The BRICS Model of Global Governance: The Underlying Logic and Working Roadmap
In November 2001, Jim O’Neill, former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs, formally put forward the concept of BRIC after an in-depth analysis of the growth potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China? In June 2006, Goldman Sachs launched its BRIC fund, trying to gain from the growth potential of the four countries. Three months after the launch of the BRIC fund, foreign ministers of the four countries met for the first time on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, marking the beginning of BRIC cooperation. Then, in June 2009, the BRIC leaders held their first summit in Russia. Following South Africas accession to the group in 2011, BRIC was enlarged to BRICS. Finally, in July 2015, the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) was launched in Shanghai and became the backbone of BRICS institutional cooperation.
Goldman Sachs’ BRICS-focused investment fund did not do well despite the increasing cooperation among BRICS countries. Goldman Sachs closed the fund in October 2015 after losing 90% of its asset from the 2010 peak amid lackluster return performance. In addition, the average economic growth rate of BRICS countries dropped significantly relative to its peak in 2007. IMF data shows that the average economic growth rate of the five BRICS countries was 5.1% in 2015, down 6.0 percentage points in eight years.
In 2020, BRICS countries registered a negative growth rate of 0.8%, significantly lower than the post-global financial crisis growth rate of 7.0% in 2009? At the same time, BRICS members show a diverging trend in economic growth. For example, from 2005 to 2021, the average economic growth rates of China and India were 8.5% and 6.6% respectively; while those of Russia, Brazil and South Africa were 2.6%, 2.0% and 2.0%.
In this context, questions over the continued relevance of BRICS surface from time to time. Some claimed that BRICS is a fMlacy and has lost its former glory, while others asserted that China is using BRICS as a tool to reshape global economic governance with its dominant size within BRICS.
Negative comments over BRICS have not deterred members from further cooperation. On the contrary, the members moved ahead to work together in many areas, such as economy and trade, finance and banking, political security, and cultural exchanges. Moreover, many countries have recently expressed their willingness to join the BRICS cooperation mechanism, and the enthusiasm demonstrated the attraction of BRICS. Judging the potential of BRICS based on individual members economic performance fails to capture the significance of the BRICS cooperation mechanism.
BRICS is more than a symbol and a political concept, as early studies suggested. The BRICS cooperation mechanism has gone a long way from the investment concept of BRIC proposed by Goldman Sachs and has little to do with the fluctuating economic growth of members.
How to better understand the achievements and contributions of the BRICS cooperation mechanism is a relevant academic and real-life question. Global governance in the past decade has failed to resolve many pressing global issues and the global governance deficit keeps on compounding. Against such a backdrop, the establishment of BRICS, a new platform for international cooperation among geographically dispersed members with significant differences in politics, economy, culture, and history provides a forum worth exploring. It helps to meet the needs of global governance in todays world and address the urgent needs of emerging economies. The impact of BRICS countries on global governance is reflected not only at economic and political levels. In general, the BRICS cooperation mechanism is the product of economic globalization. The vitality of BRICS lies in the fact that its members have found a new model of global governance that adapts to their development needs and fits the current environment.
The Role of BRICS and Its Innovation of Global Governance Patterns
As emerging economies with huge growth potential, BRICS countries have maintained relatively high economic growth rates as a bloc, and their influence on global governance continues to increase. Over a decade, BRICS countries have created a new model for emerging and developing markets to participate in global governance.
The role of BRICS in global governance
The current global governance system is dominated by developed countries like the US, with little voice and participation from emerging markets and developing countries despite their increasing economic contribution to the world. The BRICS cooperation has had a global governance function due to its cross-regional nature. At the same time, the uniqueness of BRICS membership endows the cooperation mechanism with a special role different from that of developed economies in the process of global governance, which is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
First, BRICS is an advocate of the new concept of global governance. In July 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech during the sixth BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, and proposed the BRICS spirit of openness, inclusiveness, cooperation and win-win results. The proposal provided new conceptual support for a new type of international relations and global governance. The BRICS spirit upholds forging partnerships rather than straight-)acket alliances, advocates mutual respect and common progress, and pursues mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. Guided by the spirit, BRICS countries actively participate in international cooperation and global governance, constantly expanding their “circle of friends,, featuring openness, inclusiveness, cooperation and win-win results, thereby increasing their influence on global governance.
