into "India's Rising Growth Potential". It reveals updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth trends in India over the last four years. Goldman Sachs assert that "India's influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs research". They noted significant areas of research and development, and expansion that is happening in the country, which will lead to the prosperity of the growing middle-class.<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential">{{cite web|url=http://www.usindiafriendship.net/viewpoints1/Indias_Rising_Growth_Potential.pdf |title=Microsoft Word - Draft of Global Econ Paper No 152.doc |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> | |||
{{quote|India has 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world and, based on current trends, we estimate a massive 700 million people will move to cities by 2050. This will have significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services.|<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential"/>}} | |||
In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the ] (in US$) by 2043.<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential"/> It states that the four nations as a group will overtake the ] in 2032.<ref name="India's Rising Growth Potential"/> | |||
===(2010) ''EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape''=== | |||
According to a from Goldman Sachs, China might surpass the US in equity market capitalization terms by 2030 and become the single largest equity market in the world. By 2020, US GDP might be only slightly larger than China's GDP. Together, the four BRICs may account for 41% of the world's market capitalization by 2030, the report said.<ref></ref> | |||
Due to contraction of Japan's GDP in Q4 2010 by 1.1 percent from the previous quarter, so China's GDP surpassed Japan's GDP by $5.88 trillion and $5.47 trillion respectively and make China as Number 2 in ].<ref>Japan's Gross Domestic Product Fell 0.3% at Year's End http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/business/global/14yen.html?partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> | |||
Based on ] report released on March 2011, BRICs countries for the first time has surpassed Europe in count of billionaires by 301 billionaires or one billionaire ahead over Europe. It was the significant increase by 108 more billionaires than the previous years.<ref>BRICs becoming billionaire factory http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc9b6d80-4a8d-11e0-82ab-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1GCKIXd3V</ref> | |||
==Statistics== | ==Statistics== | ||
[[File:Historical top 10 nominal GDP proportion 2018.svg|thumb|Proportion of world (countries with data) nominal GDP for the countries with the top 10 highest nominal GDP in 2018, from 1980 to 2018 with IMF projections until 2024. Countries marked with an asterisk are non-G8 countries.<ref> | |||
'']'' publishes an annual table of social and economic national statistics in its ''Pocket World in Figures''.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} Extrapolating the global rankings from their 2008 Edition for the BRIC countries and economies in relation to various categories provides an interesting touchstone in relation to the economic underpinnings of the BRIC thesis. It also illustrates how, despite their divergent economic bases, the economic indicators are remarkably similar in global rankings between the different economies. It also suggests that, while economic arguments can be made for linking ] into the BRIC thesis, the case for including ] looks considerably weaker. A ] paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico was not included in the original BRICs.<ref name="Ref-1"/> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/02/weodata/WEOOct2019all.xls |title=IMF World Economic Outlook database |access-date=28 January 2020}}</ref>]] | |||
A ] paper published in December 2005 explained why Mexico was not included in the original BRICs.<ref name="howsolid"/> ] publishes an annual table of socio-economic national statistics in its "Pocket World in Figures".{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} Extrapolating the global rankings from their 2008 Edition for the BRIC countries and economies in relation to various categories provides an interesting touchstone in relation to the economic underpinnings of the BRIC thesis. It also illustrates how, despite their divergent economic bases, the economic indicators are remarkably similar in global rankings between the different economies. It also suggests that, while economic arguments can be made for linking Mexico into the BRIC thesis, the case for including South Korea looks considerably weaker. | |||
===General statistics=== | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;" | {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;" | ||
|+Statistics{{Clarification needed|reason=When are these statistics from?|date=October 2024}}{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
|+Statistics | |||
! style="width:210px;"| Categories | |||
! class="unsortable" | Category | |||
! style="width:100px;"| |
! style="width:100px;"| Brazil | ||
! style="width:100px;"| |
! style="width:100px;"| Russia | ||
! style="width:100px;"| |
! style="width:100px;"| India | ||
! style="width:100px;"| |
! style="width:100px;"| China | ||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' || <span style="display: none;">00</span>7th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd | |||
| 5th || '''1st''' || 7th || 3rd | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>9th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>1st || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
| 5th || 9th || 2nd || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| |
| 128th || 177th || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>98th''' || 148th | ||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>6th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 5th || 7th || 2nd || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>8th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>10th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>5th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
| 8th || 10th || 11th || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>7th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>6th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 7th || 6th || 4th || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>57th || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>47th''' || 139th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>72nd | |||
| 55th || '''54th''' || 137th || 95th | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>75th || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>55th''' || 126th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>72nd | |||
| 71st || '''51st''' || 127th || 93rd | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>180th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>177th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd''' || <span style="display: none;">00</span>12th | |||
| 15th || 88th || 7th || '''5th''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>85th || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>55th''' || 114th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>79th | |||
| 73rd || '''65th''' || 119th || 89th | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>6th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>8th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>12th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 18th || 11th || 16th || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>21st || <span style="display: none;">0</span>17th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>8th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
| 20th || 17th || 11th || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>187th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || 186th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
| 47th || 5th || 169th || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>13th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>16th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>19th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>4th''' | |||
| 11th || 12th || 29th || '''5th''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>10th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>6th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>9th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 7th || 3rd || 6th || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>20th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>21st || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>22nd''' || <span style="display: none;">0</span>12th | |||
| '''28th''' || 24th || 26th || 23rd | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>42nd || '''<span style="display: none;">0</span>190th''' ||<span style="display: none;">0</span>104th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>184th | |||
| 47th || '''122nd''' || 29th || 98th | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>9th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>4th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 9th || 4th || 5th || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd || <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>6th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 5th || 4th || 2nd || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>4th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 5th || 7th || 4th || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>6th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 6th || 19th || 7th || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>9th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>15th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 12th || 5th || 10th || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>11th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>4th || <span style="display: none;">0</span>5th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
| 14th || 5th || 3rd || '''1st''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>15th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>5th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>1st''' | |||
| 10th || '''2nd''' || 4th || 3rd | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>24th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>77th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd''' || <span style="display: none;">00</span>9th | |||
| 4th || 8th || 3rd || '''2nd''' | |||
|- | |||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">0</span>10th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd || <span style="display: none;">00</span>4th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' | |||
|- | |||
! ] | |||
| <span style="display: none;">00</span>4th || <span style="display: none;">00</span>7th || '''<span style="display: none;">00</span>2nd''' || <span style="display: none;">00</span>3rd | |||
|} | |} | ||
=== |
===Goldman Sachs prediction=== | ||
] in 2007<ref name="N11"/>]] | |||
The list of 22 selected countries by nominal GDP from year 2006 to 2050: BRICs, ] and ]. The bottom chart list the same 22 countries by nominal GDP per capita (the rankings for this bottom chart do not reflect the GDP per capita for all the world's countries). BRIC countries are highlighted and labeled in bold. Rank 2006: Number 1 to 15 are ] countries. Five other countries of G20 not in the list are: Argentina, Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and ]. Number 1 to 8 are ] (top 7) countries, except China. Since 2027 China will surpass USA. Rank 2050: Top5 countries are: 1.China, 2.USA, 3.India, 4.Brazil, 5.Mexico (All 3 BRIC countries plus USA and Mexico). G7 countries at 2006 which not include in Top5 2050 countries are: Japan (8), Germany (10), United Kingdom (9), France (12), Italy (18) and Canada (16). So only USA from G7 2006 will be one of the Top 5 countries in 2050. Figures reflect data published in 2007. | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
].<ref name="N11"/>]] | |||
|+ ] in 2006 US$ billions<ref name="N11"> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203044446/http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/brics-and-beyond-book-pdfs/brics-full-book.pdf |date=3 December 2011 }} – Goldman Sachs study of BRIC and ] nations, 23 November 2007. | |||
</ref> | |||
! Rank 2050 !! Country !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2030 USDA<ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/the-world-s-20-largest-economies-in-2030 |title=These Will Be the World's 20 Largest Economies in 2030 |author=Jeanna Smialek |website=] |date=10 April 2015 |access-date=5 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119134912/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/the-world-s-20-largest-economies-in-2030 |archive-date=19 November 2016 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref>!! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 !! Percent increase from 2006 to 2050 | |||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| '''1''' || '''China''' || '''70,710''' || 57,310 || 45,022 || 34,348 || 25,610 || 22,200 || 18,437 || 12,630 || 8,133 || 4,667 || 2,682 || 2536% | |||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| '''2''' || '''India''' || '''38,668''' || 25,278 || 16,510 || 10,514 || 6,683 || 6,600 || 4,316 || 2,848 || 1,900 || 1,256 || 909 || 4043% | |||
|- | |||
| 3 || United States || 38,514 || 33,904 || 29,823 || 26,097 || 22,817 || 24,800 || 20,087 || 17,978 || 16,194 || 14,535 || 13,245 || 190% | |||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| '''4''' || '''Brazil''' || '''11,366''' || 8,740 || 6,631 || 4,963 || 3,720 || 4,000 || 2,831 || 2,194 || 1,720 || 2,087 || 1,064 || 968% | |||
|- | |||
| '''5''' || Mexico || 9,340 || 7,204 || 5,471 || 4,102 || 3,068 || 2,300 || 2,303 || 1,742 || 1,327 || 1,009 || 851 || 997% | |||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| '''6''' || '''Russia''' || '''8,580''' || 7,420 || 6,320 || 5,265 || 4,265 || 2,400 || 3,341 || 2,554 || 1,900 || 1,371 || 982 || 773% | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
<small>Note: All data above is from Goldman Sachs, except the 2030 USDA column is data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (2030 USDA) about World's 20 Largest Economies in 2030, but only 16 match with Goldman Sachs data. In 2030 USDA, Mexico and Indonesia will topple South Korea (please see Section ]). There is no South Africa of ] in the above table. In 2030, the sole country from Africa is Nigeria and the US is still number one, but China almost overtakes the US.</small> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable |
{| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
|+ ] (real)<ref name="N11"/> | |||
|+ ] (in 2006 US$ billions)<ref name="N11"> - Goldman Sachs study of BRIC and ] nations, November 23, 2007.</ref> | |||
! Rank 2050 !! Country !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 | ! Rank 2050 !! Country !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 !! Percent increase from 2006 to 2050 | ||
|- bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| '''1''' || '''{{flag|China|name=China}}''' || '''70,710''' || 57,310 || 45,022 || 34,348 || 25,610 || 18,437 || 12,630 || 8,133 || 4,667 || 2,682 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 1 || United States || 91,683 || 83,489 || 76,044 || 69,019 || 62,717 || 57,446 || 53,502 || 50,200 || 47,014 || 44,379 || 106% | ||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| '''3''' || '''{{flag|India}}''' || '''37,668''' || 25,278 || 16,510 || 10,514 || 6,683 || 4,316 || 2,848 || 1,900 || 1,256 || 909 | |||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| '''4''' || '''{{flag|Brazil}}''' || '''11,366''' || 8,740 || 6,631 || 4,963 || 3,720 || 2,831 || 2,194 || 1,720 || 1,346 || 1,064 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 2 || South Korea || 90,294 || 75,979 || 63,924 || 53,449 || 44,602 || 36,813 || 29,868 || 26,012 || 21,602 || 18,161 || 397% | ||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| '''6''' || '''{{flag|Russia}}''' || '''8,580''' || 7,420 || 6,320 || 5,265 || 4,265 || 3,341 || 2,554 || 1,900 || 1,371 || 982 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 3 || United Kingdom || 79,234 || 73,807 || 67,391 || 61,049 || 55,904 || 52,220 || 49,173 || 45,591 || 41,543 || 38,108 || 107% | ||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| 4 || '''Russia''' || 78,435 || 65,708 || 54,221 || 43,800 || 34,368 || 26,061 || 19,311 || 13,971 || 9,833 || 6,909 || '''1,037%''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 5 || Canada || 76,002 || 69,531 || 63,464 || 57,728 || 52,663 || 48,621 || 45,961 || 43,449 || 40,541 || 38,071 || 99% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 6 || France || 75,253 || 68,252 || 62,136 || 56,562 || 52,327 || 48,429 || 44,811 || 41,332 || 38,380 || 36,045 || 108% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 7 || Germany || 68,253 || 62,658 || 57,118 || 51,710 || 47,263 || 45,033 || 43,223 || 40,589 || 37,474 || 34,588 || 97% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 8 || Japan || 66,846 || 60,492 || 55,756 || 52,345 || 49,975 || 46,419 || 42,385 || 38,650 || 36,194 || 34,021 || 96% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 9 || Mexico || 63,149 || 49,393 || 38,255 || 29,417 || 22,694 || 17,685 || 13,979 || 11,176 || 8,972 || 7,918 || 697% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 10 || Italy || 58,545 || 52,760 || 48,070 || 44,948 || 43,195 || 41,358 || 38,990 || 35,908 || 32,948 || 31,123 || 88% | ||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| 11 || '''Brazil''' || 49,759 || 38,149 || 29,026 || 21,924 || 16,694 || 12,996 || 10,375 || 8,427 || 6,882 || 5,657 || '''779%''' | |||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| 12 || '''China''' || 49,650 || 39,719 || 30,951 || 23,511 || 17,522 || 12,688 || 8,829 || 5,837 || 3,463 || 2,041 || '''2,332%''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 13 || Turkey || 45,595 || 34,971 || 26,602 || 20,046 || 15,188 || 11,743 || 9,291 || 7,460 || 6,005 || 5,545 || 722% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 14 || Vietnam || 33,472 || 23,932 || 16,623 || 11,148 || 7,245 || 4,583 || 2,834 || 1,707 || 1,001 || 655 || 5,010% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 15 || Iran || 32,676 || 26,231 || 20,746 || 15,979 || 12,139 || 9,328 || 7,345 || 5,888 || 4,652 || 3,768 || 767% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| 16 || Indonesia || 22,395 || 15,642 || 10,784 || 7,365 || 5,123 || 3,711 || 2,813 || 2,197 || 1,724 || 1,508 || 1,385% | ||
|- style="background:#dedede;" | |||
| 17 || '''India''' || 20,836 || 14,446 || 9,802 || 6,524 || 4,360 || 2,979 || 2,091 || 1,492 || 1,061 || 817 || '''2,450%''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
