Is there a BRICS model of development?

WORK IN PROGRESS

Rafael Bittencourt Rodrigues Lopes

Bachelor in International Relations

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, Toronto,

Canada, March 26-29, 2014.

Panel: Development Models in the Global South

WB57 Wednesday 10:30 PM - 12:15 PM; Sponsor: Global Development/

Global South Caucus.

Panel: Development and Aid

TD15-A Thursday 4:00 PM - 5:45 PM; Junior Scholar Symposium.

Abstract: The cooperation for development from North to South is a reality since the period

of decolonization of African and Asian countries. Nonetheless, the recent economic crisis, the

possible end of US hegemony and the rising of some developing countries opened space for

new possibilities of cooperation from and to Global South (also called South-South

Cooperation). The BRICS countries are the main actors in this new framework, acting in

different ways than the traditional ones. In this sense, this paper seeks to understand how

different are the BRICS countries cooperation among themselves and among some European

Union countries. For this we will analyze the cooperation of these countries with African

countries to create a model of cooperation that allows the comparison. We hope this work can

collaborate in the discussion of development as a multidimensional concept and in the

understanding the role of emerging countries in a scenario of global order in change.

2

1. Introduction

The 2013 UNDP report called “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse

World” and shows us that world is changing and nowadays development partnerships have

different models to be executed, depending of who is the partner or donor for development.

Especially BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have gained a

major role at development scenario, through a South-South idea of cooperation, in which

countries are not acting in charity or aid ways, but both are seeking a win-win partnership

with mutual dependence. BRICS countries are not developed ones; they still have big

challenges in accomplish the Millennium Development Goals, beyond social and economic

inequality, human rights violations, corruption and weak democracy as well. Nonetheless,

these ‘would-be great powers’ are increasingly cooperating with the poorest countries of the

world, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In next pages we would like to present the main features of development cooperation

of BRICS countries and also the main features of the DAC (Development Assistance

Committee) countries as a whole. The second part of this paper aims to identify some of most

relevant features of the cases to compare and analyze differences among BRICS countries

and between them and traditional cooperation. After analyzing separately cooperation from

each BRICS country, we will present and analyze their cooperation as a coalition, especially

through joint statements. Their attempt to cooperate together through BRICS coalition and

through a BRICS Development Bank can help us to understand if it’s possible to think in a

BRICS model of cooperation for development, different to the traditional model of developed

countries.

Due data limitation, our initial aim of developing a model of development cooperation

will not be possible. Cooperation and aid in BRICS countries are too fragmentized, thus

making harder any attempt to understand what is really going on in assistance terms.

2. Cases of cooperation

The next pages are dedicated to present the main features of cooperation for

development in each BRICS country. It won’t be an exhausting presentation, but a collection

of elements there are usually highlighted in reports about international cooperation for

development. After presenting BRICS cases, we will do the same with traditional

cooperation. This kind of cooperation, from North to South, is more organized and

3

institutionalized, especially in the countries that are part of Development Assistance

Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic and Co-operation Development

(OECD). Once our focus is on BRICS, we will consider only the common features among

DAC countries, putting aside differences among them.

Brazil

Brazil’s cooperation for international development starts in 1960’s and 1970’s with

independence movements of colonies in Africa and Asia and with non-align countries in the

context of Cold War. The cooperation is coordinated by ABC (Brazilian Agency of

Cooperation), founded in 1987, and expenditures in Brazilian cooperation in 2010 totaled

equivalent to US$ 923 million, 91.2% more than 2009. The most important Brazilian partner

in 2010 was Haiti, which received more than 52 million dollars from Brazil. According IPEA

(2014: 20-24), the partners in whom Brazil spent more than two million dollars in 2010 were:

Table 1 – Brazil major partners in Cooperation for International Development

# Country Value (US$) Region

1 Haiti 52,534,130 Latin America and the Caribbean

2 Chile 18,087,052 Latin America and the Caribbean

3 Argentina 9,481,047 Latin America and the Caribbean

4 Cape Verde 9,953,437 Africa

5 Guinea Bissau 7,804,779 Africa

6 Peru 4,958,115 Latin America and the Caribbean

7 Mozambique 4,901,040 Africa

8 Paraguay 3,962,262 Latin America and the Caribbean

9 São Tomé and Principe 3,812,296 Africa

10 Colombia 3,726,054 Latin America and the Caribbean

11 East Timor 3,641,710 Asia and the Middle East

12 Uruguay 2,847,684 Latin America and the Caribbean

13 Cuba 2,663,593 Latin America and the Caribbean

14 Angola 2,643,276 Africa

15 Bolivia 2,504,251 Latin America and the Caribbean

Source: IPEA (2014).

4

The table shows us two main groups of countries helped by Brazilian cooperation:

South America and countries of Portuguese Language (all Africans but East Timor). The only

exception is Haiti, first place in table, located in Caribbean and explained by Brazilian strong

support in MINUSTAH (United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti).

In terms of modalities, the amount of more than 920 million dollars is divided into 7

main areas: Peacekeeping operations (36%), expenditures with international organizations

(33.7%), Humanitarian cooperation (17.5%), Technical cooperation (6.3%), Educational

cooperation (3.8%), Scientific and technological cooperation (2.6%) and Support and

protection of refugees (0.1%).

The Brazilian concept of international cooperation that guide all work is

‘The totality of invested resources by the Brazilian Federal

Government, fully repayable, in the government of other countries, in

nationals from other countries in Brazilian territory, or in international

organizations with the purpose to contribute to international

development, understood as the strengthen of the capacities of

international organizations and the other countries’ groups and

populations to the improvement of their socioeconomic conditions.’

