1

The Role of BRICS in the G20

WORK IN PROGRESS
Pablo Henrique Souza Souto
Bachelor at the International Relations Graduate Program
Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais
Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Phone: +55 31 9963 8221
e-mail: pablohss13@hotmail.com
br.linkedin.com/pub/pablo-souza/42/3a2/999
Rafael Bittencourt Rodrigues Lopes
Bachelor Student at the International Relations Graduate Program
Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais
Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Phone: +55 31 9192 5207
e-mail: bittencourt.ri@gmail.com
br.linkedin.com/in/bittencourtrafael/en
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San
Francisco, California, USA, April 3-6, 2013.
Panel:

Building New International Organizations and Norms BRIC by BRIC?

FC32 Friday 1:45 - 3:30 PM; Sponsor: The Politics of International Diffusion:
Regional and Global Dimensions (Theme)

Abstract: G20 (Group of Twenty), that had a relevant role on the processes and
deliberations arising from the Asiatic crisis in 1997, gains Summit meetings status during the
2008 crisis, allowing the leaders from 20 of the greatest world economies including
European Union to discuss and negotiate solutions for problems related to global economic
questions. Between G20 members, BRICS stands out due to its leading an action for
changes in the global governance, taking advantage from this moment of growth of their
economies and crisis on the traditional powers. This leadership calls for reforms in the UN
system and in the international financial institutions and demand a multipolar order, besides
putting new questions and challenges in the international system. In this context, this article
seeks to analyze the emergence of BRICS-countries in the international scenario, using G20
Summits as Study of Case. For this, we will compare official speeches, joint statements and
working documents within the G20 Summits with the equivalents from the BRICS Summits,
in order to analyze how this five countries influence the current global governance. We hope
to collaborate to the understanding of the acting and role of emerging powers in a crisis
international scenario that demands reforms.

2
Introduction

Considering the current international conjuncture, it is undeniable that global

governance issues ask for participation of new powers to achieve strong and effective
decisions in global level, especially from developing world. In this context, in an environment
where there is space for new players, there will also be space for new arrangements,
forums, coalitions and others types of grouping that will demand for reforms in international
institutions which traditionally had been created and guided by the great powers, as United
States, England and France. According to this premise, this paper will analyze the role of
five of these new powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, acting like a group:
BRICS) in a big global economic and financial group, G20. We will verify, basically, if
decisions made on BRICS summits will be reverberated in decisions made on G20 summits
and discuss if these groups have any level of institutionalization.
In this introduction we will present the both groups, G20 and BRICS and their
importance in global arena. In the first section we will discuss the literature about institutions
and coalitions, in order to identify what is the best definition for G20 and BRICS. In the
second section we will present the methodological considerations about our research. The
third section is dedicated for present the results of comparative analysis and in the last
section, we will point our final considerations about the role of BRICS-countries in the global
governance.
The G20 (Group of Twenty)1 is a group composed by twenty of the largest
economies of the world, including European Union. Its Agenda, since its creation, is focused
on financial and economic problems that may affect the whole world.
The G20 was created in 1999, in the G7 Finance Ministers Meeting, when G7
representatives saw a necessity to extend the space for discussions of themes that involves
the world economy and development. At that moment, the impacts of the Asiatic crisis from
1997 were still affecting countries and global-players all over the world and ministers from
G7 recognized the importance of the participation of representatives from other countries
that own a large relevancy for world economic growth and development. The G20, then,
started as Finance Ministers Meetings and had a relevant role on the processes and
deliberations arising from the Asiatic crisis in 1997. By the time, G20 went through a
strengthening process as group. In 2008 crisis, the group gained Summit Meeting level,
when George W. Bush the president of USA at that time - invited the G20 countries
leaders to discuss and coordinate solutions for the crisis. Then, it was recognized a need of
1

Member States: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, France, Germany,
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey,
United Kingdom and United States.

3
the G20 leaders to be engaged on debates related to the world economy and growth. After
the first Summit in Washington D.C. in 2008, there were six more: London 2009, Pittsburgh
2009, Toronto 2010, Seoul 2010, Cannes 2011 and Los Cabos 2012. The next one will
happen in St. Petersburg this year.
Although G20 do not incorporate all the countries of the world and works as
representative group, the twenty official members represent 90% of global GDP, 80% of
internal global-trade, 2/3 of worlds population and 84% of the production of all the fossil fuel
emissions (G20, 2013)2. This interferes directly on the volume of the commercial and
financial flows with the other countries.
The G20 is neither a group with formal character nor has mechanisms that oblige the
countries and institutions to carry out what is established on the Meeting or that punish,
somehow, those who disobey the agreements. Nevertheless, it is possible to notice that the
G20 Summit has been increasing its prominent position in the international scenario owing to
the natural need to have G20 Summit to solve the economic problems of the world and to
have an environment where the most power decision-makers are in meeting and may
discuss and decide about problems that impacts all the world long. Thats why, although G20
agenda is always focused on economic and financial problems, G20 is also a group that
represents a new attempt for achieving resolutions of problems that have an impact of a
global level through the discussion and conciliation among the leaders of the most power
countries in the world, which takes the group directly to the theme of Global Governance. As
John Kirton points,
The G20 summit of which [Felipe Caldern] wrote is the culmination of an
expansion of centre of global governance to include ascending powers alongside
advanced ones, and to give each equal, institutionalized involvement and
3

influence in the central club (2010: 2) .

