What does the rise of BRIC imply?
We've been discussing fundamental change, and whether it is possible according to differing schools of thought. Realists argue that fundamental change isn't possible because it is grounded in consistent human nature, driven by self-interests. Liberals would argue that it is possible through international institutions and shared ideas. Does the rise of the BRIC states represent a fundamental change to the nature of the international system?
With the formation and continued growth of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the inevitable shift in global world order from unipolarity to multipolarity is becoming more and more apparent. BRIC's presence and power in the global political system is driven by cultural diversity, economic inequality, political fragmentation, and conflict of interest between wealthy industrialized countries and emerging economies. These countries are seeking to establish more sovereignty. BRIC challenges Western hegemony, and this could lead to re-shaping world order.
BRIC countries account for four of the largest world economies. The emerging market economies present in BRIC play an important role in the worldwide economy and the development of domestic economies. They are considered financial powers: protected themselves against the recession utilizing foreign assets, significant share of foreign exchange reserves, modest or stable public-debt levels, and increasing focus on diverting extra funds to internal improvement projects.
Predictions place the combined BRIC economies surpassing the world's six largest economies in less than 40 years. Could their economic growth signify a decline in the Western world? It could just be a re-balancing, a return to equilibrium between West and East. Not only is BRIC an influence to the worldwide economy, but this economic advantage has given them soft power to exercise. Through the organizations of meetings to discuss international issues, their part in the reformation of the IMF and World Bank, and active role in G20, they are able to attract allies and supporters in order to grow their influence around the world. They are able to promulgate an idea different from the Western model that countries could follow.
In this sense, I would say that a change in the system is imminent. Whether that would be a fundamental change, I am unsure. It would definitely substantially change our international system, but I don't believe that it would change human nature. As realists would point out, the pursuit of power in an unequal world would still be prevalent and that means that the nature of international politics hasn't changed.
With the formation and continued growth of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the inevitable shift in global world order from unipolarity to multipolarity is becoming more and more apparent. BRIC's presence and power in the global political system is driven by cultural diversity, economic inequality, political fragmentation, and conflict of interest between wealthy industrialized countries and emerging economies. These countries are seeking to establish more sovereignty. BRIC challenges Western hegemony, and this could lead to re-shaping world order.
BRIC countries account for four of the largest world economies. The emerging market economies present in BRIC play an important role in the worldwide economy and the development of domestic economies. They are considered financial powers: protected themselves against the recession utilizing foreign assets, significant share of foreign exchange reserves, modest or stable public-debt levels, and increasing focus on diverting extra funds to internal improvement projects.
Predictions place the combined BRIC economies surpassing the world's six largest economies in less than 40 years. Could their economic growth signify a decline in the Western world? It could just be a re-balancing, a return to equilibrium between West and East. Not only is BRIC an influence to the worldwide economy, but this economic advantage has given them soft power to exercise. Through the organizations of meetings to discuss international issues, their part in the reformation of the IMF and World Bank, and active role in G20, they are able to attract allies and supporters in order to grow their influence around the world. They are able to promulgate an idea different from the Western model that countries could follow.
In this sense, I would say that a change in the system is imminent. Whether that would be a fundamental change, I am unsure. It would definitely substantially change our international system, but I don't believe that it would change human nature. As realists would point out, the pursuit of power in an unequal world would still be prevalent and that means that the nature of international politics hasn't changed.
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteBRIC is a good example to analyze especially while covering fundamental change and whether or not it is possible. I think the authors of “The Rational Design of International Institutions” would argue that the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are important because fundamental change can take place through international institutions and cooperation between actors. As you say, the BRIC plays an important role in the worldwide economy. Therefore, as the BRIC gain power they become more competitive and will undoubtedly influence the roles of other actors but also help redefine the rules of the international systems in which they are involved like the IMF, the World Banks and even the G-20. According to Koremenos, Lipson and SNidal, the increasing interdependence between actors creates cooperation which helps create fundamental change.
Thank you for bringing up BRIC! In light of the recent G7 summit, it made me think of Jim O’Neill, aka Terence James O'Neill, aka Baron O'Neill of Gatley, former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and former Conservative government minister, a British economist best known for coining BRIC. O’Neill had predicted that the growing economic importance of Brazil, Russia, India and China would eventually cause a significant change to global economic governance. Evaluating the 44th G7 summit, O'Neill commented that it now “serves little other purpose than to keep its member states’ civil servants busy.”
ReplyDeleteO'Neill believed that 17 years ago, when it was formed, G7 was comprised of “the seven western democracies with the largest economies,” but at this point, the G7 no longer dominates the world economy. This year China is projected to overtake the entire Eurozone, and India’s GDP is already larger than Italy’s.
O'Neill maintains that the fact that global financial markets showed little concern about the confusion in Quebec last weekend only proves that G7 no longer matters.
O'Neill asserts that G20 provides a much better global governance forum than G7; even if a greater number of participants makes it harder to reach a consensus, it is also much more representative. While O'Neill believes a smaller group could still have a future to play alongside G20, that is only if they start offering specific ideas about the future of global governance.
I very much agree that BRIC nations are a powerful force for change in the world. If you look at the force with which these nations are embracing globalization and attempting to latch onto niche markets you can clearly see their opportunistic side coming out. I would argue that social media and instant communication has empowered these nations which have typically suffered from poor infrastructure. India's push to become a leader in solar panels, China's undeniable dominance on cheap goods, and Brazil's budding ventures into space exploration show how these nations are seeking to challenge global leaders in industries that are lacking definitive leadership.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great point that social media has extended these countries' reach. Globalization definitely plays a factor in shifting the dynamics within International Relations. The game is on with China actively seeking any opportunity to create alliances and promote a different social/political culture across the world. It'll be interesting to see how this overall affects some of our institutions and agreements.
Delete