(IPEA, 2010: 17, our translation)

This concept is not aligned with the traditional definition of OECD’s Official

Development Assistance (ODA). As the 2010 IPEA’s report points, both ODA and Brazilian

Cooperation are official flows of financing managed to promote economic development and

welfare. But Brazilian cooperation considers only lost funds, while ODA can be also

subsidized loans with at least 25% concessionality. A second difference pointed is that, while

traditional ODA counts financing resources to international organizations exclusively from

the North, the Brazilian cooperation have included financing resources from Brazil destined

to a range of international organizations from the South of which Brazil is member (IPEA,

2010: 17).

An important difference between Brazilian cooperation in comparison to traditional

cooperation is related to political conditionalities. Brazil defends human rights and

democracy but doesn’t support agreements as the Paris Declaration because of its principle of

non-interference (MORAZÁN et al, 2012: 11). In consonance with South-South Cooperation

discourse, Brazil justifies the efforts in cooperation for development as solidarity among

countries that have similar problems in issues as agriculture, healthcare and reduction of

poverty (ABC, 2010).

5

Russia

Russia may be called a “re-emerging donor”. Soviet Union was an important donor

during Cold War, but the 1990’s were years in which Russian government cut great part of its

aid. Even if Russia is not a DAC country, they adopted the ODA definition of foreign aid and

accepted Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda for Action and Busan Partnership for Effective

Development Co-operation, differently than all other BRICS countries, which have national

understandings for development cooperation. (DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, 2013: 221)

Its cooperation is based in specific cases, without a wider understanding and strategy

for acting. Some of the Russian assistance is provided by Russian Ministry of Foreign

Affairs, Ministry of Finance and Ministry for Emergencies when they are required

(MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 2014). An agency only for

international development assistance was announced in 2007 but has not been installed yet

(MORAZÁN et al., 2012: 12).

Russian cooperation has as particularity not prioritize countries with high shares of

people living on less than $1.25. Rather, the priority is most for allied countries, as shows us

the table above:

Table 2 – Russian major partners in Cooperation for International Development

# Country % of ODA

from Russia

Region

1 Nicaragua 37.3% Central America

2 North Korea 11.3% East Asia

3 Serbia 6.6% Eastern Europe

4 Kyrgyz Republic 6.4% Central Asia

5 Libya 4.0% North Africa

6 Tajikistan 3.0% Central Asia

7 Afghanistan 2.5% Central Asia

8 Guinea 2.5% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: Development Initiatives, 2013

The other halt of Russian expenditures in development is divided to Sub-Saharan

African countries. Food security and health are the Russian priorities, especially with

contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

6

Multilateral cooperation is mainly for traditional institutions as Eurasian Economic

Community, United Nations and World Bank, what signalized that Russian concept of

cooperation is more aligned to traditional cooperation (North as donor, South as recipient).

Beyond that, historical differences among Russia and recipient countries not allow a

discourse of solidarity, once Soviet Union was one of the sides that poor countries rejected

with Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Another difference among Russia and other BRICS is

that Russia is the only country in the group that is only donor. Brazil, India, China and South

Africa are also recipients, what strengthen the idea that they are emerging, and now they can

help other countries, even if they still need aid. Nevertheless, BRICS joint declarations

support win-win cooperation as SSC, what makes harder to understand how strong Russian

commitment in this issue in BRICS is.

Another fact to be considered in Russia cooperation for development is its presence

on G8. When compared with the world biggest economies in the group, Russia is the one who

spent less in humanitarian aid in 2012, but Italy. Russian aid was about 2 times less than

French aid and about 10 times less than Canadian aid, countries that complete the part of

those who donate less in G8. Thus, in terms of quantity, Russia is far from developed

countries (BREZHNEVA, UKHOVA, 2013: 19).

India

The cooperation for development in India is under the responsibility of the

Development Partnership Administration (DPA), agency inside the Ministry of External

Affairs. The agency was established in 2012, what strengthen the idea that emerging

countries are starting to formalize their international cooperation (in BRICS, only Brazil

already had an agency, created in 1987). But as Milani, Suyama and Lopes (2013: 20) wrote,

Indian cooperation tends to be fragmented with other sectors of government as Ministry of

Commerce or Indian Eximbank.

A particularity of cooperation of countries as India, Brazil and South Africa is the

growing importance of trilateral cooperation, in which funds may come from traditional

donors or from two emerging countries that divide the costs of cooperation. India understands

cooperation for development not only concessional financings but also credit lines for

financial institutions abroad, regional development banks, governments and other entities to

allow buying Indian goods and services (Milani, Suyama and Lopes, 2013: 27).

7

As all other BRICS countries India has as major partners countries in its zone of

influence (South Asia) and African countries, as we can see below.

Table 3 – India major partners in Cooperation for International Development in 2011

# Country/region Value (US$) Observations

1 Bhutan ~387.000.000 Neighbor

2 Afghanistan ~59.000.000 Neighbor

3 Maldives ~40.000.000 Neighbor

4 Nepal ~30.000.000 Neighbor

5 Africa ~26.000.000 Continent

6 Sri Lanka ~24.000.000 Neighbor

7 Myanmar ~21.000.000 Neighbor

8 Central Asia and Eurasia ~6.000.000 Region (2008-2009)

9 Bangladesh ~1.000.000 Neighbor

10 Mongolia ~300.000

11 Latin America & the

Caribbean

~300.000 Region

12 Others ~59.000.000

Source: Development Initiative, 2013

India is a clear example of emerging country with a dual role in international

cooperation for development. In 2011, they spent 787 million dollars, being more than half of

this only in Bhutan. And also in 2011, they received more than 3.2 billion dollars as Official

Development Assistance to its fight against poverty (World Bank, 2014).