Among this new ascending powers pointed by Kirton, it is possible to mention five
countries that have gained a bigger projection comparing the others ones. These are the
BRICS-countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
In 2006, Andrew Hurrell pointed some things that highlight the importance of BRICcountries4: military, political and economic power resources, capacity to contribute in the
international order in regional or global terms, high level of intern cohesion, effective State
2

G20 (2013) What is the G20 available at: http://www.g20.org/docs/about/about_G20.html

(Accessed: 20 February 2013).
3
Kirton, J. (2010) The G20, the G8, the G5 and the Role of Ascending Powers. Paper presented at
an International Seminar on Ascending Powers and the International System, Instituto Matias
Romero, Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico City, December 13-14, 2010 and for publication
in Revista Mexicana de Politica Exterior. Version of December 27, 2010.
4
The use of BRIC or BRICS will depend on each text, in great measure, because of our literature was
produced before the entrance of South Africa into the group, that add the final and capital S.
Therefore we will maintain the name as used in each quoted text.

4
Action, beyond the growth in bilateral and multilateral relations through them, as the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia and China as members, India as observer), the
G20 in World Trade Organization5 (with Brazilian and Indian Leadership), the IBSA Dialogue
Forum (through India, Brazil and South Africa), among others6.
In economic terms, according to Jim ONeill on his paper that created BRIC as an
acronym, BRIC-countries would have a growing importance in global GDP, especially China.
In this context, ONeill alerted to the need of reorganization of decision making world forums,
especially G7 that, according to him, should incorporate the BRIC-countries7. The BRICS
Summit Declarations always presented the need of a multipolar global order through reforms
in International Financial Institutions (IFI).
Considering BRIC-countries as a group, de Almeida writes that BRIC,
() if successful in its consultation and political cooperation mechanisms, as well
as in coordinates the positions of their four members in multilateral forums and in
those with more restrictive governance, could represent higher transformative
potential, higher economic impact and higher capacity of influence in global order
(2010: 131, our translation)

The creation of the term BRIC was made in 2001, when Jim ONeill, economist of
Goldman Sachs, wrote an article highlighting that Brazil, India, Russia and China, when
considering current GDP basis, were about 8% of global GDP, but when using GDP in US$
on a PPP basis, were about 23,3% of global GDP. ONeill chose to highlight these four
countries because they are, among the 20 biggest economies in 2001, those that have had
the stronger difference through GDP basis and GDP on PPP basis. Beyond BRIC, also
Indonesia was one of the 20 biggest economies and saw a big difference through GDP basis
and GDP on a PPP basis, but ONeills argument was that Indonesian economy was little
when compared with BRIC or G7.
In 2006, the Foreign Relations Ministers of the BRIC-countries met for the first time,
giving to the acronym a political value, as wrote Daniel Flemes9. Afterwards, the meetings
through BRIC-countries were strongly broader and more numerous. In 2009 the BRICcountries met for the first time in Summit with the countries leaders in Yekaterinburg,
5

Its important highlight that this G20 in the WTO is not the same G20 worked here. G20 about trade
questions is a bloc of developing nations established in 2003. G20 in our study is the group of the 19
world major economies plus European Union.
6
Hurrell, A. (2006) Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be Great
Powers? International Affairs, v. 82, n. 1, p. 1-19.
7
ONeill, J. (2001) Building Better Global Economic BRICs Goldman Sachs. Global Economics
Paper n. 66, p. 16.
8
Almeida, P. R. (2010). O BRIC e a substituio de hegemonias: um exerccio analtico (perspectiva
histrico-diplomtica sobre a emergncia de um novo cenrio global) in Baumann, R. (ed.) O Brasil
e os demais BRICs: Comrcio e Poltica. Braslia: CEPAL/IPED p. 131-154.
9
Flemes, D. (2010). O Brasil na iniciativa BRIC: soft balancing numa ordem global em mudana?
Rev. Bras. Polit. Int. v. 53, n. 1, p. 141-156.