Second, BRICS creates a new foundation of global governance. The extent of the power gap among major countries is a key variable amid the profound change unseen in a century. Economic power is the most comprehensive and commonly used indicator to measure national power? The change in the balance of international economic power has brought about adjustment and transformation of the global governance system. In this process, BRICS countries have played an irreplaceable role. Over the past few decades, the overall economic growth rate of BRICS countries has been far higher than that of developed economies as well as average emerging markets and developing countries. IMF data shows that in 2021, the total GDP of BRICS countries at market exchange rate accounted for 25.2% of the world, 14.5 percentage points higher than that in 2005; their total GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) has already exceeded that of G7 countries in 2020.9 These changes have made BRICS and G7 occupy more balanced positions in global governance mechanisms like the G20 and gradually promoted the “dual-core” trend in global governance.
Finally, BRICS is a provider of new platforms for global governance. Since its establishment, BRICS has played at least three important roles in the international community; First, it provides a platform for cooperation between emerging markets and developing countries. BRICS represents the interests of emerging markets and developing countries in the process of global governance reform. Through the “BRICS Plus” mechanism, more emerging markets and developing countries are included in BRICS cooperation to coordinate their positions and speak with one voice. Second, it is a platform for dialogue between developed and developing economies. On important international occasions such as the UN General Assembly and G20 summits, BRICS countries have established coordination mechanisms with developed economies to address global affairs and enhance policy alignment. Third, it provides a platform for practicing the community with a shared future for mankind. BRICS cooperation covers all the global issues affecting the well-being of mankind. By pursuing true multilateralism and building a community of human security and a community of global development, BRICS countries have contributed their strength to building a community with a shared future for mankind.
BRICS innovation of global governance patterns
The rise of global governance is one of the most important ways for mankind to cope with global issues and challenges. No country can stay unscathed, nor can it cope with these challenges on its own. Therefore, global governance has become an important agenda of all international institutions and the policy focus of all countries. Over the past decades, countries worldwide have become more aware of the importance of participating in global governance, and the international community has also increased its input in global governance. However, global challenges have become more pressing, and the deficit of global governance continued unabated. At the global level, the governance pattern dominated by developed countries is facing more and more criticism, and innovation of the current pattern has become a core issue of global governance reform.
Global governance is a kind of governance without government. The peculiarity endows global governance with very different attributes from national governance. In the international community; the motivation and purpose of various actors participating in international interaction are closely related to their pursuit of self-interests. Due to the lack of central authority, international institutions are the only way to constrain various actors’ behavior and regulate their relationships. Hence, global governance is regarded as rules-based governance. However, what is severely deficient in current global governance is the strong action that is needed in the realization of interests and the implementation of rules. Based on this, the global governance pattern should consist of at least the three dimensions of interests, institutions, and actions, which can be evaluated from interest-driven, institutional framework and action-oriented perspectives.
In the three-pillar governance pattern of interests, institutions and actions, BRICS cooperation embodies the following characteristics. First, it pursues inclusive interests. From the inward dimension, inclusive interests are embodied in the inclusion of interests among members. From the outward dimension, inclusive interests mean the inclusion of interests between members and non-members. Second, it promotes the formation of synergistic institutions. The BRICS cooperation mechanism considers the flexibility of informal institutions, the executive power of formal institutions, the holistic nature of summits, and the specialization of functional institutions. Lastly, it continues to deepen pragmatic cooperation. Under the cooperation framework driven in parallel by economy and finance, politics and security, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges, BRICS countries have taken pragmatic actions to promote cooperation, providing strong support to the stability of their cooperation. With the gradual deepening of the BRICS cooperation process, the BRICS model of global governance not only provides a strong guarantee for BRICS cooperation but also offers important inspiration and reference for the reform and improvement of the current global governance system.
The BRICS Interest-Driven Model and the Dynamic Foundation of Global Governance
National interest is the most basic element driving state-to-state interaction in international relations, and it is natural that BRICS countries have their respective interests in establishing the cooperation mechanism, deepening cooperation with each other, and participating in global governance. There are commonalities between each partys interests, but also differences and even conflicts. At present, BRICS cooperation conforms to the common interests of all parties, promotes the coordination of their interests, maximizes the inclusiveness of their different demands, and effectively solves the problems under an interest-driven model.