The major part of India’s cooperation is Technical and economic cooperation,

followed by Loans and advances to foreign governments, contributions to international

organizations and a small percentage for interest subsidy for lines of credit. Aid is around of

80% distributed through bilateral channels and 80% of it in the form of grants. Beyond that,

Indian aid carries no conditionalities, even if it’s often tied to Indian goods and services

(World Bank, 2011: 20). Indian concessional lines of credit have as main areas infrastructure

(32.4%), agriculture (8.3%) and industry and trade (7.6%). Considering this modality of

cooperation, the future BRICS Development Bank can be focused on a similar kind of aid

once BRICS countries had already declared that the bank will work to financing

infrastructure in African countries.

8

China

China is the bigger BRICS by various measures and expenditures with cooperation for

development is one of them. In 2011, China spent 5.5 billion dollars on aid, around two times

all the other BRICS expenditures together. It’s clear that in terms of cooperation, China is a

giant next to his colleagues. Nonetheless, size does not ensure quality or effectiveness.

The major part of Chinese cooperation is provided through bilateral channels. Its

discourse is guided by “win-win cooperation”, a philosophy in which both countries are

beneficiaries, each one helping other in its needs. Chinese cooperation is provided as external

assistance and as concessional loans, especially to finance infrastructure and industry

(DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, 2013: 226). In these cases, the mutual benefit partnership

comes when infrastructure and industry build in poorer countries, in a second moment, are

used by Chinese companies that work on the area, in diverse areas as mining, for example.

Chinese main efforts for cooperation are subsidized loans, credit lines and debt relief. In

terms of concessional loans, in 2009 61.0% went to economic infrastructure, followed by

industry and trade (16.1%), energy and resources development (8.9%), agriculture and food

security (4.3%), public facilities (3.2%) and others (DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, 2013:

227). The huge amount spent in infrastructure evidences Chinese interest in a BRICS

Development Bank dedicated mainly to infrastructure in Africa.

Beyond bilateral cooperation, China develops also multilateral cooperation, with

funds to international and regional organizations. In 2010, AsDB (Asian Development Bank)

was the organization that China helps most, followed by FAO (Food and Agriculture

Organization), WHO (World Health Organization), IDA (International Development

Association) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and other with less

money (DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, 2013: 227)

Chinese efforts for development are not a recent phenomenon. It started in 1950s with

medicines and food supply for Asian countries and, during the Cold War, African countries

were important recipients, in a context in which China needed a big number of countries in

General Assembly of United Nations against Taiwan. Even today, the only Chinese

requirement to its partners is not recognize Taiwan as an independent State, according to its

‘one China’ policy (ALDEN, 2007: 32). Nowadays, Chinese priorities are countries in Africa

(45.7%) and Asia (32.8%). The table below shows who the main African partners of China

are:

9

Table 4 –Major African partners of China in development cooperation, 2000-2011

# Country Value (US$)

1 Nigeria 47.33 billion

2 Zimbabwe 31.92 billion

3 South Africa 27.10 billion

4 Ghana 23.47 billion

5 Guinea 22.31 billion

6 Angola 21.38 billion

7 Ethiopia 15.74 billion

8 Zambia 10.28 billion

9 Sudan 9.28 billion

10 Congo, Dem. Rep. 9.08 billion

11 Mozambique 8.64 billion

12 Egypt 7.44 billion

13 Niger 5.54 billion

14 Equatorial Guinea 5.15 billion

15 Tanzania 5.07 billion

Source: Aid Data (2014)

China doesn’t have an agency for cooperation. Instead, its activities are articulated by

Ministry of Commerce, the concessional loans are managed by the Export-Import Bank of

China (Eximbank) and negotiation process and management of humanitarian aid are

responsibilities for Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MILANI, SUYAMA, LOPES, 2013: 18-19).

South Africa

South Africa is the more controversial member of BRICS. When Jim O’Neill created

the acronym, his idea was call the attention of investors in some big and emerging markets,

with huge territories, huge populations and huge GDP. But BRIC became a group through

diplomatic and political action, and it is from this perspective that South Africa presence in

BRICS must to be understood. Even if South Africa is not big as other BRICS, its presence is

important to highlight BRICS high interest in African continent, for South-South Cooperation

but also for Foreign Direct Investment.

10

Milani, Suyama e Lopes (2013) when presenting the South African experience in

South-South Cooperation explain that a specific agency is being created and will be called

SADPA (South African Development Partnership Agency). According them, the first legal

framework in the post-Apartheid period was the African Renaissance and International

Cooperation Fund, which is managed by the DIRCO (Department of International Relations

and Cooperation). South Africa considers as International Cooperation for Development

actions as technical cooperation, food aid, participation in peacekeeping operations, financial

cooperation and humanitarian aid. South African cooperation does not have conditionalities,

as other BRICS countries, because of its principle of non-intervention. South Africa avoids

be called as a donor because of the idea of Donor-Recipient aid, traditional from rich

countries that had colonized countries in Global South. In the place, South Africa prefers

partner, and DIRCO’s definition of development partnerships is ‘co-operation between

developing countries in the field of aid, trade, security and politics to promote economic and

social well-being’ (Besharati, 2013: 37)

Geographical priority for South Africa is clearly African continent. While other

BRICS focus on Africa and on each one’s region, South Africa has only African countries as

main partners, in an attempt to strengthen their role as a regional power. Around of 70% of

South Africa’s development cooperation is in the SADC region1. Other countries helped by

South Africa are those ones in post-conflict regions, as Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda and

Somalia, for strengthening of democratic institutions and peacebuilding (Besharati, 2013:

29).

