Nietzsche once wrote, ‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him’. In the case of the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (BRICS), the first two lines apply – but not the third. We didn’t kill it. The BRICS project was a slow-motion suicide from the start.
The 17th BRICS summit took place in Rio de Janeiro on July 6 and 7, and if this is the first time you’re hearing about it, you’re not alone. The event passed largely unnoticed. Neither Xi Jinping nor Vladimir Putin showed up.
Vladimir Putin, who once boldly claimed that BRICS, not the West, would drive global economic growth, was absent. Speculation points to the risk of arrest under an International Criminal Court warrant, given Brazil’s membership of the court. Xi’s absence marked his first no-show in over a decade. It’s a symbolic moment: if two of its leading figures don’t even attend the summit, what kind of future can BRICS really claim?
All the countries in BRICS that experienced high growth did so with the help of the US market. After their initial period of catching up, they seemed to forget this. They thought they could now do it on their own and ‘play God’ for the other members – an illusion from the start. There’s a reason Deng Xiaoping, once Mao’s right hand, wore a cowboy hat during his 1979 state visit. The so-called economic miracle was made possible by the US and the West.
Yes, BRICS accounts for 39% of global GDP, but only 18% of its trade happens within the bloc. That’s no accident. One key reason is currency volatility. BRICS currencies are highly vulnerable to trade wars and geopolitical shifts – far more than the currencies of the Western economies they dream of replacing. The market reflects this reality: around 62% of global currency reserves are in US dollars. Only 2% are in Chinese yuan.
And the growth numbers are telling. The combined GDP growth of the BRICS states fell to just 3.2% in 2024, down from an average of 4.5% between 2010 and 2018. China, which accounts for two-thirds of BRICS GDP, is faltering. UBS forecasts Chinese growth at 4.0% in 2025 and just 3.0% in 2026. From 2007 to 2023, its annual growth dropped from over 14% to under 6%. Moreover, the Chinese state is expanding its economic role. In 2020, more than 60% of total revenue among Chinese firms listed on the Fortune Global 500 came from state-owned enterprises. This trend predates the trade war. In a protectionist global environment, China and the rest of BRICS could be its own worst enemy.
Russia’s story is similar, if not worse. Despite the rhetoric, Russia is not an economic superpower. It’s not even in the G7. Its GDP is smaller than Italy’s. Yet some BRICS cheerleaders still talk about Russia as if it’s the world’s second power.
So where does that leave us? BRICS’ economic performance is underwhelming. Its most influential leaders skipped the latest summit. Internal trade is flat. And new invitees – like Argentina – are arguably closer to the West than to the so-called Global South. Was BRICS a good idea executed badly, or a bad idea from the start?
The term ‘BRIC’ – later expanded to BRICS to include South Africa – was coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, a former UK Treasury minister, who predicted these countries would dominate the world economy by 2050. But like Paul Samuelson’s infamous textbook prediction that the USSR would overtake the US economy, it now looks naïve.
Between 2008 and 2021, BRICS countries did post impressive growth: China’s GDP per capita rose by 138%, India’s by 85%, and Russia’s by 13%. The numbers suggested a bipolar world might emerge. But forecasts based solely on past economic data ignored the most important factor: political economy.
BRICS lacks the institutional foundations that underpin Western democracies. It’s a house built on sand. The bloc’s supposed pragmatism means its members choose policies based on short-term necessity, not long-term principle.
Roughly 60% of BRICS members are authoritarian regimes. Another 20% – India and Ethiopia – are hybrid regimes. Only 20% are full democracies: Brazil and South Africa, which together contribute less than 10% of the bloc’s GDP.
Authoritarian regimes don’t foster the environment needed for sustained growth. Forecasts that ignored this fundamental truth missed the point. It’s not just about GDP, it’s about the rule of law, secure property rights and representative democracy.
A bloc of unstable regimes doesn’t form a stable alliance. It forms an unreliable one. And that’s exactly what we see: BRICS members are reluctant to trade with one another for fear of sanctions and Western retaliation. A coalition that sought to replace the West cannot survive without it. That, ultimately, is BRICS’ fatal flaw.
One doesn’t like to be a disappointment to one’s parents. But in (at least) one crucial regard, I’ve let my dad down. He is a steam train enthusiast, and I’ve never shown a blind bit of interest. So it was more with filial duty than pleasure that I took the old man to the Didcot […]
This weekend the Telegraph ran a story with the striking headline ‘Burnham told to trade nuclear umbrella for access to single market’. The idea is the brainchild of Nick Boles, the former Conservative MP who quit the party in 2019 over Brexit, switched his allegiance to Labour and helped to advise Keir Starmer on the […]
Here’s a fun fact for you: Ireland, a country of just over 5 million people, is one of the top five largest exporters of pharmaceuticals on the planet. Ireland’s exports are estimated around 100 billion euros, with 19 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies having a significant footprint employing roughly 50,000 people. This has translated […]