5
Russia. Since then, these summits happen annually. The 3rd summit, in Braslia, Brazil,
decided to invite South Africa for the group, adding to the name a final capital S, to BRICS.
The growing number of events among BRICS-countries transforms the acronym in a
political alternative in the search for a more multipolar world. The group BRICS is more
flexible than international institutions, and then we will use the concept of Soares de Lima
(2010: 164), that says BRICS is a coalition for the defense of common points in global
financial arena10.
1.

The literature about coalitions

This paper works essentially with cooperative arrangements through countries and
this fact request us to look to International Relations Theory of some years ago. The
perspectives that most consider the possibility of cooperation are rationalists and start by the
logic of Prisoners Dilemma, in what we have a low possibility of cooperation because of the
impossibility to exchange information between the characters and, hence, make a strategy
that can be good for them all. Furthermore, in original Dilemma the actors cannot have the
possibility to assure that the other one will make the needed choice, which makes important
the idea of some kind of enforcement mechanism.
Inside the perspective of the Rational Theory, Robert Keohane thought in a theory of
International Relations that consider the possibility of cooperation among countries11. This
cooperation is explained by the arising of the institutions to overcome the Prisoners
Dilemma. According to literature, institutions are not only a cooperative arrangement or
grouping. The Institutions, in a critical form, is a set of rules that guide the behavior of the
actors that composes this group, constraint these actors and increase the level of security in
the international system. It also increases the information flow between the actors and
reduces the transaction costs between them. More specifically, [Institutions] may refer to a
general pattern of categorization of activity or to a particular human constructed
arrangement, formally or informally organized (KEOHANE, 1988: 383)12. In the international
scenario, this pattern enables the maintenance of cooperation between the countries that
are inserted on an institution. According to Keohane (1984: 51), "cooperation occurs when
actors adjust their behavior to the actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a
process of policy coordination". Then it is possible to say that international cooperation is
10

Soares de Lima, M. R. (2010). Brasil e polos emergentes do poder mundial: Rssia, ndia, China e
frica do Sul in Baumann, R. (ed.) O Brasil e os demais BRICs Comrcio e Poltica. Braslia:
CEPAL/IPED p. 155-179.
11
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12
Keohane, R. O. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly,
v. 32, n. 4, p. 379-396.

6
based on the achievement of the goals and aspirations outlined by their policies - in the
domestic and external sphere - through peaceful means, less costly and give the states
involved in this process, opportunities to solve their problems together.
According to Keohane (1984: 51-52), "Intergovernmental cooperation takes place
when the policies actually followed by one government are regarded by its partners as
facilitating realization of their own objectives, as the result of a process of policy
coordination". Inside these perspectives of intergovernmental cooperation, another theme
arises: the global governance.
As Nogueira (2003: 28)13 explains, the governance theme appears as a deployment
from the discussion around the cooperation and perception of a more integrated world,
incorporating, nevertheless, an additional element: the strengthening and diffusion of
international institutions acquire a stronger political meaning, connoting the need for a
government of International Relations basing in a web of organisms, forums, regimes,
among others, articulated by a global logic. From this definition it is possible to say that
Institutions permit and contribute to the outbreak of a global governance scenario. And on
this discussion, we wonder how it is possible to analyze BRICS and G20 from these
perspectives.
Although, G20 a BRICS have been standing out as multilateral cooperation forum
and contributing for changes in analytical perspectives in the international relations, it is not
possible to say that they fit into the Institutions category. First of all, Institutions, as we might
see, is a set of rules that guide the behavior of actors and constraint these actors, while
BRICS and G20 countries neither guide themselves by following rules prescribed by theses
forums nor are constraint by them. Besides that, resolutions from this Summits Meeting do
not have a mandatory character, but recommendatory one.
Second of all, Institutions increase the level of information flow among their
members, while G20 and BRICS do not share an amount of information that is meaningful to
characterize them as institutions. Generally, the efforts from its members to set agreements
that guarantee the global economic security takes in consideration the aim to make
decisions to solve the problems in the agenda from what they already know on.
Third of all, Institutions are general pattern of categorization of activity that enables the
maintenance of cooperation. Nevertheless, although G20 and BRICS are cooperative
arrangements, the fact of cooperations occurring when actors adjust their behavior to the
actual or anticipated preferences of others may prove that these forums do not fit on this
definition in a complete way. G20 and BRICS countries always try to set a consensus about
13

Nogueira, J.P. (2003) Instituies e governana global na teoria de Relaes Internacionais: um

breve panorama da evoluo dos debates nas teorias convencionais. In Esteves, P.L. Ed.
Instituies Internacionais: segurana, comrcio e integrao. Belo Horizonte: PUC Minas pp. 15-40.