Common and conflicting interests of global governance
For a long time, common interests have been regarded as the motivation for cooperation. As the common or convergent part of different countries5 interests in the state of interdependence, common interests reflect common benefits and common threats, constituting the basis for international cooperation under bilateral, multilateral and global frameworks. In the early studies of international cooperation, regional integration and alliances, common interests often played a very important role in explaining the common choices of actors. For example, common development demands and responses to common threats can constitute reasonable explanations for joint actions. In global governance, the prominence of global issues has made it a common aspiration of all countries to deal with the common threats facing mankind and safeguard the space for human survival and development.
However, more and more global governance practices have posed the question whether common interests can effectively promote international cooperation. On the one hand, sharing broad common interests does not necessarily promote global governance actions. Global issues, especially climate change, concern the interests of all mankind. The frequent occurrence of extreme climate disasters has become a major challenge to the survival and development of all countries. However, the facts are that many countries have failed to take effective action to deal with global issues such as climate change and that the global governance deficit has gradually accumulated. On the other hand, there are wide differences and divergences between each co un try s interests in global governance. In the international community, due to national heterogeneity, actors have different interests on various global issues, and their involvement in global governance varies in different areas?5 In addition, many countries are often reluctant to cooperate or even hinder cooperation without considering relative benefits. This apathy shows that differences and conflicts between national interests are important prerequisites for understanding global governance. However, conflicts of interests do not always hinder cooperation. On the contrary, these conflicts contain a common basis for promoting cooperation between the conflicting parties to achieve mutual benefit and win-win results. Of course, “benefit” and “win” often mean different things for different parties.
In summary, existing research on global governance recognizes the positive effect of both common and conflicting interests on joint actions. Since there is no “world government,it is normal for human society to face the coexistence of common interests and conflicting interests in global governance. However, common and conflicting interests are not diametrically opposed or isolated from each other; they can be a contradictory unity that exists between countries.
BRICS inclusive interests drive momentum for cooperation
Regarding the participation in international cooperation and global governance, BRICS countries share common interests while having their different strategic objectives. Their common identity recognition has created opportunities for promoting the convergence of their interests, making BRICS one of the major long-lasting forces shaping the new architecture of international relations in the 21st century; As it strives to realize inclusive interests, BRICS has become an open international cooperation platform that is growing stronger and stronger. The cooperation between BRICS countries is based on their common interests while not avoiding the divergent part of their interests. It emphasizes the coordination of interests among its members and between members and non-members. This openness has sustained momentum in BRICS cooperation and promoted the “‘inclusive improvement” of the global governance system?0 BRICS countries are representative because they share common interests while maintaining differences in various fields. In the face of all kinds of differences, BRICS countries have achieved broad inclusion of interests due to their open and inclusive characteristics.
The BRICS cooperation mechanism is not closed or exclusive. It does not restrict, interfere with, or hinder its members’ cooperation with any other country; nor does it confine BRICS cooperation to its initial members. As early as 2011, the BRIC cooperation mechanism started its first expansion and admitted South Africa as a full member. As an important African economy South Africas accession has made BRICS become a large cross-regional cooperation mechanism linking Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In 2021, under the principles of gradual expansion and balanced geographical membership, the BRICS New Development Bank started its expansion process and accepted four new members: Bangladesh, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Uruguay, In June 2022, the Beijing Declaration released at the 14th BRICS summit clearly expressed support for promoting membership expansion based on <cfull consultation and consensus?>22 The declaration shows that BRICS countries have launched a new round of membership expansion and will make future-oriented institutional arrangements around it. The introduction of fresh blood will inject new vitality into BRICS cooperation and increase the representativeness and influence of BRICS.
Based on the “BRICS Plus” model, BRICS is slowly increasing its members and partners. It has generated strong momentum for emerging markets and developing economies to promote international cooperation, participate in global governance, and maximize mutual benefits and win-win results for all parties concerned. Since the Durban summit in South Africa in 2013, BRICS has strengthened its ties with other emerging markets and developing economies. During the 14th BRICS summit in 2022, political dignitaries attending the High-Level Dialogue on Global Development include leaders from Algeria, Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Malaysia, and Thailand- The move expanded the “BRICS Plus” cooperation to more emerging markets and developing economies, thus making BRICS a cooperation platform aligning with more countries.