| 18 || |
| 18 || Pakistan || 20,500 || 14,025 || 9,443 || 6,287 || 4,287 || 3,080 || 2,352 || 1,880 || 1,531 || 1,281 || 1,500% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 19 || |
| 19 || Philippines || 20,388 || 14,260 || 9,815 || 6,678 || 4,635 || 3,372 || 2,591 || 2,075 || 1,688 || 1,312 || 1,453% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 20 || |
| 20 || flag|Nigeria || 13,014 || 8,934 || 6,117 || 4,191 || 2,944 || 2,161 || 1,665 || 1,332 || 1,087 || 919 || 1,316% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 21 || |
| 21 || Egypt || 11,786 || 7,066 || 5,183 || 3,775 || 2,744 || 2,035 ||1,568 || 1,260 || 897 || 778 || 808% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 22 || |
| 22 || Bangladesh || 5,235 || 3,767 || 2,698 || 1,917 || 1,384 || 1,027 || 790 || 627 || 510 || 427 || 1,125% | ||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
In 2050 China will have a GDP US$ 70,710 (in US$ billions) that is more than Brazil, Russia and India together. But the BRIC not necessarily dependent on China to exist, because in 2050 Brazil, Russia and India together have a GDP US$ 57,614 will not have big difference, compared to the G7 which together have a GDP US$ 66,039. ('''China US$ 70,710'''), ('''G7 US$ 66,039'''), ('''Brazil, Russia, India US$ 57,614'''). | |||
|+ Gross Domestic Product in 2006 US$ billions<ref name="N11"/> | |||
! Groups !! Countries !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font size:97%;" | |||
|+ ] (in 2006 US$ billions)<ref name="N11"> - Goldman Sachs study of BRIC and ] nations, November 23, 2007.</ref> | |||
! Groups !! Flags !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| BRICS || Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa || 128,324 || 98,757 || 74,483 || 55,090 || 40,278 || 28,925 || 20,226 || 13,653 || 8,640 || 5,637 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| G7 || Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, US|| 66,039 || 59,475 || 53,617 || 48,281|| 43,745 || 39,858 || 36,781 || 33,414 || 30,437 || 28,005 | ||
|} | |} | ||
The following three tables are lists of economies by incremental GDP from 2006 to 2050 by ]. They illustrate that the BRICs and N11 nations are replacing G7 nations as the main contributors to the world's economic growth. From 2020 to 2050, nine of the ten largest countries by incremental GDP are occupied by the BRICs and N11 nations, in which the ] remains to be the only G7 member as one of the three biggest contributors to the global economic growth.<ref name="N11"/> | |||
For the table below: | |||
Rank 2006: Number 1 to 7 are ] countries. | |||
Rank 2050: Only 5 of the G7 countries will be in the top 7 in 2050. | |||
All of G7 approximately double their GDP per Capita as at 2050 compare to 2006. But the highest growth is made by ] which will make their GDP per Capita 51.10x (2006 to 2050). The second and third best growth are made by BRIC countries: India (25.5x) and China (24.32x). The other 2 BRIC countries also make significantly growth: Russia (11.37x) and Brazil (8.79x). | |||
{| | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font size:97%;" | |||
| | |||
|+ ] (nominal) <ref name="N11"/> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" | |||
! Rank 2050 !! Country !! 2050 !! 2045 !! 2040 !! 2035 !! 2030 !! 2025 !! 2020 !! 2015 !! 2010 !! 2006 !! Percent growth<br /> | |||
|+List of Economies by Incremental Nominal GDP from 2006 to 2020 | |||
2050/2006 | |||
! style="width:2em;" | Rank !! Country !! Incremental GDP in billions of 2006 ] | |||
|- | |- | ||
|1||'''China'''||9,948 | |||
| 1 || {{flag|United States}} || 91,683 || 83,489 || 76,044 || 69,019 || 62,717 || 57,446 || 53,502 || 50,200 || 47,014 || 44,379 || 206% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|2||United States||4,733 | |||
| 2 || {{flag|South Korea}} || 90,294 || 75,979 || 63,924 || 53,449 || 44,602 || 36,813 || 29,868 || 26,012 || 21,602 || 18,161 || 497% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|3||'''India'''||1,939 | |||
| 3 || {{flag|United Kingdom}} || 79,234 || 73,807 || 67,391 || 61,049 || 55,904 || 52,220 || 49,173 || 45,591 || 41,543 || 38,108 || 207% | |||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| 4 || '''{{flag|Russia}}''' || 78,435 || 65,708 || 54,221 || 43,800 || 34,368 || 26,061 || 19,311 || 13,971 || 9,833 || 6,909 || '''1,137%''' | |||
|- | |||
| 5 || {{flag|Canada}} || 76,002 || 69,531 || 63,464 || 57,728 || 52,663 || 48,621 || 45,961 || 43,449 || 40,541 || 38,071 || 199% | |||
|- | |||
| 6 || {{flag|France}} || 75,253 || 68,252 || 62,136 || 56,562 || 52,327 || 48,429 || 44,811 || 41,332 || 38,380 || 36,045 || 208% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|4||'''Russia'''||1,572 | |||
| 7 || {{flag|Germany}} || 68,253 || 62,658 || 57,118 || 51,710 || 47,263 || 45,033 || 43,223 || 40,589 || 37,474 || 34,588 || 197% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|5||'''Brazil'''||1,130 | |||
| 8 || {{flag|Japan}} || 66,846 || 60,492 || 55,756 || 52,345 || 49,975 || 46,419 || 42,385 || 38,650 || 36,194 || 34,021 || 196% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|6||Mexico||891 | |||
| 9 || {{flag|Mexico}} || 63,149 || 49,393 || 38,255 || 29,417 || 22,694 || 17,685 || 13,979 || 11,176 || 8,972 || 7,918 || 797% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|7||Japan||888 | |||
| 10 || {{flag|Italy}} || 58,545 || 52,760 || 48,070 || 44,948 || 43,195 || 41,358 || 38,990 || 35,908 || 32,948 || 31,123 || 188% | |||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| 11 || '''{{flag|Brazil}}''' || 49,759 || 38,149 || 29,026 || 21,924 || 16,694 || 12,996 || 10,375 || 8,427 || 6,882 || 5,657 || '''879%''' | |||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| 12 || '''{{flag|China}}''' || 49,650 || 39,719 || 30,951 || 23,511 || 17,522 || 12,688 || 8,829 || 5,837 || 3,463 || 2,041 || '''2,432%''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
|8||United Kingdom||791 | |||
| 13 || {{flag|Turkey}} || 45,595 || 34,971 || 26,602 || 20,046 || 15,188 || 11,743 || 9,291 || 7,460 || 6,005 || 5,545 || 822% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|9||Germany||668 | |||
| 14 || {{flag|Vietnam}} || 33,472 || 23,932 || 16,623 || 11,148 || 7,245 || 4,583 || 2,834 || 1,707 || 1,001 || 655 || 5,110% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|10||Italy||635 | |||
| 15 || {{flag|Iran}} || 32,676 || 26,231 || 20,746 || 15,979 || 12,139 || 9,328 || 7,345 || 5,888 || 4,652 || 3,768 || 867% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|11||France||621 | |||
| 16 || {{flag|Indonesia}} || 22,395 || 15,642 || 10,784 || 7,365 || 5,123 || 3,711 || 2,813 || 2,197 || 1,724 || 1,508 || 1,485% | |||
|-bgcolor=DEDEDE | |||
| 17 || '''{{flag|India}}''' || 20,836 || 14,446 || 9,802 || 6,524 || 4,360 || 2,979 || 2,091 || 1,492 || 1,061 || 817 || '''2,550%''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
|11||South Korea||621 | |||
| 18 || {{flag|Egypt}} || 20,500 || 14,025 || 9,443 || 6,287 || 4,287 || 3,080 || 2,352 || 1,880 || 1,531 || 1,281 || 1,600% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|13||Canada||440 | |||
| 19 || {{flag|Philippines}} || 20,388 || 14,260 || 9,815 || 6,678 || 4,635 || 3,372 || 2,591 || 2,075 || 1,688 || 1,312 || 1,553% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|14||Indonesia||402 | |||
| 20 || {{flag|Nigeria}} || 13,014 || 8,934 || 6,117 || 4,191 || 2,944 || 2,161 || 1,665 || 1,332 || 1,087 || 919 || 1,416% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|15||Turkey||350 | |||
| 21 || {{flag|Pakistan}} || 7,066 || 5,183 || 3,775 || 2,744 || 2,035 || 1,568 || 1,260 || 1,050 || 897 || 778 || 908% | |||
|- | |- | ||
|16||Iran||299 | |||
| 22 || {{flag|Bangladesh}} || 5,235 || 3,767 || 2,698 || 1,917 || 1,384 || 1,027 || 790 || 627 || 510 || 427 || 1,225% | |||
|- | |||
|17||Vietnam||218 | |||
|- | |||
|18||Nigeria||185 | |||
|- | |||
|19||Philippines||172 | |||
|- | |||
|20||Pakistan||139 | |||
|- | |||
|21||Egypt||128 | |||
|- | |||
|22||Bangladesh||87 | |||
|} | |} | ||
| | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" | |||
At ] 2011, there are 365 corporate executives from BRIC and other emerging nations out of 1000 participants. It is a record number of executives from emerging markets. Nomura Holdings Inc's co-head of global investment banking said that "It's a reflection of where economic power and influence is starting to move." The ] estimates emerging markets may expand 6.5 percent in 2011, more than double the 2.5 percent rate for developed countries. BRIC's takeover made record by 22 percent of global deals or increase by 74 percent in one year and more than quadruple in the last five years.<ref>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=a7CGZv5B2Guo</ref> | |||
|+List of Economies by Incremental Nominal GDP from 2020 to 2035 | |||
! style="width:2em;" | Rank !! Country !! Incremental GDP in billions of 2006 ] | |||
==BRIC summits== | |||
|- | |||
] of Brazil; President ] of Russia; President ] of China, and Prime Minister ] of India.]] | |||
|1||'''China'''||21,718 | |||
|- | |||
The BRIC countries met for their ] on 16 June 2009, in ], Russia,<ref name=BBC>{{cite news |title=First summit for emerging giants |publisher=BBC News |date=2009-06-16 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8102216.stm |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref> with ], ], ], and ], the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, all attending.<ref name=reuters>{{cite news |title=BRIC demands more clout, steers clear of dollar talk |publisher=Reuters |date=2009-06-26 |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG67435120090616 |accessdate=2009-06-16 |first=Gleb |last=Bryanski}}</ref> The core focus of the summit was related to improving the current global economic situation and discussing how the four countries can better work together in the future, as well as a more general push to reform ].<ref name=BBC/><ref name=reuters/> There was also discussion surrounding how ], such as those members of BRIC, could be better involved in global affairs in the future.<ref name=reuters/> In the aftermath of the summit the BRIC nations suggested that there was a need for a new ] that is 'diversified, stable and predictable'.<ref>{{cite web |title=BRIC wants more influence |publisher=] |url=http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/16/bric-wants-more-influence/ |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref> The statement that was released stopped short of making a direct attack on the perceived 'dominance' of the ], something which the Russians have been critical of; however, it still led to a fall in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.<ref>{{cite news |title=Dollar slides after Russia comments, BRIC summit |publisher=] |date=2009-06-16 |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8561428 |accessdate=2009-06-16 | location=London}}</ref> | |||
|2||United States||8,119 | |||
|- | |||
The foreign ministers of the BRIC countries had met previously on May 16, 2008 also in Yekaterinburg.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> | |||
|3||'''India'''||7,666 | |||
|- | |||
One week prior to the summit, Brazil offered $10 billion to the ].<ref name="Brazil to make $10bn loan to IMF"/> It was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan.<ref name="Brazil to make $10bn loan to IMF">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8094402.stm|title=Brazil to make $10bn loan to IMF|date=2009-06-11|accessdate=2009-06-11|publisher=BBC News|first=Gary|last=Duffy}}</ref> Brazil had previously received loans from the IMF and this announcement was treated as a significant demonstration of how Brazil's economic position had changed.<ref name="Brazil to make $10bn loan to IMF"/> China also announced plans to invest a total of $50.1 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion.<ref name="Brazil to make $10bn loan to IMF"/> | |||
|4||'''Brazil'''||2,769 | |||
|- | |||
South Africa will attend the summit in 2011 in ], which may be renamed as BRICS, after receiving a formal invitation from China in 2010.<ref name=autogenerated1></ref> | |||
|5||'''Russia'''||2,711 | |||
|- | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|6||Mexico||2,360 | |||
|- | |||
|7||Indonesia||1,440 | |||
|- | |||
|8||South Korea||1,136 | |||
|- | |||
|9||Turkey||976 | |||
|- | |||
|10||Vietnam||896 | |||
|- | |||
|11||United Kingdom||836 | |||
|- | |||
|12||Nigeria||777 | |||
|- | |||
|13||France||752 | |||
|- | |||
|14||Iran||729 | |||
|- | |||
|15||Japan||662 | |||
|- | |||
|16||Canada||602 | |||
|- | |||
|17||Philippines||593 | |||
|- | |||
|18||Germany||529 | |||
|- | |- | ||
|18||Egypt||502 | |||
! Summit !! Date !! Host country!! Host leader !! Location held | |||
|- | |- | ||
|20||Pakistan||441 | |||
| ''']''' || June 16, 2009 || {{flagcountry|Russia}} || ] || ] | |||
|- | |- | ||
|21||Bangladesh||301 | |||
| ''']''' || April 16, 2010 || {{flagcountry|Brazil}} || ] || ] | |||
|- | |- | ||
|22||Italy||220 | |||
| ''']''' || April 14, 2011 || {{flagcountry|China}} || ] || ] | |||
|} | |||
| | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" | |||
|+List of economies by incremental nominal GDP from 2035 to 2050 | |||
! style="width:2em;" | Rank !! Country !! Incremental GDP in billions of 2006 ] | |||
|- | |||
|1||'''China'''||36,362 | |||
|- | |||
|2||'''India'''||27,154 | |||
|- | |||
|3||United States||12,417 | |||
|- | |||
|4||'''Brazil'''||6,403 | |||
|- | |||
|5||Mexico||5,238 | |||
|- | |||
|6||Indonesia||4,818 | |||
|- | |||
|7||Nigeria||3,557 | |||
|- | |||
|8||'''Russia'''||3,315 | |||
|- | |||
|9||Vietnam||2,438 | |||
|- | |||
|10||Turkey||2,227 | |||
|- | |||
|11||Philippines||2,128 | |||
|- | |||
|12||Egypt||1,884 | |||
|- | |||
|13||South Korea||1,439 | |||
|- | |||
|14||Iran||1,390 | |||
|- | |||
|15||Pakistan||1,376 | |||
|- | |||
|16||United Kingdom||1,196 | |||
|- | |||
|17||France||1,025 | |||
|- | |||
|18||Bangladesh||1,015 | |||
|- | |||
|19||Germany||976 | |||
|- | |||
|20||Canada||847 | |||
|- | |||
|21||Japan||791 | |||
|- | |||
|22||Italy||506 | |||
|} | |||
|} | |} | ||
At the ] 2011, there were 365 corporate executives from BRIC and other emerging nations out of 1000 participants. It was a record number of executives from emerging markets. Nomura Holdings Inc's co-head of global investment banking said that "It's a reflection of where economic power and influence is starting to move." The ] estimated emerging markets might expand 6.5 percent in 2011, more than double the 2.5 percent rate for developed countries. BRIC's takeover made record by 22 percent of global deals or increase by 74 percent in one year and more than quadrupled in the last five years.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=a7CGZv5B2Guo |work=Bloomberg |title=Your Playlist is currently empty }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> | |||
==The BRIC term== | |||
] | |||
] | |||
According to The World Bank Doing Business report 2019 the BRIC economies introduced a total of 21 reforms, with getting electricity and trading across borders the most common areas of improvement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2019|title = Doing Business 2019}}</ref> | |||
Various sources (see external links below) refer to a purported "original" BRIC agreement that predates the Goldman Sachs thesis. Some of these sources claim that President ] of Russia was the driving force behind this original cooperative coalition of developing BRIC countries. However, thus far, no text has been made public of any formal agreement to which all four BRIC states are signatories. This does not mean, however, that they have not reached a multitude of bilateral or even quadrilateral agreements. Evidence of agreements of this type are abundant and are available on the foreign ministry websites of each of the four countries. Trilateral agreements and frameworks made among the BRICs include the ] (member states include Russia and China, observers include India) and the ], which unites Brazil, India, and ] in annual dialogues. Also important to note is the ] coalition of developing states which includes all the BRICs. | |||
==History== | |||
Also, because of the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC", this term has sometimes been extended whereby "BRICK"<ref>{{cite news|author=August 27, 2008 12:00AM |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24224508-5001942,00.html |title=The Australian Business - Emerging markets put China, India in the shade |publisher=Theaustralian.news.com.au |date=2008-08-27 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref><ref>Martens, China, , OutSourcing World, February 11, 2006</ref> (K for South Korea), "]"<ref name=lefigaro> {{fr icon}}</ref><ref name=UNuniversity>{{cite web|url=http://www.merit.unu.edu/archive/docs/hl/200611_Sergey%20-%20Conference%20Report.pdf |title=Opinion Page |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> (M for ]), "BRICA" (] Arab countries – ], ], ], ], ] and the ])<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/23/apworld/20070223082158&sec=apworld |title=Study: Energy-rich Arab countries are next emerging market |publisher=Thestar.com.my |date=2007-02-23 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> and "BRICET" (including Eastern Europe and ])<ref>{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref> have become more generic ] terms to refer to these emerging markets. | |||
=== Organisation === | |||
In an August 2010 op-ed, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs argued that Africa could be considered the next BRIC.<ref></ref> Analysts from rival banks have sought to move beyond the BRIC concept, by introducing their own groupings of emerging markets. Proposals include CIVETs (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa), the EAGLES (Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies) and the 7 per cent Club (which includes those countries which have averaged economic growth of at least 7 per cent a year).<ref></ref> | |||
{{Main article|BRICS}} | |||
] | |||
Various sources{{Which|date=October 2024}} refer to a purported "original" BRIC agreement that predates the Goldman Sachs thesis. Some of these sources claim that President ] of Russia was the driving force behind this original cooperative coalition of developing BRIC countries. However, thus far, no text has been made public of any formal agreement to which all four BRIC states are signatories.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} This does not mean, however, that they have not reached a multitude of bilateral or even quadrilateral agreements. Evidence of agreements of this type are abundant and are available on the foreign ministry websites of each of the four countries.{{Relevance inline|date=October 2024}} Trilateral agreements and frameworks made among the BRICs include the ] (member states include Russia and China, observers include India) and the ], which unites Brazil, India, and ] in annual dialogues. The Russia-India-China (RIC) strategic triangle was envisaged by Russian prime minister ] in the 1990s. The ] forum of developing states includes all the BRIC countries. | |||