7
their discussions, but each country have different positions about some subjects and in spite
of the Declarations setting rules about a specific area, in reality, few countries carry it out.
Themes as exchange rate control and protectionist measures are great examples.
As we can see, it is difficult to characterize the BRICS and the G20 as traditional
international institutions. In the BRICS case, the group moves away to the acronym created
by Jim O`Neill because of the inclusion of another country (South Africa) that are not similar
with the other countries as big populations, big territories, strong GDP growth among others.
It is curious to note that neither the own BRICS-countries have a consensus: we took a look
in the Ministries of Foreign Affairs websites and we saw that the Brazilian one we met the
term "political aggroupment" and integration mechanism", in the Indian one we had
institution"(even if we argue that this concept are not appropriate in its Keohanian
conception), in the Chinese one we had "mechanism", in the Russian one "BRICS-states or
BRICS-countries and in the South African one, we had "aggroupment".
Daniel Flemes (2010: 151) wrote that the BRIC initiative is an informal group among
international forums, which meets to exchange its points of view and, once they meet a
common agreement, defend its position. In this perspective, we can understand this group
as an informal one, that already had a strong presence in international scenario, as we will
see in the next section.
We have that BRICS and G20 are not institutionalized mechanisms, but informal
forums to set positions through important countries to world economy (as important countries
we can think the traditional big powers and the rising powers). This kind of cooperative
arrangement allows us to think them in an alternative way, as coalitions. According to Maria
Regina Soares de Lima (2010: 164), a coalition implies in the articulation of common
positions in arenas of negotiation in global or regional plan. Specifically in cases of coalitions
among emerging countries, Soares de Lima writes that they tend to be of variable geometry,
according to the theme and international regime in question. Then, in the negotiations in the
financial framework it is possible to see the BRICs capacity of coordination to advance in
this specific agenda.
De Oliveira, Onuki and Oliveira (2009: 161)14 highlight two features of this kind of
coalitions: the first one is the heterogeneity among the members and the second one is their
low economic interdependence, but in this point Soares de Lima (2010: 161) makes an
exception, the relations of all these countries with China. Nonetheless, she writes these
features generate two important consequences: Political factors become more relevant in
the explication of coalition formation and the own heterogeneity, that in a first moment can
14

De Oliveira, A. J. N., Onuki, J., Oliveira, E. (2009) Coalizes Sul-Sul e multilateralismo: pases
intermedirios e o caso IBAS in Soares de Lima, M. R., Hirst, M. (eds.) Brasil, ndia e frica do Sul:
Desafios e Oportunidades para novas parcerias. So Paulo: Paz e Terra.

8
be seen as something that difficult cooperation, create incentives for countries with biggest
relative capabilities develop a role as political entrepreneurs in coordination of collective
action, according the classical Olsonian logic of overcoming problems of collective action in
contexts of different interests15. Mancur Olson wrote that the motivation to collective action
would be based in utilitarian calculus of cost / benefit, in which the propensity of agent in
cooperate in a collective action presuppose a perception that will be some marginal net
benefit derivative of action. In this sense, Oliveira, Onuki and Oliveira (2009: 171) highlight
two key dimensions: group size and distinction between collective benefits and private or
selective benefits. Related to size, Olson defends an inversely proportional relation between
propensity to cooperate through group and its size. Then, BRICS can be understood as a
coalition where countries have strong propensity to cooperate. But G20 is a bigger group,
what make us to go to the second point. Olson wrote that in bigger groups the free rider
effect could occur easily. However, Oliveira, Onuki and Oliveira (2009: 175) remember us
the contribution of Russell Hardin (1982: 35)16 when he introduces the idea of overcoming
this situation through the action of political entrepreneurs who would be willing to bear the
costs of collective action in return of own interests, as projection and leadership. We are
going to analyze if the idea of political entrepreneur would be central to our understanding of
the role of BRICS in the G20, as we can see in the final of this work.
2.

Methodology

This study has as aim to analyze the emergence of BRICS-countries in the

international scenario, in particular after the first BRIC Summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In
that event, a final declaration was made pointing the items that all these countries agree in a
huge range of themes, including political and economic agendas. To understand better the
growing importance of these countries, we will analyze their participation at G20 Summits as
Study of Case. The G20, as presented in the introduction of this work, gained in 2008
summit meetings status to find crisis resolutions. And also this group produces every end of
Summit a final resolution. The hypothesis of this work is that the BRICS resolutions shows
their preferences, and the G20 Summit declarations after each BRICS Summit can show us
that these 4 (5 since 2011) countries are, each time stronger, influencing in global decisions.
To verify if this hypothesis is true we will compare the resolutions of BRICS Summits
with the resolutions of following G20 Summits. Owing to BRICS having just one summit each

15

Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
16
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for
the Future.

9
year, and G20 sometimes having met twice a year, we will ignore the G20 Summit
Resolutions on April 2009 (but we will consider the G20 resolution on November 2010,
because of its great importance to the international context in that moment). We also will not
use the first G20 Summit Resolution made in 2008 as analysis object, because there is no
BRICS Resolution to compare with. And we will ignore the BRICS Summit Resolution of
March 2013, because of its very recent publication.
By studying BRICS and G20 in a comparative way, we hope to collaborate to the
understanding of the acting and role of these new important powers17, purposing solutions
and asking for reforms in the main institutions of the actual scenario of global governance.