BRICS inclusive interests and the renewal of global governance momentum
The difference between the BRICS model and the global governance mechanism dominated by a few developed countries stems from two different perceptions of international relations. The first one was proposed by James M. Buchanan Jr., founder of the public choice theory. Drawing inspiration from the analysis of interpersonal relationships in domestic society, he pointed out that there are at least two completely different ways to shape interpersonal relationships: one is based on equal relationship, meaning that people seek their personal interests under the constraint of accepting the fact that others are pursuing interests like themselves; the other is based on hierarchical relationship, indicating that people are in a certain position, superior to those in lower status, but subordinate to those in higher status. These two ways determine a persons understanding of the real world and thus influence their behavior?4 The same is true of the international community; Because of the existence of hegemonic countries, international inequality is still prominent, and hierarchy is still the reality in international politics. Inequality makes common interests of the international community scarce, while conflicting interests become difficult to reconcile.
In the field of global governance, the national interests of all countries are, to a large extent, indivisible. In the long run, in a highly interdependent world, no country can realize its interests by harming the interests of other countries. The goals of participating in global governance vary from country to country, but they are inextricably linked. To advocate and pursue inclusive interests in global governance is to consider the interests and concerns of all parties, to seek the convergence of interests and the greatest common denominator of cooperation, and to give full play to the strengths and potentials of all parties. The dilemma of global governance is mainly reflected in the serious lack of motivation for some countries to participate in global governance, which also profoundly shows that it is difficult for all parties to realize their own interests. For example, suppose a country formulates its goals and takes external actions based on a hierarchical relationship, its expectation of getting what it wants will inevitably increase, leading to its ignorance or even damage to other countries interests. As a result, all countries, including leaders and followers, are dissatisfied with the current global governance system, but it is difficult for them to make substantive progress in global governance reform through mutual compromise. Therefore, all countries worldwide, especially major countries, should advocate and practice the concept of openness and inclusiveness, consider other countries’ interests while pursuing their own, and shape the momentum for all parties to participate in global governance with inclusive interests.
The BRICS Institutional Framework and the Construction of Global Governance System
After trying out different approaches, BRICS has established a unique institutional system covering a wide range of fields and functions, with multiple levels and forms of cooperation, and created a new type of global governance system to deal with severe, complex, and interconnected global issues. Moreover, the establishment, development and improvement of the BRICS cooperation mechanism have provided innovative practices for reforming and constructing the global governance system.
Formal and informal institutions of global governance
Since the concept of global governance was introduced in the West, its definition has been inseparable from institutions or rules. As for the meaning of “governance,” James Rosenau earlier distinguished it from “government” and pointed out that governance embraces governmental institutions as well as informal and non-governmental mechanisms?6 The Commission on Global Governance defines governance as the “sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common afifairs/5 which includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interests. Oran R. Young indicates that global governance is “the sum of various international institutions, including intergovernmental institutions and international mechanisms involving nongovernmental organizations.
In China, Yu Keping, a noted pioneer in global governance research, holds that global governance is the democratic consultation and cooperation among governments, international organizations and citizens of all countries to maximize their common interests, whose core content should be to improve and develop a new international political and economic order to safeguard the security, peace, development, welfare, equality and human rights of all mankind, including the global rules and institutions for dealing with international political and economic issues. Another scholar Cai Tuo defines global governance as aa new kind of rules, mechanisms, methods and activities for managing public affairs, which is based on the value orientations of human holism and common interests, with equal dialogue, consultation and cooperation among multiple actors so as to jointly address global changes and challenges. Zhang Yuyan believes that global governance is the self-enforcing of international rules or mechanisms established by states or non-state actors to solve various global issues through negotiation and consultation in the absence of world government?1
In a word, the above theoretical analyses based on global governance practices take institutions as the core content of global governance and note the differences between formal and informal institutions in terms of form and binding force. However, we also need to pay attention to the synergistic effects of formal and informal institutions when assessing their function and effectiveness in complex systems.
BRICS institutional synergy as a guarantee for cooperation
The BRICS cooperation mechanism deeply integrates formal and informal institutions, combining the flexibility of informal institutions and the executive power of formal institutions, and considering the high-level nature of summits and the support from cooperation among functional departments. As a result, it can be said that the BRICS cooperation mechanism is a system of synergistic institutions, thus providing a strong guarantee for cooperation in various fields to the greatest extent.