===BRICS Term: South Africa's Inclusion=== | |||
Pretoria sought BRIC membership over 2010 and the process for formal admission began as early as August 2010.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com">http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/2/</ref> South Africa was officially admitted as a BRIC nation on December 24, 2010 after being invited by China and the other BRIC countries to join the group.<ref>http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/</ref> The capital “S” in BRICS stands for South Africa. President ] is expected to attend the BRICS summit in ] in April 2011 as a full member. South Africa stands at a unique position to influence African economic growth and investment. According to ] of Goldman Sachs who originally coined the term, Africa's combined current gross domestic product is reasonably similar to that of Brazil and Russia, and slightly above that of India.<ref name="ft.com">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c00e950-b153-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Bgg5fGXt</ref> South Africa is a "gateway" to Southern Africa and Africa in general as the most developed African country.<ref name="ft.com"/> China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, and India wants to increase commercial ties to Africa.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> South Africa is also Africa’s largest economy, but as number 31 in global GDP economies it is far behind its new partners.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> | |||
South Africa sought BRIC membership since 2009 and the process for formal admission began as early as August 2010.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com1"> | |||
] expressed surprise when South Africa joined BRIC since South Africa's economy is a quarter of the size of Russia's (the least economically powerful BRIC nation).<ref name="globalpost.com">http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/south-africa/110107/south-africa-be-bric</ref> He believed that the potential was there but did not anticipate inclusion of South Africa at this stage.<ref name="ft.com"/> Martyn Davies, a South African emerging markets expert, argued that the decision to invite South Africa made little commercial sense but was politically astute given China's attempts to establish a foothold in Africa. Further, South Africa's inclusion in BRICS may translate to greater South African support for China in global fora.<ref name="globalpost.com"/> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/2/ |title=BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard |publisher=Foreign Policy Journal |date=21 January 2011 |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110126031749/http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/2/ |archive-date=26 January 2011 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> South Africa was officially admitted as a BRIC nation on 24 December 2010, after being invited by China and the other BRIC countries to join the group.<ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/ |title=BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard |date=21 January 2011 |publisher=Foreign Policy Journal |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120603175606/http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/21/bric-becomes-brics-changes-on-the-geopolitical-chessboard/ |archive-date=3 June 2012 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> The capital "S" in BRICS stands for South Africa. President ] attend the BRICS summit in ] in April 2011 as a full member. South Africa stands at a unique position to influence African economic growth and investment. According to ] of Goldman Sachs who originally coined the term, Africa's combined current gross domestic product is reasonably similar to that of Brazil and Russia, and slightly above that of India.<ref name="ft.com"> | |||
{{cite news |author=Jim O'Neill (economist) |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c00e950-b153-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Bgg5fGXt |title=How Africa can become the next Bric |work=Financial Times |date=26 August 2010 |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121031020649/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c00e950-b153-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Bgg5fGXt |archive-date=31 October 2012 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> South Africa is a "gateway" to ] and Africa in general as the most developed African country.<ref name="ft.com"/> ] largest trading partner, and India wants to ] with Africa.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> South Africa is also Africa's largest economy, but as number 31 in global GDP economies it is far behind its new partners.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> | |||
] expressed surprise when South Africa joined BRIC since South Africa's economy is a quarter of the size of Russia's (the least economically powerful BRIC nation).<ref name="globalpost.com"> | |||
African credentials are important geopolitically, giving BRICS a four-continent breadth, influence and trade opportunities.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> South Africa's addition is a deft political move that further enhances BRICS’ power and status.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> In the original essay that coined the term, Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association which this move signifies.<ref>http://en.wikipedia/BRIC</ref> | |||
{{cite news |url=http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/south-africa/110107/south-africa-be-bric |title=South Africa | Economy | BRIC |work=] |date=8 January 2011 |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120403142328/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/south-africa/110107/south-africa-be-bric |archive-date=3 April 2012 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> He believed that the potential was there but did not anticipate inclusion of South Africa at this stage.<ref name="ft.com"/> Martyn Davies, a South African emerging markets expert, argued that the decision to invite South Africa made little commercial sense but was politically astute given China's attempts to establish a foothold in Africa. Further, South Africa's inclusion in BRICS may translate to greater South African support for China in global fora.<ref name="globalpost.com"/> He has great belief that the "S" in "BRICS" could be replaced eventually by ]. | |||
African credentials are important geopolitically, giving BRICS a four-continent breadth, influence and trade opportunities.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> South Africa's addition is a deft political move that further enhances BRICS' power and status.<ref name="foreignpolicyjournal.com"/> In the original essay that coined the term, Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association which this move signifies.{{citation needed|date=July 2011}} | |||
===Marketing=== | |||
] is the third-largest exchange operator by market value in the world.<ref> Reuters. Feb 10 2011.</ref>]] | |||
The BRIC term is also used by companies who refer to the four named countries as key to their ]s strategies. By comparison the reduced acronym IC would not be attractive, although the term "]" is often used. The BRIC's study specifically focuses on large countries, not necessarily the wealthiest or the most productive and was never intended to be an investment thesis. If investors read the Goldman's research carefully, and agreed with the conclusions, then they would gain exposure to Asian debt and equity markets rather than to ]. According to estimates provided by the USDA, the wealthiest regions outside of the G6 in 2015 will be ], ] and ]. Combined with China and India, these five economies are likely to be the world's five most influential economies outside of the G6. | |||
===Marketing=== | |||
On the other hand, when the "R" in BRIC is extended beyond Russia and is used as a loose term to include all of Eastern Europe as well, then the BRIC story becomes more compelling. At issue are the multiple serious problems which confront Russia (potentially unstable government, environmental degradation, critical lack of modern infrastructure, etc.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}), and the comparatively much lower growth rate seen in Brazil. However, Brazil's lower growth rate obscures the fact that the country is wealthier than China or India on a per-capita basis, has a more developed and global integrated financial system and has an economy potentially more diverse than the other BRICs due to its raw material and manufacturing potential. Many other Eastern European countries, such as ], the ], ], ], ], ], and several others were able to continually sustain high economic growth rates and do not experience some of the problems that Russia experiences or experience them to a lesser extent. In terms of ] in 2008, Brazil ranked 64th, Russia 42nd, India 113th and China 89th. By comparison South Korea ranked 24th and Singapore 3rd. | |||
{{Missing citations|section|date=October 2024}}] is the third-largest exchange operator by market value in the world.<ref> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924151135/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-dealtalk-exchanges-idUSTRE7192XW20110210?pageNumber=2 |date=24 September 2015 }}, ''Reuters'', 10 February 2011. | |||
Brazil's stock market, the ], has gone from approximately 9,000 in September 2002 to over 70,000 in May 2008. Government policies have favored investment (lowering interest rates), retiring foreign debt and expanding growth, and a reformulation of the tax system is being voted in the congress. The British author and researcher ] wrote a book in 2007 titled 'Building a Future with BRICs' for European publisher ] that examines the growth of the BRICs region and its effect on global sourcing. Contributors to the book include ], and ]. | |||
</ref>]] | |||
The BRIC term is also used by companies{{Which|date=October 2024}} who refer to the four named countries as key to their ]s strategies. By comparison, the reduced acronym IC would not be attractive, although the term "]" is often used. BRIC's study specifically focuses on large countries, not necessarily the wealthiest or the most productive and was never intended to be an investment thesis. If investors read Goldman's research carefully and agreed with the conclusions, then they would gain exposure to Asian debt and equity markets rather than to ]. According to estimates provided by the USDA, the wealthiest regions outside of the G6 in 2015 will be ], South Korea and ]. Combined with China and India, these five economies are likely to be the world's five most influential economies outside of the G6.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
On the other hand, when the "R" in BRIC is extended beyond Russia and is used as a loose term to include all of Eastern Europe as well, then the BRIC story becomes more compelling. At issue are the multiple serious problems which confront Russia (potentially unstable government, environmental degradation, critical lack of modern infrastructure, etc.), and the comparatively much lower growth rate seen in Brazil. However, Brazil's lower growth rate obscures the fact that the country is wealthier than China or India on a per-capita basis, has a more developed and global integrated financial system and has an economy potentially more diverse than the other BRICs due to its raw material and manufacturing potential. Many other Eastern European countries, such as ], ], the ], ], ], ], and several others were able to continually sustain high economic growth rates and do not experience some of the problems that Russia experiences or experience them to a lesser extent. In terms of ] in 2008, Brazil ranked 64th, Russia 42nd, India 113th, and China 89th. By comparison, South Korea ranked 24th and Singapore 3rd.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}} | |||
===The BRIC and International Law=== | |||
Brazil's stock market, the ], has gone from approximately 9,000 in September 2002 to over 70,000 in May 2008. Government policies have favored investment (lowering interest rates), retiring foreign debt and expanding growth, and a reformulation of the tax system is being voted in the congress. The British author and researcher Mark Kobayashi-Hillary wrote a book in 2007, along with contributors ] and ], titled ''Building a Future with BRICs'' for European publisher ] that examines the growth of the BRICs region and its effect on global sourcing.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
Brazilian lawyer and author Adler Martins has published a paper called "Contratos Internacionais entre os países do BRIC"<ref>MARTINS, Adler. Available at http://jus.uol.com.br/revista/texto/17419/contratos-internacionais-entre-os-paises-do-bric</ref> (International Agreements Among BRIC countries) which highlights the international conventions ratified by the BRIC countries, which allow them to maintain trade and investment activities safely within the group. Mr. Martin's study is being further developed by the Federal University of the Minas Gerais State, in Brazil. | |||
===International law=== | |||
===BRICs and financial diversification=== | |||
Brazilian lawyer and author Adler Martins has published a paper called "Contratos Internacionais entre os países do BRIC" (International Agreements Among BRIC countries) which highlights the international conventions ratified by the BRIC countries, which allow them to maintain trade and investment activities safely within the group. Martin's study is being further developed by the Federal University of the Minas Gerais State, in Brazil.<ref>MARTINS, Adler. Available at https://jus.com.br/artigos/17419/contratos-internacionais-entre-os-paises-do-bric</ref> | |||
===Financial diversification=== | |||
It has been argued that geographic ] would eventually generate superior risk-adjusted returns for ] global investors by reducing overall portfolio risk while capturing some of the higher rates of return offered by the ] of ], ] and ].<ref>{{fr icon}} {{Citation |url=http://www.canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf |accessdate=2009-04-02 |title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, Asia-Pacific Funds as Diversification Tools for Institutional Investors}}</ref> By doing so, these ]s have contributed to the financial and economic development of key emerging nations such as Brazil, India, China, and Russia. For global investors, India and China constitute both large-scale production platforms and reservoirs of new consumers, whereas Russia is viewed essentially as an exporter of oil and commodities- Brazil and Latin America being somehow "in the middle". | |||
Some observers have argued that geographic ] would eventually generate superior risk-adjusted returns for long-term global investors by reducing overall portfolio risk while capturing some of the higher rates of return offered by the ] of ], ] and ].<ref>{{Citation|url=http://www.canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf |access-date=2 April 2009 |title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, Asia-Pacific Funds as Diversification Tools for Institutional Investors |language=fr |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100508172054/http://canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf |archive-date=8 May 2010 }}</ref> By doing so, these ]s have contributed to the financial and economic development of key emerging nations such as Brazil, India, China, and Russia. For global investors, India and China constitute both large-scale production platforms and reservoirs of new consumers, whereas Russia is viewed essentially as an exporter of oil and commodities- Brazil and Latin America being somehow "in the middle".{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
===Criticism=== | ===Criticism=== | ||
Academics and experts have suggested that China is in a league of its own compared to the other BRIC countries.<ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/brics-and-g2/477573/0 |title=BRICs and G-2 |publisher=Indianexpress.com |date=17 June 2009 |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090721041720/http://www.indianexpress.com/news/brics-and-g2/477573/0 |archive-date=21 July 2009 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> As ] wrote in '']'', "Without China, the BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the whine that goes with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective ] over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one with the big ]. They are the biggest potential ]. They are the U.S. partner in the ] (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a ] meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal without them) and so on."<ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/15/the_brics_and_what_the_brics_would_be_without_china |title=What BRIC would be without China... | David Rothkopf |work=Foreign Policy |publisher=Rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020746/http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/15/the_brics_and_what_the_brics_would_be_without_china |archive-date=11 July 2011 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> ] Research stated in a report that "economically, financially and politically, China overshadows and will continue to overshadow the other BRICs". It added that China's economy is larger than that of the three other BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, and India) combined. Moreover, China's ] and its official ] are more than twice as large as those of the other BRICs combined.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200906081851.htm |title=The Hindu News Update Service |publisher=Hindu.com |date=8 June 2009 |access-date=15 October 2010 |location=Chennai, India |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604112956/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200906081851.htm |archive-date=4 June 2011 }}</ref> In that perspective, some pension investment experts have argued that "China alone accounts for more than 70% of the combined GDP growth generated by the BRIC countries : if there is a BRIC miracle it's first and foremost a Chinese one".<ref>{{Citation|url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html |access-date=9 March 2011 |title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, "Forecasting the Future: The G7, the BRICs and the China Model", JTW & An-Nahar, 9 March 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110314200831/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html |archive-date=14 March 2011 }}</ref> The "growth gap" between China and other large emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia and India can be attributed to a large extent to China's early focus on ambitious infrastructure projects: while China invested roughly 9% of its GDP on infrastructure in the 1990s and 2000s, most emerging economies invested only 2% to 5% of their GDP. This considerable spending gap allowed the Chinese economy to grow at near-optimal conditions while many South American and South Asian economies suffered from various development bottlenecks (poor transportation, aging power grids, mediocre schools).<ref>{{Cite news|author=M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi |title=Infrastructure Investments in an Age of Austerity: The Pension and Sovereign Funds Perspective |url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2852/infrastructure-investments-in-an-age-of-austerity-the-pension-and-sovereign-funds-perspective.html |work=Revue Analyse Financière, volume 41 |date=2011 |access-date=30 July 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110917182931/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2852/infrastructure-investments-in-an-age-of-austerity-the-pension-and-sovereign-funds-perspective.html |archive-date=17 September 2011 }}</ref> In 2024, ] himself, when referring to the ], said that "without the Chinese presence, I don't think there would be much real importance, at all, to the BRICS group" due to the country's influence and power relative to other members.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Jim O'Neill stresses promoting trade, combating global challenges for future BRICS cooperation - People's Daily Online |url=http://en.people.cn/n3/2024/1023/c90000-20232444.html |access-date=2024-10-23 |website=en.people.cn}}</ref> | |||