3.

Results

In this section we will present the main points of the BRICS and G20 resolutions
since 2009. Following, it will be shown the common points in our comparison between
BRICS and G20 joint declarations. Last, we will highlight the main agendas and positions
that are present in BRICS resolutions and in the G20 resolution after.
The G20 made summits and produced resolutions since 2008, when it was
internationally recognized as the main place to discuss the international economy, specially
to make decisions related to the financial crisis in that context. We will highlight, in few lines,
the main points of each resolution. The first one (Washington D.C., 2008) was important
because, first of all, it was the first time G20 joined its twelve leaders in Summit Meeting and,
second of all, the main reason why they have done this was the 2008 economic crisis, the
moment when these countries saw a big necessity to solve together this situation.
Afterwards, two summits happen in 2009: London, that was basically the continuation of the
efforts to solve de crisis and Pittsburgh, where these efforts was consolidated and the
rhythm of the economic and financial problems were already low. The year of 2010 had also
two meetings of high importance: in Toronto and in Seoul where G20 turned to social
problems such as hunger and poverty and proposed changes in IMF membership quota, as
well.

Since 2011 the G20 meets once a year. The 2011 Meeting in Cannes had an

important role with efforts to solve European crisis, but did not have a desirable result. Last,
the Los Cabos Summit in 2012 had a more significant result concerning the European Crisis
when a saving fund were approved and destined to IMF control with the condition of
changes on the financial institution.

17

There is no final definition for what kind of countries we are talking about. Emerging powers, middle
powers, Would-be great powers, ascending powers and others was purposed for many authors, but
no one was able to include at same time Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa without also
include a lot of others countries that have no such important role as these five ones.

10
The BRIC-countries started to meet themselves in high level summits in 2009, in
Yekaterinburg, where they highlighted the importance of G20 in the resolution of financial
crisis instead the G8. In 2010 the place chosen was Brasilia, where the four countries sought
to enlarge the discussions, adding themes as energy, climate change, terrorism and efforts
to help the Haitian people who were hit by an earthquake. The 2011 Summit was in Sanya
(China), and was very important as the moment where South Africa was invited to be the
new BRIC member, giving a capital S in its name. The fourth summit (first as BRICS) was
held in New Delhi where the five emerging countries had considered the possibility to create
a development bank. This March the BRICS will meet in Durban (South Africa), but
unfortunately this summit will happen after the closing of our text.
After this presentation of the summits in general lines, we will expose the points in
common through the BRICS and the G20 resolutions.
The first comparison will be between the 2009 BRIC declaration (Yekaterinburg) and
the G20 declaration (Pittsburgh). On June 2009, the first thing we can see is that the BRIC
countries highlight the central role of the G20 to deal with the financial crisis through
international economic cooperation. This change of the main place to discuss economy, to
G7 from G20, means increase the importance of emerging and developing countries, as all
the BRICS-countries, Mexico and Indonesia, among others. A point that helps us to see the
importance of BRICS was their demand for reforms in the International Financial Institutions
(IFI). This demand was answered by G20 who committed transfer at least 5% of the quotas
in IMF to the underrepresented countries. Beyond this, in the same year the World Bank
increases in 3.13% the voting power to emerging countries, which is another signal of
change18. Nonetheless, BRIC also had a demand that was not heard: that directors and
senior leaders of these institutions must be designate by an open, transparent and based on
merit selection process. Even with this request, IMF still is directed by a European and World
Bank by a US American. An interesting point related to International Commerce is that, in
every declaration, BRIC and G20 ask to the countries of the world to stop every kind of
commercial protectionist practices, not only in 2009, but every year. Another important
question that BRIC always defend is that the countries must look to the poorest ones. In
2009 this fact was highlighted because of the financial crisis that affect stronger these
countries. We can see on September of the same year that also in G20 this point was
relevant: they agree on taking measures to restricting gap of development and access to fuel
and food to the poorest countries in view of increased liquidity. The last point to highlight in
the 2009 declarations was related to food security. BRIC take note about the situation of
18

Corra, A. (2010) Bird aprova reforma que d maior poder de voto a emergentes Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2010/04/100425_bird_emergentes_ac_cq.shtml (Accessed
in 3 March 2013).