An important document about South Africa’s cooperation is the White Paper on South

Africa’s foreign policy (DIRCO, 2011). The orientation for foreign policy according the

White Paper is Pan-Africanism and South-South Cooperation as understood at 1955 Bandung

Conference. These ideals let clearer that South Africa’s purpose is provide a kind of third

way, in which cooperation comes from solidarity and mutual interest. Philosophy of Ubuntu

must be recorded to explain South Africa’s approach. As the White Paper presents, ‘we

affirm our humanity when we affirm the humanity of others’ (DIRCO, 2011: 4). Thus, we

must see South-Africa’s cooperation for development through Pan-African lens, especially in

multilateral initiatives as NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). Nonetheless,

in ‘southern African region, there is the perception that South Africa is acting as a bully, a

1 SADC means Southern African Development Community. Its members: Angola, Botswana, Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South

Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

11

self-interested hegemon that acts in bad faith among five neighboring countries’ (LUCEY,

O’RIORDAN, 2014: 2). These facts open space to discussion and critics about Ubuntu’s real

influence on South African cooperation for development.

Traditional Cooperation

Differently than emerging countries, developed countries have a more

institutionalized cooperation, agreements in concepts and organizations as OECD and World

Bank that allow higher levels of transparency, standardizing data and realizing studies to

improve quality and effectiveness of aid. Thus, considering that these countries are some

steps forward in the creation of a unique model of cooperation for development, we will

attain for major features of traditional cooperation instead of particularities of each country.

The concept of Official Development Assistance by these countries consists of:

‘Disbursements of loans made on concessional terms (net of

repayments of principal) and grants by official agencies of the

members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), by

multilateral institutions, and by non-DAC countries to promote

economic development and welfare in countries and territories in the

DAC list of ODA recipients. It includes loans with a grant element of

at least 25 percent (calculated at a rate of discount of 10 percent)’

(WORLD BANK, 2014)

According Development Initiatives report ‘Investments to End Poverty’, the main

sectors in ODA is invested are Governance and security, health, infrastructure, humanitarian,

education, agriculture and food security, debt relief, water and sanitation, environment,

banking and business and others. It’s interesting to note that while governance and security is

the sector which ODA had more been invested, BRICS countries expenditures rarely was on

this sector. Each BRICS has its own priorities (for example health for Russia, or

infrastructure for China).

An important difference between BRICS countries and DAC donors is related to a

commitment of these developed countries to contribute with at least 0.7% of GNI for ODA.

But the major part of the countries doesn’t achieve the target yet. In 2012, only Luxembourg

(1.0%), Sweden (1.0%), Norway (over 0.9%), Denmark (over 0.8%) and the Netherlands

(around 0.7%) were on or over the target. And the situation gets worse if we consider that

12

countries in economic crisis reduced their ODA, investing less than 0.2% of GNI, as Italy,

Greece and Spain (OECD, 2014).

According World Bank data, the countries that most received ODA in 2011 were:

Table 5 – Countries that received most ODA in 2011

# Country Value (US$) Region

1 Afghanistan 6.710.870.000 South Asia

2 Congo, Rep. Dem. 5.532.480.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

3 Vietnam 3.595.160.000 East Asia and Pacific

4 Ethiopia 3.532.390.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

5 Pakistan 3.508.560.000 South Asia

6 India 3.221.120.000 South Asia

7 Turkey 3.192.960.000 Europe and Central Asia

8 Kenya 2.484.280.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

9 Tanzania 2.435.940.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

10 West Bank and Gaza 2.416.600.000 Middle East

11 Mozambique 2.070.790.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

12 Iraq 1.904.050.000 Middle East

13 Ghana 1.800.030.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

14 Nigeria 1.776.670.000 Sub-Saharan Africa

15 Haiti 1.712.410.000 Latin America and the Caribbean

Source: World Bank (2014)

Differently than BRICS cooperation in which countries prefer help neighbor countries

or African countries, ODA from developed countries has a more varied regional distribution.

Countries that receive most ODA are those in wars or internal conflicts (As Afghanistan,

Democratic Republic of Congo and Palestine) and countries that have made structural

reforms because of conditionalities from IMF and World Bank attached to loans (as

Mozambique, Tanzania and India).

In last years, we have critics to traditional aid, especially in terms of its

ineffectiveness, problems related to ownership and perpetuation of colonial ties through these

relations between North and South countries. Most of these critics are presented in Dambisa

Moyo’s book ‘Dead Aid’ and she points Chinese cooperation as a threat to traditional aid.

13

3. Comparing cases

The previous pages were an attempt to show the main features of development

cooperation for each BRICS country and an overview about developed countries members of

Development Assistance Committee2. Now our aim is to present some categories that allow

us to understand if BRICS countries have a unique model of development and how different

are the emerging cooperation than traditional cooperation.

An interesting list of features already did was present at 2013 UNDP’s report, in

which they show five categories that allow analyses and comparisons, as follows.