First, the summit mechanism plans the overarching framework of BRICS cooperation. The annual BRICS summit has firmly grasped the overall situation of BRICS cooperation, coordinated positions and formulated plans, playing a pivotal strategic role. Since the first summit was held in Russia in June 2009, BRICS countries have maintained and deepened international cooperation at the highest level, reached a series of consensus, and promoted the establishment and development of other cooperation institutions and platforms under the BRICS framework. And since 2011, BRICS leaders have also held informal meetings during G20 summits to strengthen policy coordination on increasingly urgent global issues and challenges.
Second, cooperation on the ground among governmental functional departments has been promoted in a coordinated manner. BRICS cooperation started in the diplomatic arena. In September 2006, the foreign ministers of Brazil, China, India, and Russia held their first meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, marking the formal establishment of the BRIC cooperation mechanism* In addition to the foreign ministers5 meeting mechanism, BRICS countries have established multi-level cooperation mechanisms such as regular meetings of high representatives for security issues, ministerial meetings, sherpa meetings and irregular communication among envoys to multilateral institutions. BRICS countries have also held supporting activities such as entrepreneur forums, bank consortiums, think tank symposiums, financial forums, business forums, senior officials’ meetings, and expert-level workshops. These formal and informal institutions reached a series of legally binding agreements and rules, such as the Agreement between the Governments of the BRICS States on Cooperation in the Field of Culture, the BRICS Customs Mutual Administrative Assistance Agreement, and the Agreement on the Cooperation on BRICS Remote Sensing Satellite Constellation.
Third, the operating New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement support meaningful BRICS cooperation. It is an innovation in world economic history that major emerging economies jointly established a trans-regional multilateral development financial institution. The New Development Bank has established an operating mechanism with streamlined procedures, efficient decision-making and flexible responses. It is a new financial institution model that combines policy banks with commercial banks and provides indirect and direct financing. As a result, the bank has built a medium- to long-term and development-oriented international financial platform for emerging markets and developing economies. As a supplement to existing international monetary and financial mechanisms, the management model of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement also has its characteristics. Established under the Treaty for the Establishment of a BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the Arrangement determines each members share and voting rights. However, the reserve funds are scattered in member countries5 central banks instead of a centralized office space. Being a result of BRICS central banks’ policy coordination, the Arrangement is gradually strengthening its framework coordination with the IME
In a nutshell, the BRICS cooperation mechanism has formed a multilevel institutional framework in which formal and informal institutions support each other and move in a coordinated way, reflecting the agreed principles of gradual development, flexible decision-making, and effectiveness. Being loose but not scattered as a whole, the BRICS cooperation mechanism is highly structured in some areas, which meets the needs of its current development stage.
BRICS institutional synergy and the reconstruction of global governance system
At present, the existing institutions of global governance have covered almost all issue areas. Even in those emerging issue areas, the absence of governance institutions can be quickly remedied. However, the current global governance system fails to effectively manage these known issues and respond to the challenges, leading to the deterioration of problems on the ground, aggravating the growing global governance deficit, which could lead to the potential failure of global governance. The failure to execute shows that institutional deficit is one of the important reasons for global governance déficit. From the governance practices of the BRICS cooperation mechanism, one can surmise that the reconstruction of the global governance system calls for a more efficient institutional setup.
On the one hand, in the face of the increasingly serious problem of institutional fragmentation, building synergy among global governance institutions in different fields is a must. In specific issue areas, a series of often overlapping international institutions, which have no hierarchical differences, have resulted in a regime complexity. As a network of multiple international institutions with overlapping members but often different ideas and actions, regime complexity has led to governance fragmentation?4 Besides, given the increasing linkage across different issue areas, it is now necessary for various institutions originally with their clear division of labor to strengthen cooperation to address certain challenges. For example, as an international public health emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic is far beyond the capacity of existing institutions of global public health governance to handle it effectively; The World Health Organization cannot overcome this crisis that has seriously affected all countries5 economy, trade, society and politics.