11
global food security and G20 urge World Bank to create a multilateral trust fund to increase
the sums for aid in agriculture for poor countries.
The second comparison is between 2010 BRIC declaration (Braslia) and G20
declarations (We will consider Toronto and Seouls resolutions). BRIC-countries once again
highlight the importance of G20, and ask for proactivity to form a coherent strategy to the
period after the crisis. The G20 Torontos resolution, will emphasize on June 2010, the need
of efforts in national, regional and international levels to deal with the volatility of capital flows
and with the financial fragilities, beyond to the defense the fiscal plans of responsibility and
reduction of governmental deficits. The BRICs declaration urges to all countries to beef up
macroeconomic cooperation to achieve a strong, sustainable and balanced growth and
highlight the importance of maintain a relative stability of the main reserve currencies and
sustainable fiscal policies. The last of the three declarations analyzed, which was
constructed in Seoul on November 2010, had the commitment to undertake macroeconomic
policies of fiscal, monetary and currency responsibility.
It is interesting to note how the BRIC countries defend the emerging and developing
countries as motors of world economic growth. This commitment promote in G20
discussions that make them decide to strengthen networks of social security or increase
flexibility of exchange rates in emerging markets, as an example. Another point where BRIC
countries looked to developing countries is when they ask for a stronger and more flexible
aid from multilateral development banks, answered by G20 commitment in expand by $6
billion through the proceeds from the agreed sale of IMF gold. Once again BRIC countries
ask for reforms in Bretton Woodss institutions, especially in voting power and in the
possibility to elect general directors of these institutions. The G20 resolutions in Seoul and
Toronto strengthened this demand, but with no concrete proposals, as a signal of resistance
of the traditional powers, those in 2009 had accept to change some percentage of voting
power.
Another important question related to developing countries is about the efforts to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) up to 2015. The BRIC resolution asks for
technical cooperation and financial aid to poor countries to help in the execution of policies
for development and social protection for its populations. The G20 resolution in Seoul
highlights this point through the determination to create more jobs and through the
commitment of the other countries to develop the potential growth of the poor countries.
Specifically in agricultural terms, while BRIC countries discuss manners to promote fourparties cooperation with great attention to familiar agriculture, G20 urges to accelerate
research and agriculture development to strengthen productivity through South-South
Cooperation, in particular in Africa. The year of 2010 was also important in the theme of
energy production. BRIC countries encouraged the use of clean and more efficient fossil

12
fuels and committed to develop a sustainable energy system and diversify the energy matrix.
The G20 seems less active in this question: The countries recognize the importance to
discuss the theme in a transparent and responsible way, but they delegate the discussion to
the next Summit. Nonetheless, they ask for some reports of international organizations
important to this theme, as OPEC and IAEA. The last interesting point in the 2010
resolutions was related to the earthquakes in Haiti that killed a huge part of its population,
which had already been suffering with a civil war. BRIC countries ask for international efforts
to help in the reconstruction of the country through orientation of Haitian government. And
the Toronto resolution of the G20 answered for this requirement through the cancelation of
Haitian debt with the IFI and providing aid for reconstruction through a specific fund.
In Sanya 2011, the BRICS countries (now with South Africa and final capital S)
recognize on its Declaration that G20 is the main global forum for economic cooperation and
support the effort of the G20 representatives to maintain the world financial stabilization. In
the end of the same year, when G20 leaders joined in Cannes, and put on their Declaration
the confirmation that they were the only big committee that join the great economies and
maintain his focus on the world economic challenges. This idea is also justified by the
position of BRICS related to IMF and its perspectives for changes. On April 2011, BRICS
countries advocated an international financial regulatory oversight strengthening a financial
regulation to the bank and financial system in order to stabilize the market development.
BRICS also show themselves satisfied with the discussions about Special Drawing Rights
(SDR) and the composition of the currency basket. On November 2011, in the other hand,
G20 agreed with the increase of the surveillance from IMF above the international financial
system and supported the continuation of SDR as a key role in global trade and financial
stability under the supervision of the IMF and undertaking to revise the composition of the
currency basket in 2015.
Other two points can be presented about 2011 Summits comparisons. First, about
the social protection questions: while BRICS strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the
fields of social protection, decent work, gender equality, youth and public health, including
the fight against HIV-AIDS, G20 recognizes the need to create national bases of social
protection that guarantee basic rights to economically needy with any health or physical
difficulties. Second, about food security questions: while BRICS compromises on promote
cooperation on agriculture area sharing information and performing seminar about Food
Security, G20 agree to invest in agricultural production, improve information and
transparency on agricultural commodities, increasing the sector's productivity and promoting
food security besides compromising on reduction on barriers for food trade.
In 2012, the effects from the European Crises were still a problem in the international
scenario. The biggest preoccupation was related to the level of the international economic