Table 6 – Traditional and Emerging cooperation for development in comparison

Category Traditional Donors Emerging Partners

Ownership National development strategies

outline priorities for donors

National leadership articulates need

for specific projects

Harmonization Shared arrangements to minimize

burden on recipients

Fewer bureaucratic procedures to

minimize burden on recipients

Managing

for results

Recipient-led performance

assessment practices

Focus on delivering aid quickly and

at low cost

Mutual

accountability

Greater accountability through

targets and indicators

Mutual respect of sovereignty;

policy conditionality eschewed

Source: UNDP (2013: 56)

This generalization are not restricted to BRICS countries, but to South-South

Cooperation as well. But as presented, Russia doesn’t fit in these features as an emerging

partner. But Brazil, India, China and South Africa fit better in this model of cooperation with

emerging partners. They eschew political and economic conditionalities and we have the

Chinese ask to don’t recognize Taiwan as an exception. The discourse of sovereignty and

noninterference, even if it’s polemical from human rights perspective, brings speed to aid,

especially for countries less helped by traditional donors as Zimbabwe. Focusing on BRICS

countries development cooperation, the next table will bring more details to analyze.

2 The members of DAC are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Union,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New

Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

and United States.

14

Table 7 – Main features of cooperation from BRICS countries

Feature Brazil Russia India China South Africa

Official Agency Yes (ABC) No Yes (DPA) No Not yet (planning)

Region of the

main partners

Latin America and the

Caribbean, Africa

Africa, South & Central

Asia

South Asia and Africa Africa and Asia Africa (SADC, AU)

Understanding

of Foreign Aid

Only repayable financing

is considered Foreign Aid

Agree with ODA concept,

even if it’s not a DAC

country. Russia has

applied to join OECD

Consider government-

supported concessional

lines of credit as part of its

development cooperation.

Financing cooperation,

humanitarian aid, technical

cooperation, support to

infrastructure

Technical cooperation,

food help, participating in

peacekeeping operations,

financing cooperation and

humanitarian aid.

Main types of aid Humanitarian assistance

Educational cooperation

Technical cooperation

Technological and

scientific cooperation

Peacekeeping operations

Grants Technical and economic

cooperation

Loans and advances to

foreign governments

Contributions to

international organizations

Interest subsidy for lines

of credit

External assistance

Concessional loans

Contributions to

international organizations

Transfers to ARICF

(African Renaissance and

International Cooperation

Fund)

Multi or bilateral 68% multilateral Large amounts multilateral 80% bilateral Mainly bilateral 75% multilateral

Expenditure on

aid

953 million USD (2010) 479 million USD (2011) 787 million USD (2011) 5.5 billion USD (2011) 209 million USD (2011)

% of GNI 0.04% 0.03% 0.04% 0.08% 0.05%

Commitment to

aid reporting and

Transparency3

Grants: available

Zero interest loans:

available

Concessional loans: Not

available

Debt relief: not available

Contributions to

international agencies:

available

IATI: non-signatory

OGP: Steering

Committee member

EITI: Unsupportive

government

Grants: Reported

Concessional loans:

Reported

Debt relief: Reported

IATI: Non-signatory

OGP: Non-member

EITI: Unsupportive

government

Grants: available

Concessional loans:

Partially available

Government-supported

lines of credit: Partially

available

Contributions to

international agencies:

available

IATI: non-signatory

OGP: Non-member

EITI: Unsupportive

government

Grants: available

Zero interest loans

(interest subsidy):

available

Concessional loans:

Partially available

Debt relief: not available

Contributions to

international agencies:

Partially available

IATI: non-signatory

OGP: Non-member

EITI: Unsupportive

government

Bilateral development

cooperation: Partially

available

Humanitarian aid:

Partially available

Technical cooperation:

Partially available

Contribution to

international

organizations: Partly

available

IATI: Non-signatory

OGP: Steering

Committee member

EITI: Unsupportive

government

Sources: GHSi (2012), Morazán et al (2012), Development Initiative (2013), Milani, Suyama and Lopes (2013),

Financial Tracking Service (2014).

3 According the respective official websites, IATI means International Aid Transparency Initiative. It’s a

voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative that seeks to improve the transparency of aid in order to increase its effectiveness in tackling poverty. OGP means Open Government Partnership. It was launched in 2011 to

provide an international platform for domestic reformers committed to making their governments more open,

accountable, and responsive to citizens. Finally, EITI means Extractive Industries Transparency. It’s a global

coalition of governments, companies and civil society working together to improve openness and accountable

management of revenues from natural resources. Sources: http://www.aidtransparency.net/about,

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ and http://eiti.org/eiti.

15

The table brings some elements that could be useful to find common features among

BRICS countries. BRICS don’t have very formalizes and dedicated official agencies for

development cooperation. Rather, it’s more common to see very ministries managing

cooperation, as commerce and foreign affairs. This dispersion is evident in the difficulty of

finding data about each country’s cooperation. Beyond that, BRICS cooperation as a group

still doesn’t achieve common agreements that allow researchers to standardize and compare

data. When Brazil presents almost 1 billion dollars in aid in 2011, the country is considering

only repayable financing. On the other hand, when China presents 5.5 billion dollars in aid in

2011, they are considering, among others, credit lines that will enable Chinese companies to

work on the helped country. This means that if Brazil used the same concept, its numbers

probably would be higher.