Other critics{{Who|date=October 2024}} suggest that BRIC is nothing more than a neat acronym for the four largest emerging market economies, but in economic and political terms nothing else links the four (apart from the fact that they are all big emerging markets).{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} While China and India are manufacturing-based economies and rely on imports, Brazil and Russia are large exporters of natural resources.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} '']'', in a special report on Brazil, expressed the following view: "In some ways, Brazil is the steadiest of the BRICs. Unlike China and Russia, it is a full-blooded democracy; unlike India, it has no serious disputes with its neighbors. It is the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb".{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} ]'s '']'', which measures factors such as protection of property rights and free trade ranks Brazil "moderately free" above the other BRICs, which are ranked as "mostly unfree".<ref> | |||
A criticism is that the BRIC projections are based on the assumptions that resources are limitless and endlessly available when needed. In reality, many important resources currently necessary to sustain economic growth, such as ] might soon experience a peak in production before enough renewable energy can be developed and commercialized, which might result in slower economic growth than anticipated, thus throwing off the projections and their dates. The economic emergence of the BRICs will have unpredictable consequences for the global environment. Indeed, proponents of a set ] for the Earth may argue that, given current technology, there is a finite limit to how much the BRICs can develop before exceeding the ability of the global economy to supply.<ref></ref> | |||
{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJVNQGG |title=Land of promise |publisher=Economist.com |date=12 April 2007 |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416031031/http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJVNQGG |archive-date=16 April 2009 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> ] has stated that the BRIC nations have no hope of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs and that any cooperation will be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} | |||
In a not-so-subtle dig critical of the term as nothing more than a shorthand for emerging markets generally, critics have suggested a correlating term, CEMENT (''C''ountries in ''E''merging ''M''arkets ''E''xcluded by ''N''ew ''T''erminology). Whilst they accept there has been spectacular growth of the BRIC economies, these gains have largely been the result of the strength of emerging markets generally, and that strength comes through having BRICs and CEMENT.<ref> | |||
Academics and experts have suggested that ] is in a league of its own compared to the other BRIC countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/brics-and-g2/477573/0 |title=BRICs and G-2 |publisher=Indianexpress.com |date=2009-06-17 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> As ] wrote in '']'', "Without China, the BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the whine that goes with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective ] over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one with the big ]. They are the biggest potential ]. They are the ] partner in the ] (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a ] meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal without them) and so on."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/15/the_brics_and_what_the_brics_would_be_without_china |title=What BRIC would be without China... | David Rothkopf |publisher=Rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> ] Research said in a report that "economically, financially and politically, China overshadows and will continue to overshadow the other BRICs." It added that China's economy is larger than that of the three other BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia and India) combined. Moreover, China's ] and its official ] reserve holdings are more than twice as large as those of the other BRICs combined.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200906081851.htm |title=The Hindu News Update Service |publisher=Hindu.com |date=2009-06-08 |accessdate=2010-10-15 |location=Chennai, India}}</ref> In that perspective, some pension investment experts have argued that “China alone accounts for more than 70% of the combined GDP growth generated by the BRIC countries : if there is a BRIC miracle it’s first and foremost a Chinese one”.<ref>{{en icon}} {{Citation |url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html |accessdate=2011-03-09 |title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, “Forecasting the Future: The G7, the BRICs and the China Model”, JTW & An-Nahar, Mar 9 2011}}</ref> | |||
{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Steve|title=Emerging Markets: Brics sceptics have their backs to the wall|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/7761deb2-88bc-11db-b485-0000779e2340.html|work=Financial Times|date=11 December 2006|access-date=28 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150521233342/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/7761deb2-88bc-11db-b485-0000779e2340.html|archive-date=21 May 2015|url-status=live}} | |||
</ref> | |||
==Proposed inclusions== | |||
There are many uncertainties and assumptions in the BRIC thesis that could mean that any or all of these four countries will not live up to their promise. {{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} The preeminence of ] and ] as major manufacturing countries with unrealised potential has been widely recognised, but some commentators state that China's and Russia's large-scale disregard for human rights and democracy could be a problem in the future. Human rights issues do not inform the foreign policies of these two countries to the same extent as they do the policies of other large states such as Japan, India, the EU states and the USA. There is also the possibility of conflict over ] in the case of China and smaller democracies that lie in the vicinity of these two authoritarian giants will no doubt be affected by human rights issues being relegated to a lower global priority. | |||
Mexico and South Korea are currently the world's 13th and 15th largest by ] just behind the BRIC and G7 economies. Both are experiencing rapid GDP growth of 5% every year, a figure comparable to Brazil from the original BRICs. ], creator of the economic thesis, stated that in 2001 when the paper was created, it did not consider Mexico, but today it has been included because the country is experiencing the same factors that the other countries first included present.<ref name="lefigaro"> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070503061841/http://www.lefigaro.fr/eco-entreprises/20061023.FIG000000280_les_bric_tiennent_leurs_promesses.html|date=3 May 2007}}, '']'', 23 October 2006 {{in lang|fr}} | |||
</ref><ref name="UNuniversity"> | |||
{{cite web |title=Opinion Page |url=http://www.merit.unu.edu/archive/docs/hl/200611_Sergey%20-%20Conference%20Report.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615140955/http://www.merit.unu.edu/archive/docs/hl/200611_Sergey%20-%20Conference%20Report.pdf |archive-date=15 June 2010 |access-date=15 October 2010}} | |||
</ref> While South Korea was not originally included in the BRICs, recent solid economic growth led to Goldman Sachs proposing to add Mexico and South Korea to the BRICs, changing the acronym to BRIMCK, with Jim O'Neill pointing out that Korea "is better placed than most others to realize its potential due to its growth-supportive fundamentals".<ref> | |||
{{cite news |last=Pesek |first=William |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000177&sid=aoJ4WG5LSf1s&refer=market_insight |title=South Korea, Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall: William Pesek Jr. |publisher=Bloomberg |date=8 December 2005 |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090916090004/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000177&sid=aoJ4WG5LSf1s&refer=market_insight |archive-date=16 September 2009 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> | |||
A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South Korea were not included in the original BRICs. According to the paper,<ref name="howsolid"/> among the other countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs, but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked to them as already more developed. However, due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis, "BRIMC" and "BRICK" are becoming more generic marketing terms to refer to these six countries. Because of the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC", this term has sometimes been extended whereby "BRICK"<ref>{{cite news |date=27 August 2008 |title=The Australian Business – Emerging markets put China, India in the shade |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24224508-5001942,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418033346/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24224508-5001942,00.html |archive-date=18 April 2009 |access-date=15 October 2010 |publisher=Theaustralian.news.com.au}}</ref><ref> | |||
There is also the issue of population growth. The population of Russia is beginning to shrink fast. Brazil's and China's populations will begin to decline in several decades{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}, with their demographic windows closing in several decades as well. This may have implications for those countries' future, for there might be a decrease in the overall labor force and a negative change in the proportion of workers to retirees. | |||
Martens, China, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007011711/http://www.russoft.org/docs/?doc=1094|date=7 October 2008}} , OutSourcing World, 11 February 2006 | |||
</ref> (K for South Korea) and "BRIMC"<ref name="lefigaro" /><ref name="UNuniversity" /> (M for Mexico) refer to these proposed expansions. Other proposed groupings include "BRICA" (] Arab countries—], ], ], ], ] and the ])<ref>{{cite web |date=23 February 2007 |title=Study: Energy-rich Arab countries are next emerging market |url=http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/23/apworld/20070223082158&sec=apworld |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090707024059/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F2%2F23%2Fapworld%2F20070223082158&sec=apworld |archive-date=7 July 2009 |access-date=15 October 2010 |publisher=Thestar.com.my}}</ref> and "BRICET" (including Eastern Europe and ])<ref> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043929/http://www.cnhuaye.com/steel/en/news_2.asp?id=67|date=27 September 2007}}. | |||
</ref> and have become more generic ] terms to refer to these emerging markets. | |||
In an August 2010 ], Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs argued that ] could be considered the next BRIC.<ref>{{cite news |author=Jim O'Neill |author-link=Jim O'Neill (economist) |date=26 August 2010 |title=How Africa can become the next Bric |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c00e950-b153-11df-b899-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=52a9abc0-0213-11e0-b66c-00144feabdc0.html |access-date=19 June 2012 |work=Financial Times}}</ref> Analysts from rival banks have sought to move beyond the BRIC concept, by introducing their own groupings of emerging markets. Proposals include CIVETs (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa), the EAGLES (Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies) and the 7 percent club (which includes those countries which have averaged economic growth of at least 7 percent a year).<ref> | |||
Brazil's economic potential has been anticipated for decades, but it had until recently consistently failed to achieve investor expectations.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} Only in recent years has the country established a framework of political, economic, and social policies that allowed it to resume consistent growth. The result has been solid and paced economic development that rival its early 70's "miracle years", as reflected in its expanding capital markets, lowest unemployment rates in decades, and consistent international trade surpluses - that led to the accumulation of reserves and liquidation of foreign debt (earning the country a coveted investment grade by the S&P and Fitch Ratings in 2008). | |||
{{cite web |date=15 November 2010 |title=Acronym alert: the Eagles rock, beyondbrics blog |url=http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/11/15/acronym-alert-the-eagles-rock/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406135716/http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/11/15/acronym-alert-the-eagles-rock/ |archive-date=6 April 2012 |access-date=19 June 2012 |publisher=Beyondbrics Blog}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In their paper "BRICs and Beyond", Goldman Sachs stated that "Mexico, the four BRIC countries and South Korea should not be really thought of as emerging markets in the classical sense", adding that they are a "critical part of the modern globalised economy" and "just as central to its functioning as the current G7".<ref name="www2.goldmansachs.com"> | |||
Finally, India's relations with its neighbor Pakistan have always been tense. In 1998, there was a nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India. {{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} Border conflicts with Pakistan, mostly over the longheld dispute over Kashmir, has further aggravated any economic ties.This impedes progress by limiting government finances, increasing social unrest, and limiting potential domestic economic demand. Factors such as international conflict, civil unrest, unwise political policy, outbreaks of disease and terrorism are all factors that are difficult to predict and that could have an effect on the destiny of any country. | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRIC-Full.pdf |title=Our Thinking |publisher=Goldman Sachs |access-date=19 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110813103132/http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRIC-Full.pdf |archive-date=13 August 2011 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> | |||
The term is primarily used in the economic and financial spheres as well as in ]. Its usage has grown specially in the investment sector, where it is used to refer to the bonds emitted by these emerging markets governments.<ref name=correio> | |||
Other critics suggest that BRIC is nothing more than a neat acronym for the four largest emerging market economies,{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} but in economic and political terms nothing else (apart from the fact that they are all big emerging markets) links the four. Two are manufacturing based economies and big importers (China and India), but two are huge exporters of natural resources (Brazil and Russia). '']'', in its special report on Brazil, expressed the following view: "In some ways Brazil is the steadiest of the BRICs. Unlike China and Russia it is a full-blooded democracy; unlike India it has no serious disputes with its neighbors. It is the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb." The ]'s "]", which measures factors such as protection of property rights and free trade ranks Brazil ("moderately free") above the other BRICs ("mostly unfree").<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJVNQGG |title=Land of promise |publisher=Economist.com |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> ] has stated that the BRIC nations have no hope of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs, and that any cooperation will be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} | |||
{{Cite web |url=http://www.correiodamanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=219132&idselect=9&idCanal=9&p=200 |title=Correio Da Manha, newspaper |access-date=29 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014125/http://www.correiodamanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=219132&idselect=9&idCanal=9&p=200 |archive-date=28 September 2007 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref><ref name=bstandard> | |||
{{Cite news |url=http://business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=282049 |title=Business Standard, "Emerging risk and return" |newspaper=Business Standard India |date=23 April 2007 |access-date=29 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303082901/http://business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=282049 |archive-date=3 March 2008 |url-status=live |last1=Pal |first1=Mukul }} | |||
</ref><ref name=companynews> | |||
{{Cite web |url=http://www.companynewsgroup.com/communique.asp?co_id=118223 |title=Company News Group, "L'oreal, first quarter sales report" |access-date=29 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033005/http://www.companynewsgroup.com/communique.asp?co_id=118223 |archive-date=27 September 2007 |url-status=dead }} | |||
</ref> | |||