13
growth and with unemployment rate all over the countries. About this, BRICS declared on
March 2012 that is crucial that the advanced economies to adopt responsible
macroeconomic policies to avoid excessive accumulation of international liquidity and
undertake structural reforms to boost growth that generates jobs. They also exposed that
their belief in the central role of the G20 as the premier forum for international economic
cooperation to facilitate broad macroeconomic policy coordination, to allow the international
economic recovery and to ensure financial stability, including through a most improved
international monetary and financial architecture. On June 2012, G20 joined with the top
priority to solve problems related to economic growth and low unemployment. They
committed to reduce the public deficit countries, protecting the most vulnerable and
approved a rescue fund worth US$ 462 billion with a meaningful participation of BRICS
countries. China was the country that contributed more, with US$ 42 billion. They approved
this rescue fund also on the condition that the reforms of IMF quotas approved in 2010 were
resumed. An interesting question is that in the BRICS Summit on March 2012 declared their
concerning with the slow pace of reform of quota and governance of the IMF and that it is
urgent to implement, before the Annual Meeting of the IMF / World Bank 2012, Governance
and Reform of Quota agreed in 2010, as well as a comprehensive review of the quota
formula to better reflect the economic weights and increase the voice and representation of
emerging markets and developing countries by 2013.
Another subject that can be outlined in the agenda for 2013 BRICS and G20
Summits discussion: terrorism. In New Delhi, BRICS reiterated there is no justification of
any kind for acts of terrorism in all manifestations and underlined the need for an upcoming
project conclusion of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism at the UN
General Assembly, and its adoption by all member states in order to provide a
comprehensive legal framework to tackle this scourge international. In Los Cabos, G20
support the renewal of the Task Force mandate of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),
which confirmed their support to global efforts to combat money laundering and financing of
terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
In general terms, the concerns of BRICS and G20 always permeate issues of
economic and financial stability, and social security, opening discussions for its range of
other issues that take the G20 forum to be the largest forum of global. BRICS also
encouraged the development, support for green economy and great incentive to fulfillment of
MDGs. G20, in turn, had commitments to structural reforms to strengthen and sustain global
demand, foster job creation, contribute to global rebalancing and increased growth potential.
These include product market reforms to increase competition, measures to stabilize the
housing sector, the labor market reforms to boost competitiveness and employment, as well
as measures to strengthen social safety nets in a way that is fiscally responsible, early

14
retirement tax to boost productivity, increase investment in infrastructure, and promoting
green growth inclusive and sustainable development, as appropriate to country
circumstances.
It is important to highlight that the refusal to protectionist practices is always present
on BRICS and G20 Declarations. Nevertheless, most of their members continue adopting
currency practices that favors their industries e commerce flow, and other protectionist
practices, as well. Concerning the proposals for changes in IMF quota system, the reform of
transference of 6% to low income countries decided by G20 in 2009 was an important victory
for the BRICS, but it is still small relative to their demands. Developed countries must still
approve the new reforms of 2010. This approval was also a condition of the BRICS to
collaborate on rescue fund to Los Cabos, thus showing how the BRICS gain in bargaining
power through the relative high liquidity coming from exports during the 2008 crisis.
Nevertheless, the requirements from BRICS are not as high as they could make. G20 has
also approved a reform of 3% o World Bank quota, but it falls short of the requirements of
BRICS. Concerning the regulation of the international financial and bank system, both the
BRICS when the G20 support precautionary measures to limit or increase the level of
surveillance of financial transactions and to increase control over the system of IFIs. In fact,
these demands do not represent a reaction of these countries (especially emerging
countries) crisis of neoliberalism, but an important subject that important to be discuss by
both Summits (BRICS and G20).
Other important question that help us to give a proper consistency to this work is the
BRICS having recognized G20 as main international economic cooperation forum. The
emerging powers were instruments in this change of the G8 to the G20 and the
establishment of BRICS as a coalition led to increased pressure for such recognition.
Concerning the efforts to solve social problems (hunger, HIV-AIDS, unemployment,
food security etc) and to the fulfillment of MDGs, it is possible to say that BRICS increase
cooperation among themselves in view of these improvements, but they may not influence in
a more assertive as the G20 commitment, although agreeing with the need for technical
cooperation and reducing barriers to trade in food. In our analysis we will say that this
limitation may be because of the economic crisis that hit the developed countries, takes
them to reduce costs, including those of development cooperation, which involves a slightest
effort to help poor countries achieve the MDG. However, we may not take the weight out of
BRICS in relation to its contribution to the importance of their representation in the G20 and
also in relation to its contribution to the development agenda, since they have a different
view of the traditional powers which can be an interesting alternative which manages more
satisfactory results with respect to this issue.

15
The creation of jobs, economic growth and sustainable development is always a goal
for all the countries. The BRICS encourage sustainable economic growth as well as the G20.
However, they do not define what measures should be taken for these purposes, reflecting a
non-interventionist logic, typical of South-South relations. They tend to value state
sovereignty and reject the imperialist past. In the other hand, the G20 encourages
expansionary policies for job creation mainly in its recent resolutions. There is, then, a
perceptible difference between the way these two groups handle the decision-making of their
economic questions and also other questions, although both of them desire an organized
international development.