A common feature among BRICS countries cooperation is that they used to have Sub-

Saharan African countries and neighbors as partners. This fact might be evidence that

cooperation and aid go beyond solidarity, but can be used to strengthen regional power of

these countries. In Russian case, main partners are not only geographical neighbors, but also

historical allies.

It’s not clear a prevalence of multilateral of bilateral kind of partnership in BRICS

countries. Brazil, Russia and South Africa prefer multilateral but because of different issues

(Russia cooperates most with North organizations, Brazil with South organizations and South

Africa with African organizations that evidence a Pan-African thought). Meanwhile, China

and India cooperate mainly by bilateral means.

The issue of size is a challenge to compare, once the countries do not consider the same

efforts in calculations. If we relegate these methodological limits, comparison of numbers

shows that Chinese is far ahead of others, with 0.08% of GNI spent in foreign aid. After we

have Brazil and India close from each other. Russia follows small in relative terms (0.03% of

GNI) and also in absolute terms, because of re-emerging process, what makes Russian

expenditures still small, but with expectancy to increase.

In terms of transparency, Russia is the only BRICS that report all kinds of aid because of

its application to be a member in OECD. In multilateral cooperation for transparency, none of

the BRICS countries is IATI signatory, neither supports EITI. Only in OGP Brazil and South

Africa are steering committee members. Low commitment with reporting data and details

about projects of cooperation are also a problem to this research because of the limited access

to information available.

16

To understand if BRICS cooperation is like other developing countries cooperation, we

should review South-South Cooperation (CSS) main traits. According Yamoussoukro

Consensus on South-South Cooperation (G77, 2008), CSS is ‘a common endeavor of peoples

and countries of the South, based on their common objectives and solidarity’. The Consensus

presents as features of the conceptual framework: a) CSS and its agenda must be driven by

the countries of the South, b) CSS must not be seen as a replacement for North-South

cooperation, c) CSS must not be analyzed and evaluated using the same standards as those

used for North-South relations, and d) Financial contributions from other developing

countries should not be seen as ODA from these countries to other countries of the South,

rather should be seen as expressions of solidarity and cooperation borne out of shared

experiences and sympathies.

Considering this framework, it becomes clear that Russia cooperation is not an example

of South-South Cooperation. Russia does not share historical and political context, is

applying to become a DAC country and its cooperation is allocated in political partners and

not in countries that need most resources. Brazil, India and South Africa seem to be more

coherent with CSS. And IBSA forum in this context may appear as a space for South-South

Cooperation more relevant than BRICS. While BRICS still does not have institutionalized

cooperation mechanisms, IBSA has working groups in several themes - as agriculture,

education, environment, health, and social development – and also a common fund for

alleviation of poverty and hunger, operating since 2006. The Fund has no conditionalities and

each country contributes with one million dollars per year (IBSA, 2014). Chinese efforts are

also on a discourse of CSS, but in different terms than IBSA countries, that used to highlight

they are multicultural democracies.

4. BRICS cooperating together: action as a coalition for development

Once we had the main features of cooperation of BRICS countries and also others

important actors of cooperation for development, now we will present the BRICS action as a

coalition for development.

Brazil, Russia, India and China meet annually since 2009. South Africa was invited to

join the group at 2011 BRICS summit. In these summits, BRICS agenda is diverse and new

themes come each year. Among them, we had a support to G20 as the main place for

negotiations to the economic global crisis, several reforms of international organizations

(IMF, World Bank, WHO, UNSC) and other issues that collaborate at the pursue to a more

17

multipolar world (SOUTO, LOPES, 2013). But we highlight the attention the BRICS

countries have to least developed countries, in themes as Millennium Development Goals,

Doha talks, sustainable development, global health and food security.

In every BRICS statement the development of poor countries is highlighted.

Chronologically, in 2008 Ministerial Meeting they underline the commitment to end poverty,

hunger and diseases in poor countries (BRIC, 2008). The 2009 1st Summit denounces that

the poorest countries were the most affected by the financial crisis and BRIC countries

demanded more commitment of developed countries to minimize impacts in developing

world (BRIC, 2009). They also underline the compromise of developed countries to destiny

at least 0.7% of their Gross National Product to official development assistance beyond other

ways to increase cooperation, as debt relief, access to markets and transfer of technology4.

It’s interesting to note that BRIC countries do not put themselves as competitors of developed

countries. Rather, they ask for traditional aid, what means their cooperation was not an

alternative, but complement of aid from North.

The 2nd

BRIC summit in 2010 brings the responsibility to decrease inequality in

global economic development and to promote social inclusion through a bigger and more

active role of emerging countries and countries in development in international organizations

(BRIC 2010). BRIC highlighted the importance of technical and financial cooperation to

promote sustainable and social development, social protection, full employment and politics

for more vulnerable groups as poor people, women, young people, migrants and people with

disabilities. No reference to democracy is made by the BRIC as a requirement for

development.

In 2011, BRIC touched the theme in many occasions. At the 3rd

summit, they stressed

the need in accelerate sustainable growth of developing countries to face poverty and achieve

Millennium Development Goals (BRIC, 2011). More than before, they declared eradication

of extreme poverty and hunger as a moral, social, political and economic imperative. They

also reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate in themes as social protection, decent work,

gender equality, youth, public health and fight against HIV-AIDS. Beyond this summit

declaration, the BRICS health ministers (South Africa was included in the Third Summit)

declared help the poorest countries in promoting an universal, accessible and sustainable

healthcare system, in particular to combat diseases as tuberculosis, viral hepatitis and malaria

4 Considering DAC Members’ Net Official Development Assistance in 2011 and 2012, only Denmark,

Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden accomplish the 0.7% goal. Rather, almost all countries

decrease their official assistance. In the worst cases, Spain decreases 47.3% and Italy decreases 32.3% of their

official aid. (OECD, 2014)

18

(BRICS, 2011). The representatives of BRICS Central Banks asked for more resources from

Multilateral Development Banks to don’t neglect financial development in these more

vulnerable countries (BRICS Development Banks, 2010). Finally, the BRICS Agriculture

ministers reiterated their international cooperation to reduce poverty.