On the other hand, we must build synergy between global governance institutions and national policies to solve the differentiation problem of national policies. In current global governance institutions, member states generally face deficits in their rights and responsibilities. The rights deficit is mainly manifested in many member states5 insufficient participation and failure to enjoy due representation and voice. For example, in the IMF governance structure, BRICS countries currently hold about 14% of the voting shares, while G7 members have about 42%, 2.9 times those of BRICS countries?5 However, in 2021, the GDP of BRICS countries was 57.3% of G7 at the market exchange rate and 102.6% of G7 at purchasing power parity; The responsibility déficit is mainly manifested in the fact that some developed countries cannot fulfill their international responsibilities and obligations. The inaction not only further aggravates the imbalance of rights and responsibilities in global governance but also seriously erodes the national foundation of the global governance system. Since global governance institutions cannot effectively adjust the relationship between countries5 rights and responsibilities, their ability to coordinate policies and actions among countries is greatly reduced, and the policy divergences of all countries in the field of global governance grow.
The BRICS Action-Oriented Approach and a Working Roadmap
BRICS countries focus on cooperation results and have achieved fruitful results that help all members gain tangible benefits. However, these achievements and benefits cannot be gained without efficient, pragmatic cooperation. The inspiration from the BRICS cooperation practices is that global governance must adhere to an action-oriented approach and take the path of pragmatic cooperation.
Issue-oriented and policy-oriented global governance
The fundamental task of global governance is managing the myriad of challenging global issues. For a long time, focusing on issues has become the primary driving force of global governance. To cope with the increasingly complex global issues, many governance institutions have emerged in various functional areas, and the goals and purposes of these institutions indicate the issue areas to be governed- As a result, there are more and more global governance institutions, while the effectiveness of global governance has not improved. The United Nations has built an institutional system covering many areas, which includes the UN itself and many subsidiary organizations known as funds, programs and specialized agencies that cover all major areas of global governance?7However, although the international community has fully recognized the necessity and urgency of dealing with various global issues, it does not mean they are being properly handled.
Policy coordination on global issues has become an important part of global governance, but it has not brought expected results. As one of the most important global governance mechanisms, the G20 plays an irreplaceable role in global macro-policy coordination. In addition to a series of consensus.
For better policy communication at the working level, the G20 has set up working or research groups under the Finance Track, which involve growth, international financial architecture, green finance, investment and infrastructure, climate finance and other fields. There are also working groups under the Sherpas5 Track involving education, employment, energy transformation, anticorruption, health, climate sustainability trade and investment, women business leaders, development, digital economy; and other fields. However, much of the policy communication is still in the initial phase of building policy consensus and has not been effectively promoted and implemented.
Therefore, issue- and policy-oriented global governance is only the necessary basis of global governance but has yet to be the sufficient condition to effectively address and solve global issues. At present, the main factor constraining the progress and effect of global governance is the action and execution of the participants.
BRICS pragmatic cooperation and its effectiveness
Pragmatic cooperation is the basis for the stability and long-term development of BRICS cooperation. BRICS has formed a three-pillar cooperation model anchored on economy; politics, and people-to-people and cultural engagement, with the objective to build a big market for trade and investment, achieve a smooth flow of currency and finance, realize infrastructure connectivity, and promote people-to-people and cultural exchanges. Over the years, the practical actions of BRICS countries and the pragmatic achievements they have made have continuously injected new momentum into BRICS cooperation and global governance.
In terms of trade and economic cooperation, BRICS countries continue to improve cooperation in trade and investment by relying on each others complementary advantages in industrial structure and resource endowment. In trade liberalization and investment facilitation, BRICS countries have formulated and implemented a series of policy agreements, including the BRICS Action Agenda on Economic and Trade Cooperation, the Outlines for BRICS Investment Facilitation, and the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2025, which have fostered closer trade links among members and increased their trade to a historic high. According to IMF data, the growth rate of trade volume among BRICS members is not only much higher than that of global trade but also higher than that of the foreign trade volume of each member. For example, in 2021, the trade in goods of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa with other BRICS members increased by 6.9, 6.0, 5.1, 5.2, and 3.3 times respectively, compared with 2005, while the foreign trade in goods of the five countries increased by 1.6, 3.3, 3.1, 1.3, and 1.0 times respectively in the same period- Global trade growth in goods only increased by 1.1 times in the same period. Also, in 2021, the trade in goods among BRICS members accounted for 31.2%, 8.1%, 15.6%, 20.8%, and 21.3% of the five countries5 respective foreign trade in goods, an increase of 20.9, 32 5.3, 12.9 and 11.3 percentage points compared with 2005.