O'Neill would later coin several other terms for groupings of emerging economies at various stages. First, the term "The Next Eleven" referred to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], the ], ], ], and ], arguing they would be among the world's largest economies in the 21st century.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Martin |first1=Eric |date=2012-08-07 |title=Goldman Sachs's MIST Topping BRICs as Smaller Markets Outperform |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-07/goldman-sachs-s-mist-topping-brics-as-smaller-markets-outperform |url-access=subscription |access-date=2020-09-09 |work=Bloomberg.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Spence |first=Peter |date=13 October 2014 |title=Beyond the BRICs: the guide to every emerging market acronym |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11158386/Beyond-the-BRICs-the-guide-to-every-emerging-market-acronym.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208144557/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11158386/Beyond-the-BRICs-the-guide-to-every-emerging-market-acronym.html |archive-date=Dec 8, 2023 |work=The Daily Telegraph}}</ref> O'Neill next used the term MIKT for Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey.<ref>{{cite news |title='Bric' creator adds newcomers to list |url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f717c8e8-21be-11e0-9e3b-00144feab49a.html |url-access=subscription |newspaper=Financial Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Ernesto Gallo |author2=Giovanni Biava |date=3 April 2013 |title=After the BRICS, is now time for the MIKT? |url=http://www.albertoforchielli.com/2013/04/03/after-the-brics-is-now-time-for-the-mikt/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922051307/http://www.albertoforchielli.com/2013/04/03/after-the-brics-is-now-time-for-the-mikt/ |archive-date=Sep 22, 2017 |access-date=21 September 2017 |website=Alberto Forchielli}}</ref> MINT was another acronym coined by O'Neill standing for Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Matthew Boesler |date=13 November 2013 |title=The Economist Who Invented The BRICs Just Invented A Whole New Group of Countries: The MINTs |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-oneill-presents-the-mint-economies-2013-11?IR=T |access-date=21 September 2017 |website=Business Insider}}</ref> | |||
It is also noticed that BRIC countries have undermined qualitative factors that is reflected in deterioration in Doing Business ranking 2010 and other several human indexes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1583828 |title=SSRN-BRIC Potency: Truth or Trance? by Vrajlal Sapovadia |publisher=Papers.ssrn.com |date=2010-04-03 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> | |||
===Mexico=== | |||
In a not-so-subtle dig critical of the term as nothing more than a shorthand for emerging markets generally, critics have suggested a correlating term, CEMENT (''C''ountries in ''E''merging ''M''arkets ''E''xcluded by ''N''ew ''T''erminology). Whilst they accept there has been spectacular growth of the BRIC economies, these gains have largely been the result of the strength of emerging markets generally, and that strength comes through having BRICs and CEMENT.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7761deb2-88bc-11db-b485-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=cc9f419c-4bb1-11da-997b-0000779e2340.html |title=/ FTfm - Emerging Markets: Brics sceptics have their backs to the wall |publisher=Ft.com |date=2006-12-11 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> | |||
]]] | |||
Primarily, along with the BRICs,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf |title=BRIC thesis Goldman Sachs Investment Bank, "BRIC" |publisher=Gs.com |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060305114725/http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf |archive-date=5 March 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and ] is such that they may become (with the United States) the six most dominant economies by 2050. Due to Mexico's rapidly advancing infrastructure, increasing middle class and rapidly declining poverty rates it is expected to have a higher GDP per capita than all but three European countries by 2050, this newfound local wealth also contributes to the nation's economy by creating a large domestic consumer market which in turn creates more jobs. | |||
== Proposed Country Inclusions == | |||
{| class="toc" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center; width:23.5em" width="10%" align="right" | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- align="center" | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
|} | |||
Mexico and South Korea are currently the world's 13th and 15th largest by ],<ref>See ]</ref> just behind the BRIC and G7 economies, while both are experiencing rapid GDP growth of 5% every year, a figure comparable to Brazil from the original BRICs. ], expert from the same bank and creator of the economic thesis, stated that in 2001 when the paper was created, it did not consider ], but today it has been included because the country is experiencing the same factors that the other countries first included present.<ref name=lefigaro/><ref name=UNuniversity/> While South Korea was not originally included in the BRICs, recent solid economic growth led to Goldman Sachs proposing to add Mexico and South Korea to the BRICs, changing the acronym to BRIMCK, with Jim O'Neill pointing out that Korea "is better placed than most others to realize its potential due to its growth-supportive fundamentals.<ref>{{cite web|last=Pesek |first=William |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000177&sid=aoJ4WG5LSf1s&refer=market_insight |title=South Korea, Another `BRIC' in Global Wall: William Pesek Jr. |publisher=Bloomberg |date=2005-12-08 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> | |||
A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South Korea weren't included in the original BRICs. According to the paper,<ref name="Ref-1"/> among the other countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs, but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked to them as already more developed. However, due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis, "BRIMC" and "BRICK" are becoming more generic marketing terms to refer to these six countries. | |||
In their paper "BRICs and Beyond", Goldman Sachs stated that "Mexico, the four BRIC countries and South Korea should not be really thought of as | |||
emerging markets in the classical sense", adding that they are a "critical part of the modern globalised economy" and "just as central to its | |||
functioning as the current G7".<ref name="www2.goldmansachs.com">http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRIC-Full.pdf</ref> | |||
The term is primarily used in the economic and financial spheres as well as in ]. Its usage has grown specially in the investment sector, where it is used to refer to the bonds emitted by these emerging markets governments.<ref name=correio>{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref><ref name=bstandard>{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref><ref name=companynews>{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref> | |||
----- | |||
=== ] === | |||
], ]]] | |||
Primarily, along with the BRICs,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf |title=BRIC thesis Goldman Sachs Investment Bank, "BRIC" |publisher=Gs.com |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of ], ], ], ] and ] is such that they may become (with the USA) the six most dominant economies by the year 2050. Due to Mexico's rapidly advancing infrastructure, increasing middle class and rapidly declining poverty rates it is expected to have a higher GDP per capita than all but three European countries by 2050, this new found local wealth also contributes to the nation's economy by creating a large domestic consumer market which in turn creates more jobs. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+Projection of Mexico's economy in 2050<ref> | |||
|+'''Mexico in 2050'''<ref>''</ref> | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080911041502/http://www.chicagogsb.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf |date=11 September 2008 }} | |||
! !! {{flagicon|Mexico}} ] | |||
</ref> | |||
|- | |- | ||
| ] in ] || $9.340 trillion | | ] in ] || $9.340 trillion | ||
Line 421: | Line 527: | ||
|} | |} | ||
=== |
===South Korea=== | ||
South Korea is one of the world's most highly ] and including it with ] like the BRICs is not deemed correct.{{By whom|date=October 2024}} However, commentators such as William Pesek from ] argue that Korea is "Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall", suggesting that it stands out from the Next Eleven economies with its BRIC-like growth rate, despite its ] being higher than some of the world's most advanced economies, including ], ], ], ], ] and ]. South Korean workers are the wealthiest among major Asian countries, with a higher income than ] and the strongest growth rate in the ]. More importantly, it has a significantly higher Growth Environment Score (Goldman Sachs' way of measuring the long-term sustainability of growth) than all of the BRICs or N-11s.<ref name="www2.goldmansachs.com"/> According to the ], South Korea's ] measured by ] is already larger than ] and ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} In terms of ], South Korea overtook ] in 2010.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} According to Citibank, South Korea will continue by overtaking ], ], ] and ] by 2020, surpassing ], ], ] and ] by 2030 and taking over the ] by 2040 to become the world's wealthiest major economy. While measuring the ] by ] is inaccurate as the ] is artificially kept low to boost ], the ] predicted South Korea's nominal GDP and GDP per capita will surpass ] in 2015.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} Economists from other investment firms argue that even when measured by ], South Korea will achieve over $145,000 in 2040, surpassing the United States, suggesting that wealth is more important than size for bond investors, stating that Korea's ] will be rated AAA sooner than 2050.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.strattonstreetcapital.com/abf/reports/a%20pile%20of%20brics.pdf |title=Archived Document |access-date=8 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090225114014/http://www.strattonstreetcapital.com/abf/reports/a%20pile%20of%20brics.pdf |archive-date=25 February 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
], ]]] | |||
], ]]] | |||
South Korea is by far the most highly ] when compared to the BRICs and N-11s, with a ] higher than ] and ] and ] higher than ], ] and the ]. Yet, it has been achieving growth rates of 4-6%, a figure more than double that of other advanced economies. More importantly, it has a significantly higher Growth Environment Score (Goldman Sachs' way of measuring the long-term sustainability of growth) than all of the BRICs or N-11s.<ref name="www2.goldmansachs.com"/> Commentators such as William Pesek Jr. from ] argue that Korea is "Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall", suggesting that it stands out from the ] economies. By ], South Korea already overtook a ] and ] economy, ], in 2009. It then surpassed ] in 2010 and at current speed, will take over ] before 2018.<ref>]</ref> Economists from other investment firms argue that Korea will have a ] of over $96,000 by 2050, surpassing the ] and by far the wealthiest among the G7, BRIC and N-11 economies, suggesting that wealth is more important than size for bond investors, stating that Korea's credit rating will be rated AAA sooner than 2050.<ref>http://www.strattonstreetcapital.com/abf/reports/a%20pile%20of%20brics.pdf</ref> | |||
====United Korea==== | |||
In September 2009, Goldman Sachs published its 188th Global Economics Paper named "A United Korea?" which highlighted in detail the potential economic power of ], which would surpass all current G7 countries except the ] and ] within 30–40 years of reunification, estimating GDP to surpass $6 trillion by 2050.<ref name="The Korea Times"> | |||
{{cite web |url=https://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52202.html |title=Unified Korea to Exceed G7 in 2050 |publisher=] |date=21 September 2009 |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134436/http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52202.html |archive-date=22 July 2011 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> The young, skilled labor and large amount of natural resources from the North combined with advanced technology, infrastructure and large amount of capital in the South, as well as Korea's strategic location connecting three economic powers, would likely create an economy larger than the bulk of the G7. A reunited Korea could occur sometime before 2050 according to some outside observers.<ref> | |||
{{cite web|author=Carl B. Haselden Jr.|url=https://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002508142|title=The Effects of Korean Unification on the US Military Presence in Northeast Asia|publisher=Parameters, Vol. 32, 2002 |access-date=15 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628230731/http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002508142|archive-date=28 June 2011|url-status=live}} | |||
</ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+'''Projection of the Korean economy in 2050'''<ref> | |||
|+'''Korea in 2050'''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/global_economics_paper_no_188_final.pdf |title=Global Economics Paper No: 188 "A United Korea?" |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> | |||
{{cite web |url=http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/global_economics_paper_no_188_final.pdf |title=Global Economics Paper No: 188 "A United Korea?" |access-date=15 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714185418/http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/global_economics_paper_no_188_final.pdf |archive-date=14 July 2011 |url-status=live }} | |||
</ref> | |||
! !! {{flagicon|Korea|unification}} ] !! {{flag|South Korea}} !! {{flag|North Korea}} | ! !! {{flagicon|Korea|unification}} ] !! {{flag|South Korea}} !! {{flag|North Korea}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 438: | Line 550: | ||
| ] || 71 million || 42 million || 28 million | | ] || 71 million || 42 million || 28 million | ||
|} | |} | ||
==== United Korea ==== | |||
], ]]] | |||
In September 2009, Goldman Sachs published its 188th Global Economics Paper named "A United Korea?" which highlighted in detail the potential economic power of a United Korea, which will surpass all current G7 countries except the ], such as ], the ], ] and ] within 30–40 years of reunification, estimating GDP to surpass $6 trillion by 2050.<ref name="koreatimes.co.kr">{{cite web|url=http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52202.html |title=Unified Korea to Exceed G7 in 2050 |publisher=Koreatimes.co.kr |date=2009-09-21 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> The young, skilled labor and large amount of natural resources from the North combined with advanced technology, infrastructure and large amount of capital in the South, as well as Korea's strategic location connecting three economic powers, is likely going to create an economy larger than the bulk of the G7. According to some opinions, a ] could occur before 2050,<ref name="koreatimes.co.kr"/> or even between 2010 and 2020.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002508142 |title=Questia Online Library |publisher=Questia.com |date= |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> If it occurred, Korean reunification would immediately raise the country's population to over 70 million.<ref>]</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* ], a similar economics term coined in 2009 for six other emerging economies | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] + Russia = BASICR | |||
*] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist| |
{{Reflist|30em}} | ||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
* Elder, Miriam, and Leahy, Joe, et al., , Financial Times, London, |
* Elder, Miriam, and Leahy, Joe, et al., , Financial Times, London, 25 September 2008 | ||
* Firzli, M. Nicolas, "Forecasting the Future: The BRICs and the China Model", JTW/ USAK Research Center, 9 March 2011 | |||
* O'Neill, Jim, , Financial Times, London, September 23, 2008, p. 28. | |||
* Kateb, Alexandre, ''Les nouvelles puissances mondiales. Pourquoi les BRIC changent le monde" (The new global powers. Why the BRIC change the world) (in French)'', Paris : Ellipses, 2011, 272 p. {{ISBN|978-2-7298-6473-6}} | |||
* Mark Kobayashi-Hillary, 'Building a Future with BRICs: The Next Decade for Offshoring' (Nov 2007). ISBN 978-3-540-46453-2. | |||
* O'Neill, Jim, , Financial Times, London, 23 September 2008, p. 28. | |||
* J. Vercueil, ''Les pays émergents. Brésil-Russie-Inde-Chine... Mutations économiques et nouveaux défis (Emerging Countries. Brazil - Russia - India - China... Economic Transformations and new Challenges) (in French)'', Paris : Bréal, 2010, 207 p. ISBN 978-2-7495-0957-0 | |||
* Mark Kobayashi-Hillary, 'Building a Future with BRICs: The Next Decade for Offshoring' (Nov 2007). {{ISBN|978-3-540-46453-2}}. | |||
* James D. Sidaway (2012) '', The Professional Geographer, 64:1, 49–62. | |||
* J. Vercueil, ''Les pays émergents. Brésil-Russie-Inde-Chine... Mutations économiques et nouveaux défis (Emerging Countries. Brazil – Russia – India – China... Economic Transformations and new Challenges) (in French)'', Paris : Bréal, 2010, 207 p. {{ISBN|978-2-7495-0957-0}} | |||
* Paulo Borba Casella, "BRIC : Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud – A l'heure d'un nouvel ordre juridique international", éd. A.Pedone, Paris, Sept. 2011, EAN {{ISBN|978-2-233-00626-4}} | |||
{{BRICS}} | |||
==External links== | |||
{{Navboxes | |||
* | |||
|title = Articles related to BRIC | |||
* | |||
|list = | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* , | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* - ] report and Forecast | |||
* . Market segment analysis by Criterion Global, | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
{{BRIC countries}} | |||
{{Current BRIC Leaders}} | |||
{{BRIC summits}} | |||
{{International power}} | {{International power}} | ||
{{International relations}} | |||
{{South-South}} | |||
{{Foreign relations of Brazil}} | |||
{{Foreign relations of Russia}} | |||
{{Foreign relations of India}} | |||
{{Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China}} | |||
{{Foreign relations of South Africa}} | |||
{{China–India relations}} | |||
{{China–Russia relations}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
] | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bric}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 20:34, 22 December 2024
Term for a group of four emerging national economies This article is about the term championed by Goldman Sachs. For the intergovernmental organisation, see BRICS. For other uses, see BRIC (disambiguation).
