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: [email protected] 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)
Top Related