Written by experts and scholars from BRICS countries, with the support of BRICS governments, this is the first study to reflect on the capabilities and synergies of these economies. The report emphasizes best practices, areas of cooperation, and strengthening economic links so that BRICS can collectively play a central role in the post-crisis global economy.

This book offers a quantitative and qualitative look at the much-discussed BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—and explores how their economic ascent might cause global economic realignments in the 21st century. Providing a Chinese perspective on how the global realignment might impact strategic choices and a data-driven approach to the similarities and differences within the so-called BRICS group, this book will be of great interest to economists, international banking professionals, and political forecasters.

In 2001, Jim O'Neill predicted the fastest growing economies of the past decade. Now he's back to explore the new growth markets we should all be watching closely today. It's been ten years since Jim O'Neill conceived of the BRIC acronym. He and his team made a startling prediction: Four developing nations- Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRICs)-would overtake the six largest Western economies within forty years. The BRIC analysis permanently changed the world of global investing, and its accuracy has stood the test of time. The Growth Map features O'Neill's personal account of the BRIC phenomenon, how it has evolved, and where those four key nations currently stand after a turbulent decade. And the book also offers an equally bold prediction about the "Next Eleven" countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam. These developing nations may not seem exceptional today, but they offer exciting opportunities for investors over the next decade, just as BRIC did before them. O'Neill also shares several compelling insights about the world economy. He reveals the value for growing countries in being "willing to play" by meaningfully committing to policies that encourage further growth and engagement with globalization. He explains how the g20 can adjust to better incorporate the BRICs and to better reflect the balance of the global economy. Finally, O'Neill makes the counterintuitive claim that good things can quite often come from crises. While established economic powers may see the rise of the BRICs as a threat, international trade benefits us all over the long term. Likewise, the recent financial crisis revealed deep problems in our economic systems, problems we now have the opportunity to fix. A work of astute and absorbing analysis, The Growth Map is an indispensable guide for every investor and every participant in the global economy. Anyone who wants to understand the developing world would do well to heed the man called "one of the most sought-after economic commentators on the planet." (The Telegraph)

Seminar paper from the year 2011 in the subject Politics - Political systems in general and in comparison, grade: 1,3, Ruhr-University of Bochum (Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften), course: Emerging Powers in International Affairs, language: English, abstract: About ten years ago, Jim O’Neil at the well-known investment bank Goldman Sachs coined the acronym BRIC for four emerging countries that were regarded to have a common potential of shaping global markets in the not-too-distant future: Brazil, Russia, India and China. In 2003, Goldman Sachs published a report named “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050”. Its key message was that the economies of these four countries together, which at that time made up only 15% of the global economy, could by 2050 be larger than those of the (former) G6. They claimed that, given that their predictions come true, the list of the world’s major economies could look very different from today’s in less than 40 years – a perspective which must naturally have an influence on investing behavior around the globe (see Wilson, Purushotaman 2003). The reasons for these expectations were the BRICs economic growth rates, which topped those of the industrialized nations by far, as well as their huge share of global population which promised emerging masses of consumers. In 2010, Goldman Sachs could proudly announce the fulfillment of their 2001 predictions (Wilson et al.). The past decade had indeed seen a rise in political and economic power of these emerging countries, so, according to Goldman Sachs, there were no reasons to doubt that the BRICs future growth would as well be satisfying their forecasts (ibid. 2). Another report from December 2009, which concentrated on the BRICs’ survival of the global financial crisis had even confirmed that these countries (with the sole exception of Russia) were emerging healthier from it than the industrialized world – a development which gave reason to expect yet better long-term performance than they had originally prophesized ten years ago (O’Neill, Stupnytska). However, critics argue that the entire concept of BRIC has flaws – it might appear forced to group four countries that seem to have very little in common. The prediction of their future role in global affairs seems rather bold and even if in terms of economics the BRICs fulfill the expectations – what does this mean for their general role in world affairs? This paper shall have a closer look at the BRIC group and its actual and predicted development. The sense of an analytical concept that was applied to four such different countries shall be examined by pointing out there commonalities and differences.

A report on investment trends in the BRICS economies since the creation of the grouping, and a discussion of possible future paths for collaboration in the area of investment. Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) now form one of the world's most important economic blocs, representing more than one quarter of global GDP, and 42 per cent of the world's population. Significantly, the BRICS have seen their economic influence increase over the past decades, as drivers of global growth, trade and investment. Since Jim O'Neil created the acronym BRIC, in 2001, the grouping has both expanded, and deepened its collaboration. In 2011, South Africa joined, to create the BRICS economies. Although the bloc is an informal arrangement, with no charter, it has nonetheless developed a more institutional character, both through a high level of political interaction (e.g. annual summits) and the creation of economic institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Foreign investment has played an important role in the growth of BRICS economies since 2001, with annual FDI inflows to the bloc more than quadrupling from 2001 to 2021 and contributing significantly to gross fixed capital formation.

This handbook presents a comprehensive and multi-faceted analysis of the BRICS countries and other emerging economies, exploring their economic, social, environmental, and governance dimensions and challenges.

The transformation of the BRIC acronym from an investment term into a household name of international politics and into a semi-institutionalized political outfit (called BRICS, with a capital ‘S’), is one of the defining developments in international politics in the past decades. While the concept is now commonly used in the general public debate and international media, there has not yet been a comprehensive and scholarly analysis of the history of the BRICS term. The BRICS and the Future of Global Order, Second Edition offers a definitive reference history of the BRICS as a term and as an institution—a chronological narrative and analytical account of the BRICS concept from its inception in 2001 to the political grouping it is today. In addition, it analyzes what the rise of powers like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa means for the future of global order. Will the BRICS countries seek to establish a parallel system with its own distinctive set of rules, institutions, and currencies of power, rejecting key tenets of liberal internationalism, are will they seek to embrace the rules and norms that define today’s Western-led order?