In 2012, the 4th summit (the first with South Africa) brings some important elements

to promote development, as accelerate growth, food and energetic security, creation of new

jobs and sustainable development (BRICS, 2012). Finally, their 5th

summit in 2013, the first

in South Africa, gave an especial importance in cooperation with African countries, in an

south African attempt to lead the region in bringing more aid and trade for development

purposes (BRICS, 2013). In this regional, particular focus, BRICS supported processes of

regional integration, especially with NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa’s

Development). Further, BRICS once more highlighted the need of continuous, adequate and

predictable access to long term financing for infrastructure and investment. Last, BRICS

caught the attention to Millennium Development Goals that poor countries can’t achieve by

their own. In this context, BRICS calls developed countries to don’t decrease their Official

Aid for Development and asks to think in the post-2015 agenda focusing in poverty

eradication and human development. Their lack of references to sustainable development and

other environmental agendas can be understood as a signal that BRICS countries don’t have

enough strength to support these themes without compromising their growth and human

development.

BRICS declarations are not yet joint efforts to promote aid and cooperation as a

coalition, but joint commitments to each one act isolated. The possible exception might come

with the creation of a BRICS Development Bank, especially after the difficulties they are

meeting to reform Bretton Woods institutions. The budget of the future bank was already

declared: 100 billion dollars, being 41% from China, 18% from Brazil, 18% from Russia,

18% from India and the last 5% from South Africa. A joint bank for these countries would

strengthen cooperation to industrialize Africa, but the huge differences among BRICS

countries are yet a barrier to enable the creation of the bank.

In terms of guidance of BRICS cooperation, the five countries agree with the win-win

benefit discourse, financing infrastructure in African countries through the stimulation of

Foreign Direct Investment.

19

5. Final considerations

Is there a BRICS model of development? The answer might be ‘not yet’. BRICS

countries cooperation for development is still in process of consolidation. Countries are

looking for institutionalizing mechanisms of cooperation, creating national agencies and

trying to centralize data from different spheres of national governments. In other hand, DAC

countries are structured and aligned in a huge international organization that tries to

standardize concepts, methodologies and data, what enable to call it ‘traditional cooperation’,

even if countries have particularities on cooperating.

Some considerations and clarifications must be taken into account in the ending of

this paper. First, we didn’t use European Countries as thought initially, but DAC countries,

which are developed countries too, but in an approach that better represents traditional

donors. Second, when we analyzed partners of BRICS we realize that African countries were

not the main group of countries with whom BRICS cooperate, but also neighbors are

important, what emphasize the importance of regional dimension to study emerging

countries. Third, we didn’t create a model of cooperation, but we highlighted some features

that were available and that could be useful to compare. Fourth, it isn’t possible to develop a

strong model of cooperation if data are not available and standardized. BRICS countries

should improve their talks on these issues to strengthen their development cooperation as

partners, even to prove that they are not just donors as developed countries, but countries that

promote a horizontal partnership with win-win results. Fifth, it’s still so soon to talk about a

common BRICS model or strategy of cooperation. The BRICS Development Bank might be

the first institutional sign of what this kind of cooperation will looks like. However, first the

five countries must overcome some differences among them. Sixth, cooperation from BRICS

countries is not an opposition to traditional cooperation. They even declare in joint

documents that traditional cooperation is need if international community wants to achieve in

time the Millennium Development Goals. Nonetheless, in terms of power and influence, the

rise of emerging cooperation is a threat to developed countries, especially those who were

colonial powers in past and today use aid to maintain their influence in ex-colonies, as France

does in Francophonie or United Kingdom in Commonwealth. Last, Russia is trying to

approximate more than DAC countries when applying for OECD than looking for its own

model of cooperation, as other BRICS countries do. In this sense, it isn’t clear if Russia is

most interested in cooperate as his counterparts in BRICS as South-South Cooperation or if

Russia pursues reaffirm its role of superpower that had during Cold War as Soviet Union.

20

6. Bibliography

ABC (2010) ‘A Cooperação Técnica do Brasil para a África’ Available at

http://www.abc.gov.br/Content/abc/docs/CatalogoABCAfrica2010_I.pdf (Accessed in 24

February 2014)

Aid Data (2014) ‘Tracking Chinese Development Finance to Africa – BETA’ Available at

http://china.aiddata.org/map (Accessed in 06 March 2014)

Alden, C. (2007) ‘China in Africa – African Arguments’. London: Zed Books.