BRIC | |
---|---|
Type | Foreign investment strategies grouping |
Membership | |
Establishment | |
• Term coined by Jim O'Neill | 2001 |
• Goldman Sachs closes BRIC fund | 2015 |
Area | |
• Total | 38,464,219 km (14,851,118 sq mi) |
Population | |
• 2022 estimate | 3,157,441,470 |
GDP (PPP) | 2022 estimate |
• Total | $49.967 trillion |
GDP (nominal) | 2022 estimate |
• Total | $27.107 trillion |
BRIC is a term describing the foreign investment strategies grouping acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The separate BRICS organisation would go on to become a political and economic organization largely based on such grouping. The grouping has been rendered as "the BRICs", "the BRIC countries", "the BRIC economies", or alternatively as the "Big Four".
The term was first coined by economist Jim O'Neill and later championed by his employer Goldman Sachs in 2001. O'Neill identified the four countries as emerging markets and rising economic powers which were at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. Goldman Sachs, of which O'Neill was the head of global economics research, would continue reporting and investing in their BRIC fund until 2015. In a 2023 retrospective article, O'Neill commented that after the term's initial proposal, it gained an outsized popularilty in the 2000s and 2010s to explain the economic conditions of the four countries. He also conceded that the reports published by Goldman Sachs, which presented an optimistic possibility of the BRIC economies in the year 2050, were most likely not going to come true as economic downturns in the 2010s and early 2020s severely altered the trajectory of each country's economies.
The acronym was co-opted by the countries themselves beginning in the late-2000s. The 1st BRIC summit in 2009, which founded the BRICS organisation, was held between the leaders of the four countries, with later summits involving South Africa beginning in 2010. O'Neill commented on the 2010 summit by drawing a distinction between his BRIC term and the BRICS organisation, arguing that South Africa was too small as an economy to join the BRIC ranks. In further comments in 2023, O'Neill stressed that he "never encouraged them to develop a political club" and that the organisation appeared to exist just as "a club that the US is not a part of."
Reports
O'Neill's thesis (2001)
In 2001, Jim O'Neill, a global economist at Goldman Sachs at the time, proposed that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India and China is such that they could become among the most dominant economies by 2050. At the time, these countries encompassed over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and held a combined GDP (PPP) of $20 trillion. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage and were among the largest and fastest-growing emerging markets.
Politically, they have taken steps to increase their cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the United States position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.
"Dreaming with BRICS: The Path to 2050" (2003)
The BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China have changed their political systems to embrace global capitalism. Goldman Sachs predicts that China and India, respectively, will become the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services, while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. Of the four countries, Brazil remains the only polity that can continue all elements, meaning manufacturing, services, and resource supplying simultaneously. Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers.
In 2016, an Australian economist predicted that in 2050, China and India will be first and second respectively in terms of GDP per capita spending, surpassing the United States. Brazil was predicted to be in the fifth position. This was attributed due to the global economic center shifting from the Atlantic to the Asia Pacific region.
Follow-up report (2004)
The economics team at Goldman Sachs released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC study in 2004. The report states that in the BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000 will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade. This predicted a massive rise in the size of the middle class in these nations. The report also includes calculations that in 2025, the number of people in BRIC nations earning over $15,000 would reach over 200 million people. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first China and then a decade later India would begin to dominate the world economy. However, it was noted that despite the balance of future growth swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the average level of individuals in the more advanced economies will continue to far outstrip the BRIC economic average for the foreseeable future.
The report also highlights India's inefficient energy consumption at the time as well as the dramatic under-representation of these economies in the global capital markets. The report also emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the G6, while per-capita income levels remained far below the norm of today's industrialized countries. This phenomenon, too, will affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the enormous potential markets in the BRIC countries. This would present itself in the automobile and other manufactured goods markets, as companies would produce far cheaper goods affordable to the consumers within the BRIC economies in lieu of the luxury models that may traditionally bring the most revenue. The report cites India and China as examples of countries which had already begun making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector respectively in the global arena, with developed economies already taking note of this.
"India's Rising Growth Potential" (2007)
A second follow-up report was compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi in January 2007. The report unveiled updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth trends in India since 2003. Goldman Sachs asserts that "India's influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs research". They noted significant areas of research and development and expansion that is happening in the country, which the report predicts would lead to the prosperity of the growing middle class. Demographically, India had 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world at the time. Based on trends at the time, an estimated 700 million Indians will move to cities by 2050. Such a demographic change would have significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services.
In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the United States (in US$) by 2043. At the same time, the report indicated that Russia, while continuing its dominance of the European energy market, would continue to struggle economically, as its population declines.
"EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape" (2010)
According to a 2010 report from Goldman Sachs, China might surpass the United States in equity market capitalization terms by 2030 and become the single largest equity market in the world. By 2020, America's GDP might be only slightly larger than China's GDP. Together, the four BRICs may account for 41% of the world's market capitalization by 2030, the report said.
Further developments
By 2015, Goldman Sachs quietly closed down its BRIC fund after lost 88 percent of its asset value since 2010, instead channeling the fund into emerging markets countries. Jim O'Neill, the inventor of the term "BRIC", was the former chief economist of Goldman Sachs and retired from the firm in 2013.
The head of emerging markets for Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Ruchir Sharma, released a book in 2012 entitled Breakout Nations. Sharma posited that such rapid growth for more than a decade is difficult to maintain, with outside commenters connecting this to the potential for the BRIC economies to slow their rapid economic rise. This idea was partially accepted by O'Neill in 2023, who commented that in the time since the initial proposal of the BRIC term, the BRIC economies were unlikely to reach the 2050 projections published in the Goldman Sachs reported. O'Neill attributed this to post-2012 developments including government decisions and consequences from the Great Recession and impact of COVID-19 pandemic.
In late 2010, China surpassed Japan's GDP for the first time, with China's GDP standing at $5.88 trillion compared to Japan's $5.47 trillion. China thus became the world's second-largest economy after the United States. For the year 2013, for the first time China surpassed $4 trillion in world trade and become the world's largest trading country, consisting of $2.21 trillion in exports and $1.95 trillion in imports. While the United States for 11 months of 2013 world trade figure totaling $3.5 trillion and seems cannot beat China. China's world trade balance in 2013 had a surplus of almost $260 billion, a 12.8% increased from the prior year.
According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, based on International Monetary Fund figures, in 2012 Brazil became the sixth-largest economy in the world by overtaking United Kingdom with $2.52 trillion and $2.48 trillion, respectively. Comparatively in 2010, the Brazilian economy was worth $2.09 trillion while UK economy was worth $2.25 trillion. The significant increases were attributed to a Brazilian economic boom in high food and oil prices. Since the beginning of the Great Recession, in Q3 2013 the economy of Brazil contracted by 0.5 percent compared with the previous quarter, being the first contraction since Q1 2009.
In June 2012, following Standard & Poor's (S&P) report that India's growth outlook could deteriorate if policymaking and governance did not improve, Fitch Ratings cut its credit outlook for India from stable to negative while maintaining its BBB− rating, the lowest investment-grade rating. A week before Fitch released the rating, S&P stated that India could become the first of the BRIC countries to lose investment-grade status.
Based on a March 2011 Forbes report, the BRIC countries counted 301 billionaires among their combined populations, exceeding the number of billionaires in Europe, which stood at 300 in 2011.
Statistics
A Goldman Sachs paper published in December 2005 explained why Mexico was not included in the original BRICs. The Economist publishes an annual table of socio-economic national statistics in its "Pocket World in Figures". Extrapolating the global rankings from their 2008 Edition for the BRIC countries and economies in relation to various categories provides an interesting touchstone in relation to the economic underpinnings of the BRIC thesis. It also illustrates how, despite their divergent economic bases, the economic indicators are remarkably similar in global rankings between the different economies. It also suggests that, while economic arguments can be made for linking Mexico into the BRIC thesis, the case for including South Korea looks considerably weaker.
General statistics
Categories | Brazil | Russia | India | China |
---|---|---|---|---|
Area | 005th | 001st | 007th | 003rd |
Population | 005th | 009th | 001st | 002nd |
Population growth rate | 128th | 177th | 098th | 148th |
Labor force | 005th | 006th | 002nd | 001st |
GDP (nominal) | 008th | 010th | 05th | 002nd |
GDP (PPP) | 007th | 006th | 003rd | 001st |
GDP (nominal) per capita | 057th | 047th | 139th | 072nd |
GDP (PPP) per capita | 075th | 055th | 126th | 072nd |
GDP (real) growth rate | 0180th | 0177th | 003rd | 0012th |
Human Development Index | 085th | 055th | 114th | 079th |
Exports | 06th | 08th | 012th | 001st |
Imports | 021st | 017th | 08th | 002nd |
Current account balance | 0187th | 005th | 186th | 002nd |
Received FDI | 013th | 016th | 019th | 004th |
Foreign exchange reserves | 0010th | 006th | 009th | 001st |
External debt | 020th | 021st | 022nd | 012th |
Public debt | 042nd | 0190th | 0104th | 0184th |
Electricity consumption | 009th | 004th | 003rd | 001st |
Renewable energy source | 003rd | 005th | 006th | 001st |
Number of mobile phones | 004th | 005th | 002nd | 001st |
Number of internet users | 005th | 006th | 002nd | 001st |
Motor vehicle production | 009th | 015th | 005th | 001st |
Military expenditures | 011th | 004th | 05th | 002nd |
Active troops | 015th | 005th | 002nd | 001st |
UN Peacekeepers | 024th | 0077th | 003rd | 009th |
Rail network | 010th | 003rd | 004th | 002nd |
Road network | 004th | 007th | 002nd | 003rd |
Goldman Sachs prediction
Rank 2050 | Country | 2050 | 2045 | 2040 | 2035 | 2030 | 2030 USDA | 2025 | 2020 | 2015 | 2010 | 2006 | Percent increase from 2006 to 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | China | 70,710 | 57,310 | 45,022 | 34,348 | 25,610 | 22,200 | 18,437 | 12,630 | 8,133 | 4,667 | 2,682 | 2536% |
2 | India | 38,668 | 25,278 | 16,510 | 10,514 | 6,683 | 6,600 | 4,316 | 2,848 | 1,900 | 1,256 | 909 | 4043% |
3 | United States | 38,514 | 33,904 | 29,823 | 26,097 | 22,817 | 24,800 | 20,087 | 17,978 | 16,194 | 14,535 | 13,245 | 190% |
4 | Brazil | 11,366 | 8,740 | 6,631 | 4,963 | 3,720 | 4,000 | 2,831 | 2,194 | 1,720 | 2,087 | 1,064 | 968% |
5 | Mexico | 9,340 | 7,204 | 5,471 | 4,102 | 3,068 | 2,300 | 2,303 | 1,742 | 1,327 | 1,009 | 851 | 997% |
6 | Russia | 8,580 | 7,420 | 6,320 | 5,265 | 4,265 | 2,400 | 3,341 | 2,554 | 1,900 | 1,371 | 982 | 773% |
Note: All data above is from Goldman Sachs, except the 2030 USDA column is data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (2030 USDA) about World's 20 Largest Economies in 2030, but only 16 match with Goldman Sachs data. In 2030 USDA, Mexico and Indonesia will topple South Korea (please see Section Proposed inclusions). There is no South Africa of BRIC S in the above table. In 2030, the sole country from Africa is Nigeria and the US is still number one, but China almost overtakes the US.
