The dynamics of informal institutions and counterhegemony: introducing a BRICS Convergence Index (original) (raw)
Related papers
The BRICS: Seeking Privileges by Constructing and Running Multilateral Institutions
How should we think of the decisions made by China and the other BRICS countries to establish a series of new institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS-led New Development Bank (NDB)? Does such activism show that rising powers are embracing or confronting today's Western-led order? This article argues that rather than analyzing emerging powers' beliefs about rules and norms, these new institutions can best be understood as a tool to enhance their capacity to gain privileges of leadership , and slowly reduce the United States' institutional centrality which provides it with a hegemonic privilege. Such privilege is seen to allow states to break the rules without asking for a " permission slip " and without fearing institutional punishment. The proliferation of non-Western institutions would appear to complement existing ones and allow rising powers to engage in forum shopping on a trans-regional level. Such forum shopping for the BRICS would seem to provide advantages, including reducing their dependence on Western-led institutions when they are perceived by the BRICS and others to serve the interests of established powers.
A Decade of Emergence: The BRICS’ Institutional Densification Process
Journal of China and International Relations, 2018
The article aims at presenting a discussion about the processes of institutionalization and the expansion of the BRICS through its eight summits. Two issue areas will be emphasised: (i) international political economy – particularly international development – and (ii) international security. The hypothesis is that the BRICS forum has passed through an institutional densification process – see the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Agreement. In such a process, despite the increasing relevance of international security issues, this occurs because of the geopolitical transformation of contemporary capitalism. In such a context, there are different patterns of institutional densification directly related to the role of the BRICS in the world order.
We discuss the representation of BRICS in Global Economic Governance (GEG) and the institutional consequences of their attempts to redress their under-representation in multilateral institutions. We start from the observation, shared by major IR theories, that multilateral institutions need to adequately represent all the important powers in the international system if they are to remain stable, effective, and legitimate. We discuss representation conflicts between BRICS and the established powers in four major GEG institutions: the G7/G20, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. For each case we identify the nature of the representation conflict and discuss the institutional outcomes of the conflict in terms of (1) adjusting representation itself, (2) the impact on policy output, and (3) the emergence (or not) of institutional fragmentation. While in the G7/G20 case we observe a relatively successful case of increased BRICS representation and of rapid institutional adjustment, in the WTO case, theincreased representation of BRICS is accompanied by policy deadlock and fragmentation. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have responded to representation conflicts mostly cosmetically, leading to institutional fragmentation trends. We argue that major GEG institutions face a double challenge in relation to the BRICS: they need both to accord new powers increased representation, and they need to maintain policy performance. When institutions fail on either of these conditions, they open the doors to institutional fragmentation.
ARTICLE ABSTRACT The international system embarked on a process of transformation to a more heterogeneous configuration and debates of multipolarity acquired vibrancy in recent years. The formation of groupings such as the BRICS by emerging powers was interpreted as the harbinger of a novel global order. This study presents a nuanced account of recent global trends through a critical reading of the BRICS both as analytical category and an international actor. Thus, the heterogeneity of its members in terms of political regimes, economic strategies, geo-strategic alignments and national interest formations is emphasized. In contrast to premature 'power shift' arguments, a more subtle approach that underlines complex forms of interdependence between established and emerging global actors is proposed. Consequently, the BRICS is conceptualized as an 'international re-gime' operating relatively well in a specific field of international relations, nothing more. I n the first decade of the new millennium, the international system embarked on a grand process of transformation from the short-lived and unipolar post-Cold War regime to an unprecedented and heterogeneous configuration of international relations and a global political economy. This profound transition is perceived to stem from a multifaceted shift from Western political , economic, and cultural predominance to a more diverse and sophisticated system in which emerging/resurgent powers increasingly assert their respective interest formulations, distinctive values and worldviews. Therefore, in the developing international system, the complex diversification and asymmetric distribution of national/regional and public/private power assets arguably create obstacles to the unilateral temptations of all global powers, albeit with varying degrees. The wider redistribution of political and economic power elements , as well as deepening interdependence among the established and new actors, are the fundamental ingredients of the emerging global order which render issues of global governance increasingly vital. On the side of the global political economy, the main driving forces of the
The Institutional Status of the BRICS and Pragmatic Cooperation: The Case of South America
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), a group of emerging powers, is a pragmatic political group in which members are not always in agreement. Internal cooperation in BRICS evolved, becoming more “institutional” with the creation of its financial institutions, the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Agreement (CRA), which have led the group to the next stage in its development without changing its essence. The NDB was created to mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging and developing countries, and the CRA to provide liquidity to countries that face balance of payments difficulties and to future economic crises. Many developing countries are keenly observing these financial institutions. A number of South American countries appear particularly interested in these financial institutions, and would like to attract investments and obtain loans from BRICS to develop the infrastructures of their countries, and to build informal relationships with foreign partners, but without the same level of political commitments as those between BRICS members. South American countries see BRICS as an example of pragmatic cooperation that is different to the modus operandi of traditional powers, and its financial institutions as an alternative to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank for financial aid. The relations between BRICS and South America are characterized by a pragmatic approach reflecting the ethos of the group and the necessity for modernization in South America. This article analyzes the particular relationship that BRICS is establishing with South American countries, using its institutional status and pragmatic approach.
Canadian Journal of Political Science
What strategies will states pursue in managing their relations with more powerful neighbours? International Relations scholarship identifies a wide range of policy options open to “secondary states,” including soft balancing, bandwagoning and institutional binding. We provide a conceptual framework to distinguish between these similar and often conflated institutional strategies on the basis of two dimensions: threat perception and inclusiveness. We then apply this framework to the inter-American system. Analyzing original data on treaty action between 1946 and 2015, we find that secondary states’ adherence to multilateral agreements increases when the United States participates and when states do not perceive the hegemon to be a threat. These findings suggest that institutional binding captures the dynamics of inter-American cooperation more adequately than either soft balancing or bandwagoning: states balance against perceived threats but bind their friends.