On financial cooperation, BRICS has made a series of significant progress in such areas as currency swaps, local currency settlement and loan business, development finance, crisis relief and the reform of the international monetary and financial system, providing important support to meet BRICS countries’ investment and financing needs and minimize financial risks. In particular, the establishment and operation of the New Development Bank have demonstrated the BRICS speed of international cooperation: after the possibility of establishing such a multilateral finance institution was explored at the fourth BRICS summit in March 2012, the New Development Bank started operation in July 2015. The Bank has also achieved institutional innovation by building a governance structure based on equal shares, bank lending standards suited to borrowers5 institutional system, local currency financing and focus on sustainable infrastructure projects?8 As for operation, it only takes 1-2 years for projects of the New Development Bank to get approved, while for traditional multilateral institutions of the same kind, it usually takes 2-3 years. At the end of June 2022, member countries of the New Development Bank have increased to 9. In addition, the Bank has approved more than 80 loans, with total lending exceeding US$30 billion covering member countries5 urban development, water resources management, sanitation, digital infrastructure construction, and so on.
Concerning epidemic prevention and sustainable development, BRICS countries have carried out best practice sharing sessions and project cooperation based on their national conditions, thus contributing to global development. As early as 2015, BRICS countries agreed to collaborate in vaccine development and set up a joint vaccine R&D mechanism in 2018. In March 2022, the five nations held an online launch ceremony for the BRICS Wccine R&D Center. In addition, they started an initiative to make vaccines a global public good, enhance capacities for preventing infectious diseases and responding to public health emergencies, and conduct exchanges and cooperation ranging from vaccine development to epidemiological surveillance. Through various international organizations and initiatives, BRICS countries have donated over 1 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines, providing valuable assistance to many developing countries in their fight against the pandemic. Working to accelerate the implementation of the UNs 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, BRICS countries have reached a series of consensus on action plans for economic recovery, food security, industrial transformation, and climate change, formulated the BRICS Digital Economy Partnership Framework and established a digital economy working group.
For political security, BRICS countries have worked hard to safeguard the interests of developing countries in the UN Security Council and other institutions, which has enhanced the representation and voice of developing countries. It has also been playing an important role in counterterrorism, cyber security and international hotspot issues. For people-to-people and cultural exchanges, BRICS countries have held high-level meetings in various areas, including parliament, youth, culture, sports, tourism, women, and the media. In addition, the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Agreement between the Governments of the BRICS States on Cooperation in the Field of Culture (2022-2026) was agreed upon and signed in May 2022 to establish a cultural partnership featuring inclusiveness and mutual learning.
BRICS pragmatic cooperation and reshaping the path of global governance
The earlier success of BRICS cooperation and the difficulties in current global governance show that future global governance must be based on the three-pronged approach of being issue-oriented, policy-oriented and action-oriented and take pragmatic cooperation as the focus and direction.
The role of practical cooperation in promoting global governance is reflected in at least two aspects. First, it helps balance the input and output of global governance and solves the problem of insufficient incentives for participants. Over the last few decades, while the increase of global governance areas has called for more inputs, some global governance platforms have gradually become “talk shops.” Many issues have only been touched upon without an agreement, agreed upon without an action plan, or acted upon without concrete outcomes. As a result, many participants are receiving fewer tangible benefits from global governance, and the imbalance between input and output and the contrast between expectations and reality are becoming increasingly obvious, which leads to weakening momentum of global governance and unsustainable international cooperation.
Second, pragmatic cooperation helps everyone share the improvements in global governance and generate supportive public opinion. However, sharing the achievements, which are the momentum and guarantee for the stability of global governance, will be impossible without tangible benefits that the public can feel. Almost all global issues are connected to globalization in one way or another, but not all of them are the inevitable outcome of globalization. In general, economic globalization expands the allocation of resources from within the country to the whole world, and improves the efficiency of resource allocation and thus enhances global welfare. The rising trend of anti-globalization reflects the inadequate global action to minimize the negative effects of globalization and the inability to safeguard and balance the interests of different groups, which has shaken the public opinion foundation of global governance and further aggravated its dilemma of action.