Rank 2050 | Country | 2050 | 2045 | 2040 | 2035 | 2030 | 2025 | 2020 | 2015 | 2010 | 2006 | Percent increase from 2006 to 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | United States | 91,683 | 83,489 | 76,044 | 69,019 | 62,717 | 57,446 | 53,502 | 50,200 | 47,014 | 44,379 | 106% |
2 | South Korea | 90,294 | 75,979 | 63,924 | 53,449 | 44,602 | 36,813 | 29,868 | 26,012 | 21,602 | 18,161 | 397% |
3 | United Kingdom | 79,234 | 73,807 | 67,391 | 61,049 | 55,904 | 52,220 | 49,173 | 45,591 | 41,543 | 38,108 | 107% |
4 | Russia | 78,435 | 65,708 | 54,221 | 43,800 | 34,368 | 26,061 | 19,311 | 13,971 | 9,833 | 6,909 | 1,037% |
5 | Canada | 76,002 | 69,531 | 63,464 | 57,728 | 52,663 | 48,621 | 45,961 | 43,449 | 40,541 | 38,071 | 99% |
6 | France | 75,253 | 68,252 | 62,136 | 56,562 | 52,327 | 48,429 | 44,811 | 41,332 | 38,380 | 36,045 | 108% |
7 | Germany | 68,253 | 62,658 | 57,118 | 51,710 | 47,263 | 45,033 | 43,223 | 40,589 | 37,474 | 34,588 | 97% |
8 | Japan | 66,846 | 60,492 | 55,756 | 52,345 | 49,975 | 46,419 | 42,385 | 38,650 | 36,194 | 34,021 | 96% |
9 | Mexico | 63,149 | 49,393 | 38,255 | 29,417 | 22,694 | 17,685 | 13,979 | 11,176 | 8,972 | 7,918 | 697% |
10 | Italy | 58,545 | 52,760 | 48,070 | 44,948 | 43,195 | 41,358 | 38,990 | 35,908 | 32,948 | 31,123 | 88% |
11 | Brazil | 49,759 | 38,149 | 29,026 | 21,924 | 16,694 | 12,996 | 10,375 | 8,427 | 6,882 | 5,657 | 779% |
12 | China | 49,650 | 39,719 | 30,951 | 23,511 | 17,522 | 12,688 | 8,829 | 5,837 | 3,463 | 2,041 | 2,332% |
13 | Turkey | 45,595 | 34,971 | 26,602 | 20,046 | 15,188 | 11,743 | 9,291 | 7,460 | 6,005 | 5,545 | 722% |
14 | Vietnam | 33,472 | 23,932 | 16,623 | 11,148 | 7,245 | 4,583 | 2,834 | 1,707 | 1,001 | 655 | 5,010% |
15 | Iran | 32,676 | 26,231 | 20,746 | 15,979 | 12,139 | 9,328 | 7,345 | 5,888 | 4,652 | 3,768 | 767% |
16 | Indonesia | 22,395 | 15,642 | 10,784 | 7,365 | 5,123 | 3,711 | 2,813 | 2,197 | 1,724 | 1,508 | 1,385% |
17 | India | 20,836 | 14,446 | 9,802 | 6,524 | 4,360 | 2,979 | 2,091 | 1,492 | 1,061 | 817 | 2,450% |
18 | Pakistan | 20,500 | 14,025 | 9,443 | 6,287 | 4,287 | 3,080 | 2,352 | 1,880 | 1,531 | 1,281 | 1,500% |
19 | Philippines | 20,388 | 14,260 | 9,815 | 6,678 | 4,635 | 3,372 | 2,591 | 2,075 | 1,688 | 1,312 | 1,453% |
20 | Nigeria | 13,014 | 8,934 | 6,117 | 4,191 | 2,944 | 2,161 | 1,665 | 1,332 | 1,087 | 919 | 1,316% |
21 | Egypt | 11,786 | 7,066 | 5,183 | 3,775 | 2,744 | 2,035 | 1,568 | 1,260 | 897 | 778 | 808% |
22 | Bangladesh | 5,235 | 3,767 | 2,698 | 1,917 | 1,384 | 1,027 | 790 | 627 | 510 | 427 | 1,125% |
Groups | Countries | 2050 | 2045 | 2040 | 2035 | 2030 | 2025 | 2020 | 2015 | 2010 | 2006 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRICS | Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa | 128,324 | 98,757 | 74,483 | 55,090 | 40,278 | 28,925 | 20,226 | 13,653 | 8,640 | 5,637 |
G7 | Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, US | 66,039 | 59,475 | 53,617 | 48,281 | 43,745 | 39,858 | 36,781 | 33,414 | 30,437 | 28,005 |
The following three tables are lists of economies by incremental GDP from 2006 to 2050 by Goldman Sachs. They illustrate that the BRICs and N11 nations are replacing G7 nations as the main contributors to the world's economic growth. From 2020 to 2050, nine of the ten largest countries by incremental GDP are occupied by the BRICs and N11 nations, in which the United States remains to be the only G7 member as one of the three biggest contributors to the global economic growth.
|
|
|
At the World Economic Forum 2011, there were 365 corporate executives from BRIC and other emerging nations out of 1000 participants. It was a record number of executives from emerging markets. Nomura Holdings Inc's co-head of global investment banking said that "It's a reflection of where economic power and influence is starting to move." The International Monetary Fund estimated emerging markets might expand 6.5 percent in 2011, more than double the 2.5 percent rate for developed countries. BRIC's takeover made record by 22 percent of global deals or increase by 74 percent in one year and more than quadrupled in the last five years.
According to The World Bank Doing Business report 2019 the BRIC economies introduced a total of 21 reforms, with getting electricity and trading across borders the most common areas of improvement.
History
Organisation
Main article: BRICSVarious sources refer to a purported "original" BRIC agreement that predates the Goldman Sachs thesis. Some of these sources claim that President Vladimir Putin of Russia was the driving force behind this original cooperative coalition of developing BRIC countries. However, thus far, no text has been made public of any formal agreement to which all four BRIC states are signatories. This does not mean, however, that they have not reached a multitude of bilateral or even quadrilateral agreements. Evidence of agreements of this type are abundant and are available on the foreign ministry websites of each of the four countries. Trilateral agreements and frameworks made among the BRICs include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (member states include Russia and China, observers include India) and the IBSA Trilateral Forum, which unites Brazil, India, and South Africa in annual dialogues. The Russia-India-China (RIC) strategic triangle was envisaged by Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov in the 1990s. The G20 forum of developing states includes all the BRIC countries.
South Africa sought BRIC membership since 2009 and the process for formal admission began as early as August 2010. South Africa was officially admitted as a BRIC nation on 24 December 2010, after being invited by China and the other BRIC countries to join the group. The capital "S" in BRICS stands for South Africa. President Jacob Zuma attend the BRICS summit in Sanya in April 2011 as a full member. South Africa stands at a unique position to influence African economic growth and investment. According to Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs who originally coined the term, Africa's combined current gross domestic product is reasonably similar to that of Brazil and Russia, and slightly above that of India. South Africa is a "gateway" to Southern Africa and Africa in general as the most developed African country. China is South Africa's largest trading partner, and India wants to increase commercial ties with Africa. South Africa is also Africa's largest economy, but as number 31 in global GDP economies it is far behind its new partners.
Jim O'Neill expressed surprise when South Africa joined BRIC since South Africa's economy is a quarter of the size of Russia's (the least economically powerful BRIC nation). He believed that the potential was there but did not anticipate inclusion of South Africa at this stage. Martyn Davies, a South African emerging markets expert, argued that the decision to invite South Africa made little commercial sense but was politically astute given China's attempts to establish a foothold in Africa. Further, South Africa's inclusion in BRICS may translate to greater South African support for China in global fora. He has great belief that the "S" in "BRICS" could be replaced eventually by SADC.
African credentials are important geopolitically, giving BRICS a four-continent breadth, influence and trade opportunities. South Africa's addition is a deft political move that further enhances BRICS' power and status. In the original essay that coined the term, Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association which this move signifies.
Marketing
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "BRIC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The BRIC term is also used by companies who refer to the four named countries as key to their emerging markets strategies. By comparison, the reduced acronym IC would not be attractive, although the term "Chindia" is often used. BRIC's study specifically focuses on large countries, not necessarily the wealthiest or the most productive and was never intended to be an investment thesis. If investors read Goldman's research carefully and agreed with the conclusions, then they would gain exposure to Asian debt and equity markets rather than to Latin America. According to estimates provided by the USDA, the wealthiest regions outside of the G6 in 2015 will be Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Combined with China and India, these five economies are likely to be the world's five most influential economies outside of the G6.
On the other hand, when the "R" in BRIC is extended beyond Russia and is used as a loose term to include all of Eastern Europe as well, then the BRIC story becomes more compelling. At issue are the multiple serious problems which confront Russia (potentially unstable government, environmental degradation, critical lack of modern infrastructure, etc.), and the comparatively much lower growth rate seen in Brazil. However, Brazil's lower growth rate obscures the fact that the country is wealthier than China or India on a per-capita basis, has a more developed and global integrated financial system and has an economy potentially more diverse than the other BRICs due to its raw material and manufacturing potential. Many other Eastern European countries, such as Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and several others were able to continually sustain high economic growth rates and do not experience some of the problems that Russia experiences or experience them to a lesser extent. In terms of GDP per capita in 2008, Brazil ranked 64th, Russia 42nd, India 113th, and China 89th. By comparison, South Korea ranked 24th and Singapore 3rd.
Brazil's stock market, the Bovespa, has gone from approximately 9,000 in September 2002 to over 70,000 in May 2008. Government policies have favored investment (lowering interest rates), retiring foreign debt and expanding growth, and a reformulation of the tax system is being voted in the congress. The British author and researcher Mark Kobayashi-Hillary wrote a book in 2007, along with contributors Nandan Nilekani and Shiv Nada, titled Building a Future with BRICs for European publisher Springer Verlag that examines the growth of the BRICs region and its effect on global sourcing.
International law
Brazilian lawyer and author Adler Martins has published a paper called "Contratos Internacionais entre os países do BRIC" (International Agreements Among BRIC countries) which highlights the international conventions ratified by the BRIC countries, which allow them to maintain trade and investment activities safely within the group. Martin's study is being further developed by the Federal University of the Minas Gerais State, in Brazil.
Financial diversification
Some observers have argued that geographic diversification would eventually generate superior risk-adjusted returns for long-term global investors by reducing overall portfolio risk while capturing some of the higher rates of return offered by the emerging markets of Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. By doing so, these institutional investors have contributed to the financial and economic development of key emerging nations such as Brazil, India, China, and Russia. For global investors, India and China constitute both large-scale production platforms and reservoirs of new consumers, whereas Russia is viewed essentially as an exporter of oil and commodities- Brazil and Latin America being somehow "in the middle".
Criticism
Academics and experts have suggested that China is in a league of its own compared to the other BRIC countries. As David Rothkopf wrote in Foreign Policy, "Without China, the BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the whine that goes with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective veto power over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one with the big reserves. They are the biggest potential market. They are the U.S. partner in the G2 (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a G8 meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal without them) and so on." Deutsche Bank Research stated in a report that "economically, financially and politically, China overshadows and will continue to overshadow the other BRICs". It added that China's economy is larger than that of the three other BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, and India) combined. Moreover, China's exports and its official foreign-exchange reserves are more than twice as large as those of the other BRICs combined. In that perspective, some pension investment experts have argued that "China alone accounts for more than 70% of the combined GDP growth generated by the BRIC countries : if there is a BRIC miracle it's first and foremost a Chinese one". The "growth gap" between China and other large emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia and India can be attributed to a large extent to China's early focus on ambitious infrastructure projects: while China invested roughly 9% of its GDP on infrastructure in the 1990s and 2000s, most emerging economies invested only 2% to 5% of their GDP. This considerable spending gap allowed the Chinese economy to grow at near-optimal conditions while many South American and South Asian economies suffered from various development bottlenecks (poor transportation, aging power grids, mediocre schools). In 2024, Jim O'Neill himself, when referring to the BRICS organisation, said that "without the Chinese presence, I don't think there would be much real importance, at all, to the BRICS group" due to the country's influence and power relative to other members.
Other critics suggest that BRIC is nothing more than a neat acronym for the four largest emerging market economies, but in economic and political terms nothing else links the four (apart from the fact that they are all big emerging markets). While China and India are manufacturing-based economies and rely on imports, Brazil and Russia are large exporters of natural resources. The Economist, in a special report on Brazil, expressed the following view: "In some ways, Brazil is the steadiest of the BRICs. Unlike China and Russia, it is a full-blooded democracy; unlike India, it has no serious disputes with its neighbors. It is the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb". The Heritage Foundation's Indices of Economic Freedom, which measures factors such as protection of property rights and free trade ranks Brazil "moderately free" above the other BRICs, which are ranked as "mostly unfree". Henry Kissinger has stated that the BRIC nations have no hope of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs and that any cooperation will be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.
In a not-so-subtle dig critical of the term as nothing more than a shorthand for emerging markets generally, critics have suggested a correlating term, CEMENT (Countries in Emerging Markets Excluded by New Terminology). Whilst they accept there has been spectacular growth of the BRIC economies, these gains have largely been the result of the strength of emerging markets generally, and that strength comes through having BRICs and CEMENT.
Proposed inclusions
Mexico and South Korea are currently the world's 13th and 15th largest by nominal GDP just behind the BRIC and G7 economies. Both are experiencing rapid GDP growth of 5% every year, a figure comparable to Brazil from the original BRICs. Jim O'Neill, creator of the economic thesis, stated that in 2001 when the paper was created, it did not consider Mexico, but today it has been included because the country is experiencing the same factors that the other countries first included present. While South Korea was not originally included in the BRICs, recent solid economic growth led to Goldman Sachs proposing to add Mexico and South Korea to the BRICs, changing the acronym to BRIMCK, with Jim O'Neill pointing out that Korea "is better placed than most others to realize its potential due to its growth-supportive fundamentals".
A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South Korea were not included in the original BRICs. According to the paper, among the other countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs, but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked to them as already more developed. However, due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis, "BRIMC" and "BRICK" are becoming more generic marketing terms to refer to these six countries. Because of the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC", this term has sometimes been extended whereby "BRICK" (K for South Korea) and "BRIMC" (M for Mexico) refer to these proposed expansions. Other proposed groupings include "BRICA" (GCC Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates) and "BRICET" (including Eastern Europe and Turkey) and have become more generic marketing terms to refer to these emerging markets.
In an August 2010 op-ed, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs argued that Africa could be considered the next BRIC. Analysts from rival banks have sought to move beyond the BRIC concept, by introducing their own groupings of emerging markets. Proposals include CIVETs (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa), the EAGLES (Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies) and the 7 percent club (which includes those countries which have averaged economic growth of at least 7 percent a year).
