Группа авторов

The Political Economy of the BRICS Countries


Скачать книгу

which might constrain emerging powers in their ability to achieve their goals (Ziegler, 2014: 592–593). Rather than see state behavior either as a function of domestic politics, or a single-minded pursuit of greater international influence, neo-classical realists see state behavior as being affected by relative changes in power. With increasing relative power comes a desire to gain more influence internationally. When relative power decreases, the desire for greater international influence is concomitantly reduced (Rose, 1998: 151–152). This implies that any decline in relative power, caused by domestic factors, could seriously undermine a states’ ability to seek greater power and influence abroad.

      Most studies of the emergence BRICS have focused on a neo-realist approach to understanding their motivations in joining hands to gain for themselves a more influential role in international affairs. Seen from this perspective, the attempt by the BRICS countries to bring about changes in the international system is based on their belief that their economic strength vis-à-vis the G7 had increased since the 2008 financial crisis and therefore necessities their recognition as major powers in the international system through structural reform of existing international institutions — the UN, the IMF and the World Bank (Stuenkel, 2014; Hou, 2014).

      Seen from this perspective, the path to economic growth chosen by the five BRICS countries and the impact these choices have on internal stability and regime legitimacy will determine the ability of the BRICS bloc to exert enough influence internationally to bring about significant changes in the international system.

      Initial Growth Paths

      Identifying initial growth paths for the five countries that comprise BRICS can be difficult given their diverse histories. However, it is relatively easier to establish the dates of regime changes that led to significant changes in growth policies that impact the nature and quality of economic growth at present. India and China gained the ability to develop autarkic development policy in the 1940s — India when it gained independence from Britain in 1947 and China when the Communist Party captured power in 1949. Democratic governments were established in Brazil in 1985, in Russia in 1991, and in South Africa in 1994. Economic policy under new regimes in all five countries were designed with the objective of achieving rapid and equitable economic growth. However, the outcome of policy has been varied, and these could be traced back to the initial growth strategies adopted by these five countries.

      It needs to be recognized that China’s initial path to economic development was the consequence of a revolution in China that brought a Communist Party, committed to elimination of landlordism and capitalist modes of production, to power. China’s relative homogeneity, provided by the dominance of the Han Chinese in its population, also ensured domestic stability (Saith, 2008: 726). In India, by contrast, the government that came to power in 1947, though democratic and socialist in orientation, was dominated by urban elites, indigenous industrialists, and rural landowners. It placed greater emphasis on developing agriculture by incentivizing higher levels of production within existing rural land-ownership structures and in rapid industrialization through a process of planned economic development (Patnaik, 2000). The economy was also affected by violence that accompanied the partition of the sub-continent into two states, India and Pakistan. Land reform measures, though enacted were never implemented, except in a few regions, because of strong organized resistance from rural landlords who were often local leaders of the ruling Congress Party (Kaviraj, 2000: 50). Lack of access to economic resources meant that the vast majority of rural landless peasants were dependent on the rural landowning classes for their survival. This dependence reduced their ability to influence government policy through the democratic political process. It is ironic that this failure of government to ensure basic levels of social security and economic empowerment happened in a liberal democracy which held regular elections, and relatively greater success was achieved in China under a Communist regime that was not faced with the prospect of loss of power through democratic processes.