At present, reshaping the path of global governance through pragmatic cooperation is the inevitable choice and fundamental way to alleviate the dilemma of global governance. Specifically, it can be achieved from the following three aspects. First, removing obstacles that hinder pragmatic cooperation. We must fight against the politicization, instrumentalization and weaponization of global governance, reject ideologically-driven and value-based activities that sabotage cooperation and create divisions, and resist the attempt to put one countrys interests over those of other countries or even the world. Second, focusing on key areas of pragmatic cooperation. Global governance needs to serve peoples well-being, prosperity and stability, promote world development and safeguard global security; and meet the interests of developing countries and poor people in all countries. Third, strengthening the institutional guarantee of pragmatic cooperation. A good institutional framework requires promoting the reform and improvement of the global governance system in terms of setting agendas, allocating resources, evaluating performance, ensuring enforcement, as well as providing incentives and disincentives, in order to set goals, plan actions, solve difficulties, and achieve tangible results for pragmatic cooperation.
Conclusion
BRICS countries are advocates of new concepts of global governance, creators of new foundations for global governance, and providers of new platforms for global governance. Since its establishment, BRICS has earnestly practiced the spirit of openness, inclusiveness, cooperation and win-win results, actively responded to various risks and challenges in the momentous changes unseen in a century, and continuously fostered a comprehensive, close, pragmatic, and inclusive high-quality partnership in a complex and severe international environment. The BRICS cooperation mechanism has become an important platform for emerging markets and developing economies to deepen international cooperation and participate in global governance. It plays an irreplaceable role in enhancing the voice of emerging and developing economies in global governance. BRICS countries have created a new model for emerging and developing markets to participate in global governance. The bloc integrates an interest-driven model, an institutional framework and an action-oriented approach in its operation, providing important inspirations for reforming and constructing the global governance system.
BRICS countries have tried to accommodate every members interests to gain momentum for cooperation. Despite their extensive common interests, BRICS countries also have different positions in some areas. One of the reasons the disagreements among BRICS members do not hinder their cooperation is that they strive to accommodate the interests of each other with openness and cooperation. Internally, BRICS does not restrict intra-bloc cooperation. For example, the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum and the Russia-India-China (RIC) cooperation mechanism work well within BRICS cooperation. Externally; BRICS countries have established and continuously expanded the “BRICS Plus” model, uniting other emerging markets and developing economies to further promote international cooperation and participate in global governance. The crux of problems facing current global governance is that the interests and appeals of many countries have been ignored or even undermined, leading to their reluctance to participate in global governance. In a real world where common interests are scarce and conflicting interests abound, only inclusive interests can provide sustainable momentum for global governance.
BRICS countries have promoted the synergy of institutions to maximize effectiveness. The BRICS cooperation mechanism has formed an all-around institutional framework with the leaders’ summit as the guide, cooperation among functional departments as the pillar, physical entities as the link, and “BRICS Plus” as the extension. Such a framework has achieved deep integration of formal and informal institutions, efifectively giving play to the flexibility of informal institutions and the executive force of formal institutions. It has also formed a synergistic system of institutions with complementary functions and mutual compatibility, thus providing a strong guarantee for BRICS cooperation in various fields to the greatest extent. As the operation of the BRICS institutional framework shows, synergy is a must in the reconstruction of the global governance system to improve institutional efifectiveness. On the one hand, in the foce of the increasingly serious problem of institutional fragmentation, it is all the more necessary to build synergy among global governance institutions in dififerent fields. On the other hand, we must synergize global governance institutions and national policies to solve the dififerentiation problem of national policies.
Finally, BRICS countries, by deepening their pragmatic cooperation, have tapped their development potential. The success of BRICS cooperation in dispelling doubts and overcoming obstacles lies in its pragmatic cooperation. At present, BRICS has formed a cooperation pattern driven in parallel by economy and finance, politics and security, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges, which covers dozens of fields including economy and trade, finance and banking, industry, agriculture, scientific and technological innovation, aerospace, communications, energy, climate change, disaster management, sustainable development, labor and employment, education, sports, culture, health, tourism, customs, intellectual property, audit, statistics, taxation, and anti-corruption. As the fruitful results of BRICS pragmatic cooperation demonstrate, global governance must adhere to the three-pronged approach of being issue-oriented, policy-oriented and action-oriented, and take pragmatic cooperation as its focus and direction. It must also provide sufficient incentives for participants to consolidate its public opinion foundation. To this end, countries across the world should work to remove obstacles to pragmatic cooperation, focus on key areas and strengthen institutional guarantees of their pragmatic cooperation, to pursue efifective solutions to global governance challenges.