4.

Final considerations

In this work we seek concentrate in two major points: the first one is the theory
discussion into Rationalist framework of International Relations to understand why BRICS
and G20 are groups to allow cooperation but are not institutions as Keohane conceptualized
and to think an alternative characterization of them. And in this alternative way, we found the
discussion of coalitions of emerging powers that seems suitable to think the action of this
kind of countries in actual international scenario. The second point was the comparison of
Summit joint declarations of these coalitions to see how BRICS influences G20. Because of
this, we compared a BRICS declaration with the successive G20 declaration. The found
results allow us to, in this conclusion, connect the two dimensions.
The Hardin contribution to Olsons work, as we presented before, will be refused now
on this case. As we saw, the BRICS countries are not able to impose meaningful changes in
global order. This fact comes from two points. The first one is that these countries are not
strong enough to impose these kinds of changes to the traditional powers, as UN reform,
stricter changes on IMF and World Bank, less dependence of dollar standard, among others.
The second point is the own BRICS countries do not want big changes because they are
unwilling to assume costs, what seems what they really want is to maintain USA as
hegemony with costs of leadership, but with stronger presence or major benefits as new
featured powers. Then, Hardins idea of a political entrepreneur, that assumes the higher
costs of cooperation than the others do not seem suitable to the understanding of the role of
BRICS in the G20.
We conclude, then, that BRICS ideas do not reverb in G20 resolutions, and the
subjects that BRICS approved on their Summits are only a rescue of points that have been
discussed all over the past years. And BRICS and G20 have robust agendas and share
most part of it because of the last two crises that really had an emergency character, but
BRICS do not get to put the main themes on G20 agenda. An example for this is the fact of

16
their discussing the fighting against AIDS in a scenario of crisis or the defense for the
fulfillment of the MDGs (low politics).
Of course it is not possible to say that BRICS countries do not have significance in
international scenario, because they have a big economic weight. A possible strategy of the
traditional powers is to give small advantages in BRICS peripheral issues. These "crumbs"
(5% in the IMF, the World Bank 3%) are sufficient to empty these groups without messing
anything substantial in the system. But the fact is that they could make pressure for changes
in the world, but they do not do this, because they are not determinate on doing this.
Another observation is that BRICS do not represent the poor countries interests. As
we said before, most of measures they defend on their Summits for poor countries and
social equality have always been defended all over the years, and thats why they are on
G20 Declarations too. As a matter fact, BRICS have been defending more their selfinterests.
Concerning the idea of level of institutionalization, we can conclude that G20
maintains itself stable in its condition as forum, what means a low level of institutionalization
and low possibility to change because of the lack of interest of its members. BRICS seems
to have a very slowly improvement of its institutionalization, that could be accelerated in the
future with the creation of a Development Bank and more formal structures. However, their
heterogeneity is an obstacle to improve institutionalization, then, once more formalization
means more commitment.
Because of time limitation, we still do not analyze other documents and declarations
about BRICS and G20, but only the Summit's joint declaration. Our understanding is that a
wider analyze will allow to comprehend how these countries and coalitions are behaving in
international system.
Another important point to remember is that the results made our analysis to focus
only in the economic and development agendas. Other important themes to global
governance as environment and climate change and security are not presented strongly
enough to allow us to make some kind of analysis.
We still highlight that our work focus on that action of emerging powers only as
coalitions (in the BRICS and the G20). It is interesting to remember that the discussion of
middle powers has a main point on this behavior: these "intermediate" countries are not
strong as the biggest ones to impose their agendas by their own, but have some power to
put some points in discussion when acting in group.
In general terms, since our goal is to understand whether the BRICS brings
proposals for new order, the answer is no. They have no clout or political will to do so,
according to the analysis made here. In fact, they would have capacity to start concreting

17
new perspectives for changes, but all the coincidences on their declarations are not
sufficient to affirm that they impact directly on G20 decisions or on global governance.
Our final considerations and our recognition of limitations lead us to purpose a
research agenda of the participation of emerging countries in current global order. The first
interesting point is a wider analysis of documents and interviews of these countries, and
analyzes in comparative way those of traditional powers, to understand better the
differences and similarities of agendas between the traditional big economies and the
emerging ones.
The second and last point is to analyze the efficiency of decisions made both in
BRICS and G20. As we saw, their real impact seems to be only in peripheral themes, and
not even on these that we can see a strong commitment of other countries, especially the
biggest. For the main themes of international politics, it would be interesting an analysis of
presence of BRICS and other emerging countries in other groups and organizations. For
example, in the security agenda, a study of these countries in UN Security Council can be
useful to understand the lack of advances in the reform of this organization and in
intervention in countries in particular situations, as we have now in Syria, in Iran and in North
Korea.