Besharati, N. A. (2013) ‘South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA):

Strategic Aid or Development Packages for Africa?’ Available at

http://www.safpi.org/sites/default/files/publications/saiia_report_12_edip_besharati.pdf

(Accessed in 02 March 2014)

Brezhneva, A., Ukhova, D. (2013) ‘Russia as a Humanitarian Aid Donor’ Available at

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-russia-humanitarian-donor-150713-

en.pdf (Accessed in 03 March 2014)

BRIC (2008) ‘Foreign Ministers’ Meeting’ Available at http://www.brics5.co.za/about-

brics/foreign-ministers-meeting/standalone-meeting-of-ministers/ (Accessed at 15 November

2013)

BRIC (2009) ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC countries leaders June 16, 2009 Yekaterinburg,

Russia’ Available at http://www.brics5.co.za/about-brics/summit-declaration/first-summit/

(Accessed at 15 November 2013)

BRIC (2010) ‘BRIC Summit – Joint Statement April 16, 2010 Brasilia’ Available at

http://www.brics5.co.za/about-brics/summit-declaration/second-summit/ (Accessed at 15

November 2013)

BRIC (2011) ‘Sanya Declaration’ Available at http://www.brics5.co.za/about-brics/summit-

declaration/third-summit/ (Accessed at 15 November 2013)

BRIC Development Banks (2010) ‘Memorandum on Cooperation Among Development

Banks of BRIC countries’ Available at http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/temas-mais-

informacoes/saiba-mais-bric/documentos-emitidos-por-altas-autoridades/memorando-on-

cooperation-among-development-banks-of-bric-countries/at_download/file (Accessed at 15

November 2013)

21

BRICS (2011) ‘Beijing Declaration’ Available at http://www.brics5.co.za/about-

brics/sectorial-declaration/health-ministers-meeting/beijing-declaration/ (Accessed at 15

November 2013)

BRICS (2012) ‘Fourth BRICS Summit – Delhi Declaration’ Available at

http://www.brics5.co.za/about-brics/summit-declaration/fourth-summit/ (Accessed at 15

November 2013)

BRICS (2013) ‘Fifth BRICS Summit’ Available at http://www.brics5.co.za/about-

brics/summit-declaration/fifth-summit/ (Accessed at 15 November 2013)

Development Initiatives (2013) ‘Investments to end poverty – Real money, real choices, real

lives’ Available at http://devinit.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/09/Investments_to_End_Poverty_full_report.pdf (Accessed in 26

February 2014)

DIRCO (2011) ‘Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu, White Paper on South

Africa’s Foreign Policy’ Available at http://www.gov.za/documents/download.php?f=149749

(Accessed in 06 March 2014)

Financial Tracking Service (2014) ‘Donor Profile: Russian Federation in 2011’ Available at

http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_Rdonor8_DC177_Y2011___1402281457.pdf

(Accessed in 28 February 2014)

G77 (2008) ‘Yamoussoukro Consensus on South-South Cooperation’ Available at

http://www.g77.org/ifcc12/Yamoussoukro_Consensus.pdf (Accessed in 03 March 2014)

GHSi (2012) ‘Shifting Paradigm – How the BRICS Are Reshaping Global Heatlh and

Development’ Available at http://www.ghsinitiatives.org/downloads/ghsi_brics_report.pdf

(Accessed in 6 January 2014)

IBSA (2014) ‘The IBSA Facility for the Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger (IBSA Fund)’

Available at http://www.ibsa-trilateral.org/about-ibsa/ibsa-fund (Accessed in 3 March 2014)

IPEA (2010) ‘Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional: 2005-2009’

Available at

http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/Book_Cooperao_Brasileira.pdf (Accessed

in 25 February 2014)

IPEA (2014) ‘Brazilian Cooperation for International Development 2010’ Available at

http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/livro_braziliancooperation_i

ngles.pdf (Accessed in 25 February 2014)

22

Lucey, A., O’Riordan, A. (2014) ‘South Africa anda id effectiveness – Lessons for SADPA

as a development partner’ ISS Paper 252 Available at

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper252.pdf (Accessed 05 March 2014).

Milani, C. R. S., Suyama, B., Lopes, L. L. (2013) ‘Políticas de Cooperação Internacional para

o Desenvolvimento no Norte e no Sul: que lições e desafios para o Brasil?’ Available at

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/brasilien/10532-20140207.pdf (Accessed in 10 February

2014)

Ministry Of Finance of the Russian Federation (2007) ‘Russia’s Participation in International

Development Assistance’ Available at

http://www.minfin.ru/common/img/uploaded/library/2011/09/Concept_ODA_English_versio

n.doc (Accessed in 26 February 2014)

Morazán, P., Knoke I., Knoblauch D., Schäffer, T. (2012) ‘The role of BRICS in the

Developing World’ Available at

http://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ardb/evt/1_avrupa_birligi/1_9_politikalar/1_9_8_dis_politika/The_

role_of_BRICS_in_the_developing_world.pdf (Accessed in 27 February 2014)

OECD (2014) ‘Table 1. DAC Members' Net Official Development Assistance in 2012’

Available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/tab01e.xls (Accessed in 15 February 2014)

Souto, P. H. S., Lopes, R. B. R. (2013) ‘The Role of BRICS in the G20’ Paper presented at

the ISA’s 54th

Annual Convention, San Francisco (CA), USA, April 3-6, 2013.

UNDP (2013) ‘The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World’ Available at

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/philippines/docs/HDR/HDR2013%20Report%20English.p

df (Accessed in 14 January 2014)

World Bank (2011) ‘Finance for Development: Trends and Opportunities in a Changing

Landscape’ Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CFPEXT/Resources/299947-

1322067209001/WorkingPaper_FinanceforDevelopmentTrendsandOpportunities.pdf

(Accessed in 5 March 2014)

World Bank (2014) ‘Net official development assistance received (current US$)’ Available at

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ODAT.CD (Accessed in 05 March 2014)