In their paper "BRICs and Beyond", Goldman Sachs stated that "Mexico, the four BRIC countries and South Korea should not be really thought of as emerging markets in the classical sense", adding that they are a "critical part of the modern globalised economy" and "just as central to its functioning as the current G7".
The term is primarily used in the economic and financial spheres as well as in academia. Its usage has grown specially in the investment sector, where it is used to refer to the bonds emitted by these emerging markets governments.
O'Neill would later coin several other terms for groupings of emerging economies at various stages. First, the term "The Next Eleven" referred to Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam, arguing they would be among the world's largest economies in the 21st century. O'Neill next used the term MIKT for Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey. MINT was another acronym coined by O'Neill standing for Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey.
Mexico
Primarily, along with the BRICs, Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China is such that they may become (with the United States) the six most dominant economies by 2050. Due to Mexico's rapidly advancing infrastructure, increasing middle class and rapidly declining poverty rates it is expected to have a higher GDP per capita than all but three European countries by 2050, this newfound local wealth also contributes to the nation's economy by creating a large domestic consumer market which in turn creates more jobs.
GDP in USD | $9.340 trillion |
GDP per capita | $63,149 |
GDP growth (2015–2050) | 4.0% |
Total population | 142 million |
South Korea
South Korea is one of the world's most highly developed countries and including it with developing countries like the BRICs is not deemed correct. However, commentators such as William Pesek from Bloomberg argue that Korea is "Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall", suggesting that it stands out from the Next Eleven economies with its BRIC-like growth rate, despite its Human Development Index being higher than some of the world's most advanced economies, including France, United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Belgium. South Korean workers are the wealthiest among major Asian countries, with a higher income than Japan and the strongest growth rate in the OECD. More importantly, it has a significantly higher Growth Environment Score (Goldman Sachs' way of measuring the long-term sustainability of growth) than all of the BRICs or N-11s. According to the IMF, South Korea's GDP measured by purchasing power parity is already larger than Canada and Spain. In terms of GDP per capita (PPP), South Korea overtook Spain in 2010. According to Citibank, South Korea will continue by overtaking Germany, Britain, Australia and Sweden by 2020, surpassing Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands and Norway by 2030 and taking over the United States by 2040 to become the world's wealthiest major economy. While measuring the South Korean economy by nominal GDP is inaccurate as the South Korean won is artificially kept low to boost exports, the IMF predicted South Korea's nominal GDP and GDP per capita will surpass Spain in 2015. Economists from other investment firms argue that even when measured by nominal GDP per capita, South Korea will achieve over $145,000 in 2040, surpassing the United States, suggesting that wealth is more important than size for bond investors, stating that Korea's credit rating will be rated AAA sooner than 2050.
United Korea
In September 2009, Goldman Sachs published its 188th Global Economics Paper named "A United Korea?" which highlighted in detail the potential economic power of a United Korea, which would surpass all current G7 countries except the United States and Japan within 30–40 years of reunification, estimating GDP to surpass $6 trillion by 2050. The young, skilled labor and large amount of natural resources from the North combined with advanced technology, infrastructure and large amount of capital in the South, as well as Korea's strategic location connecting three economic powers, would likely create an economy larger than the bulk of the G7. A reunited Korea could occur sometime before 2050 according to some outside observers.
United Korea | South Korea | North Korea | |
---|---|---|---|
GDP in USD | $6.056 trillion | $4.073 trillion | $1.982 trillion |
GDP per capita | $86,000 | $96,000 | $70,000 |
GDP growth (2015–2050) | 4.8% | 3.9% | 11.4% |
Total population | 71 million | 42 million | 28 million |
See also
- CIVETS, a similar economics term coined in 2009 for six other emerging economies
- Potential superpower
- List of country groupings
References
- "New era as South Africa joins BRICS". SouthAfrica.info. Archived from the original on 18 April 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- O'Neill, Jim (30 November 2001). Building Better Global Economic BRICs, Global Economics Paper No: 66 (PDF). Goldman Sachs.
- ^ O'Neill, Jim; Dominic Wilson; Roopa Purushothaman; Anna Stupnytska (1 December 2005). How Solid are the BRICs? Global Economics Paper No: 134 (PDF). Goldman Sachs. Retrieved 27 March 2024.
- Dominic Wilson, Roopa Purushothaman (1 October 2003). Dreaming with BRICs. Global Economics Paper No. 99. Goldman Sachs.
- "Another BRIC in the wall". The Economist. 21 April 2008. Archived from the original on 9 February 2015. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- ^ Rana Foroohar (10 November 2015). "Why the Mighty BRIC Nations Have Finally Broken". Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
- ^ "The future of the BRICS and the New Development Bank | Global Policy Journal". www.globalpolicyjournal.com. Retrieved 23 October 2024.
- ^ Jim O'Neill, Lord O'Neill of Gatley (2024). "The future of the BRICS and the New Development Bank". Policy Insights. 15 (2): 383–388. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13195.
- Halpin, Tony, "Brazil, Russia, India and China form bloc to challenge US dominance" Archived 2 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Times, 17 June 2009.
- ^ Graceffo, Antonio (21 January 2011). "BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical hessboard". Foreign Policy Journal. Archived from the original on 26 January 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
- Reuters 2011 Investment Outlook Summit, London and New York, 6–7 December 2010
- "Lord Jim O'Neill: 'I never intended for BRICs to become a political club'". ETF Stream. 14 November 2023. Retrieved 23 October 2024.
- "Ask the expert: BRICs and investor strategy". Financial Times. 6 November 2006. Archived from the original on 25 April 2015. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- Lok-sang Ho, John Wong (2011). Apec and the Rise of China. World Scientific. p. 118.
- Farah, Paolo D. (2006). "Five Years of China's WTO Membership: EU and US Perspectives on China's Compliance with Transparency Commitments and the Transitional Review Mechanism" (PDF). Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 33 (3): 263–304. doi:10.54648/LEIE2006016. S2CID 153128973. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- Chandra Hamdani Noer (22 October 2016). "Indonesia the Fourth-Largest in GDP in 2050: Analysts". Archived from the original on 24 October 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
- ^ BRICs Archived 27 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine – Goldman Sachs Research Report
- ^ Podar, Tushar; Yi, Eva (22 January 2007). "India's Rising Growth Potential" (PDF). GS Global Economic website. Global Economics Paper No. 15 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- Timothy Moe; Caesar Maasry; Richard Tang (8 September 2010). EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape (Global Economics Paper No: 204) (PDF). Goldman Sachs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 July 2011.
- "Goldman predicts: onwards and upwards for emerging markets". Blogs.ft.com. 8 September 2010. Archived from the original on 28 June 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- Blankfein, Lloyd C.; Cohn, Gary D. (5 February 2013). "Jim O'Neill to retire from Goldman Sachs" (Press release). Goldman Sachs. Archived from the original on 8 February 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2013.
- Tabuchi, Hiroko (14 February 2011). "China Replaced Japan in 2010 as No. 2 Economy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 February 2017. Retrieved 24 February 2017.
- Angela Monaghan (10 January 2014). "China surpasses US as world's largest trading nation". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 3 January 2017. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
- "Brazil 'overtakes UK's economy'". BBC News. 6 March 2012. Archived from the original on 10 July 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
- "Brazil's economy experiences first contraction since 2009". Fox News. 4 December 2013. Archived from the original on 9 August 2014.
- "Fitch cuts India rating outlook to negative". Reuters. 18 June 2012. Archived from the original on 19 June 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- Rappeport, Alan (9 March 2011). "Brics becoming billionaire factory". Financial Times.
- "IMF World Economic Outlook database". Retrieved 28 January 2020.
- ^ "BRICS and Beyond" Archived 3 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine – Goldman Sachs study of BRIC and N11 nations, 23 November 2007.
- Jeanna Smialek (10 April 2015). "These Will Be the World's 20 Largest Economies in 2030". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 19 November 2016. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- "Your Playlist is currently empty". Bloomberg.
- "Doing Business 2019".
- "BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard". Foreign Policy Journal. 21 January 2011. Archived from the original on 26 January 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- "BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard". Foreign Policy Journal. 21 January 2011. Archived from the original on 3 June 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- ^ Jim O'Neill (economist) (26 August 2010). "How Africa can become the next Bric". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- ^ "South Africa | Economy | BRIC". Global Post. 8 January 2011. Archived from the original on 3 April 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- "DealTalk: Nasdaq, CBOE top targets in exchange merger mania" Archived 24 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Reuters, 10 February 2011.
- MARTINS, Adler. Available at https://jus.com.br/artigos/17419/contratos-internacionais-entre-os-paises-do-bric
- see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, Asia-Pacific Funds as Diversification Tools for Institutional Investors (PDF) (in French), archived from the original (PDF) on 8 May 2010, retrieved 2 April 2009
- "BRICs and G-2". Indianexpress.com. 17 June 2009. Archived from the original on 21 July 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- "What BRIC would be without China... | David Rothkopf". Foreign Policy. Rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com. Archived from the original on 11 July 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- "The Hindu News Update Service". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 8 June 2009. Archived from the original on 4 June 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, "Forecasting the Future: The G7, the BRICs and the China Model", JTW & An-Nahar, 9 March 2011, archived from the original on 14 March 2011, retrieved 9 March 2011
- M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi (2011). "Infrastructure Investments in an Age of Austerity: The Pension and Sovereign Funds Perspective". Revue Analyse Financière, volume 41. Archived from the original on 17 September 2011. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
- "Jim O'Neill stresses promoting trade, combating global challenges for future BRICS cooperation - People's Daily Online". en.people.cn. Retrieved 23 October 2024.
- "Land of promise". Economist.com. 12 April 2007. Archived from the original on 16 April 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- Johnson, Steve (11 December 2006). "Emerging Markets: Brics sceptics have their backs to the wall". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 21 May 2015. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- ^ "Les « Bric » tiennent leurs promesses" Archived 3 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Le Figaro, 23 October 2006 (in French)
- ^ "Opinion Page" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2010. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- Pesek, William (8 December 2005). "South Korea, Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall: William Pesek Jr". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 16 September 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- "The Australian Business – Emerging markets put China, India in the shade". Theaustralian.news.com.au. 27 August 2008. Archived from the original on 18 April 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- Martens, China, "IBM Targets Russian Developers: Could overtake India, China in number of developers, says senior executive" Archived 7 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine , OutSourcing World, 11 February 2006
- "Study: Energy-rich Arab countries are next emerging market". Thestar.com.my. 23 February 2007. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- "Welcome to Huaye Iron&Steel Group" Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
- Jim O'Neill (26 August 2010). "How Africa can become the next Bric". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- "Acronym alert: the Eagles rock, beyondbrics blog". Beyondbrics Blog. 15 November 2010. Archived from the original on 6 April 2012. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- ^ "Our Thinking" (PDF). Goldman Sachs. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 August 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
- "Correio Da Manha, newspaper". Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2008.
- Pal, Mukul (23 April 2007). "Business Standard, "Emerging risk and return"". Business Standard India. Archived from the original on 3 March 2008. Retrieved 29 November 2008.
- "Company News Group, "L'oreal, first quarter sales report"". Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2008.
- Martin, Eric (7 August 2012). "Goldman Sachs's MIST Topping BRICs as Smaller Markets Outperform". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
- Spence, Peter (13 October 2014). "Beyond the BRICs: the guide to every emerging market acronym". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 8 December 2023.
- "'Bric' creator adds newcomers to list". Financial Times.
- Ernesto Gallo; Giovanni Biava (3 April 2013). "After the BRICS, is now time for the MIKT?". Alberto Forchielli. Archived from the original on 22 September 2017. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
- Matthew Boesler (13 November 2013). "The Economist Who Invented The BRICs Just Invented A Whole New Group of Countries: The MINTs". Business Insider. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
- "BRIC thesis Goldman Sachs Investment Bank, "BRIC"" (PDF). Gs.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2006. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- Global Economics Paper No: 153 The N-11m: More Than an Acronym, 28 March 2007. Archived 11 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine
- "Archived Document" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 February 2009. Retrieved 8 December 2008.
- "Unified Korea to Exceed G7 in 2050". Korea Times. 21 September 2009. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- Carl B. Haselden Jr. "The Effects of Korean Unification on the US Military Presence in Northeast Asia". Parameters, Vol. 32, 2002. Archived from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- "Global Economics Paper No: 188 "A United Korea?"" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
Bibliography
- Elder, Miriam, and Leahy, Joe, et al., Who's who: Bric leaders take their place at the top table, Financial Times, London, 25 September 2008
- Firzli, M. Nicolas, "Forecasting the Future: The BRICs and the China Model", JTW/ USAK Research Center, 9 March 2011
- Kateb, Alexandre, Les nouvelles puissances mondiales. Pourquoi les BRIC changent le monde" (The new global powers. Why the BRIC change the world) (in French), Paris : Ellipses, 2011, 272 p. ISBN 978-2-7298-6473-6
- O'Neill, Jim, BRICs could point the way out of the Economic Mire, Financial Times, London, 23 September 2008, p. 28.
- Mark Kobayashi-Hillary, 'Building a Future with BRICs: The Next Decade for Offshoring' (Nov 2007). ISBN 978-3-540-46453-2.
- James D. Sidaway (2012) 'Geographies of Development: New Maps, New Visions?', The Professional Geographer, 64:1, 49–62.
- J. Vercueil, Les pays émergents. Brésil-Russie-Inde-Chine... Mutations économiques et nouveaux défis (Emerging Countries. Brazil – Russia – India – China... Economic Transformations and new Challenges) (in French), Paris : Bréal, 2010, 207 p. ISBN 978-2-7495-0957-0
- Paulo Borba Casella, "BRIC : Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud – A l'heure d'un nouvel ordre juridique international", éd. A.Pedone, Paris, Sept. 2011, EAN ISBN 978-2-233-00626-4
BRICS | |
---|---|
Membership | |
Summits | |
Bilateral relations | |
Leaders | |
Sports | |
Related |
- BRICS
- 2000s in economic history
- Economic country classifications
- Multilateral relations of Brazil
- Multilateral relations of China
- Multilateral relations of India
- Multilateral relations of Russia
- Multilateral relations of South Africa
- Brazil–China relations
- Brazil–India relations
- Brazil–Russia relations
- Brazil–South Africa relations
- China–India relations
- China–Russia relations
- China–South Africa relations
- India–Russia relations
- India–South Africa relations
- Russia–South Africa relations