BRIC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Brazil, Russia, India, and China

BRIC

 Brazil
President (head of state and government): Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
 Russia
President (head of state): Dmitry Medvedev
Prime Minister (head of government): Vladimir Putin
 India
President (head of state): Pratibha Patil
Prime Minister (head of government): Manmohan Singh
 China
President (head of state): Hu Jintao
Premier (head of government): Wen Jiabao

GDP (PPP)[show]

GDP (nominal)[show]

Area[show]

Population[show]

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries" or known
as the "Big Four") is a grouping acronym that refers to the related countries of Brazil, Russia,
India, and China.

The acronym was coined by Jim O'Neill in a 2001 paper entitle "The World Needs Better
Economic BRICs" [1][2][3]. The acronym has come into widespread use as a symbol of the shift
in global economic power away from the developed G7 economies toward the developing
world.
According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea are the only other countries
comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were
considered already more developed[4]. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing
rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined
economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined,
currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the
world's population.[5][6]

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic
bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done.[7] However, there are
some indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or
'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical
clout".[8][9] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in
Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multipolar world
order.[10]

Contents
[hide]

 1 The BRIC thesis

o 1.1 (2003) Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050
o 1.2 (2004) Follow-up report
o 1.3 (2007) Second Follow-up report
 2 The BRIC numbers
o 2.1 Global giants
o 2.2 BRIC in future
 3 BRIC summits
 4 The BRIC term
o 4.1 Marketing
o 4.2 Criticism
 5 Other additions
o 5.1 Mexico
o 5.2 South Korea & United Korea
 6 See also
 7 References
 8 Bibliography
 9 External links

[edit] The BRIC thesis

Moscow, Russia.

Mumbai, India.

São Paulo, Brazil.

Shanghai, China.

Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China is such
that they could become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050. The
thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neill, global economist at Goldman Sachs.[11] These countries
encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and
hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 15.435 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be
the largest entity on the global stage. These four countries are among the biggest and fastest
growing emerging markets.[citation needed]

However, it is not the intent of Goldman Sachs to argue that these four countries are a
political alliance (such as the European Union) or any formal trading association, like
ASEAN. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their political cooperation, mainly as
a way of influencing the United States position on major trade accords, or, through the
implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the
United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.[citation needed]

[edit] (2003) Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050

Here's what Goldman Sachs had to say in its original report[12] (defended in the paper
Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050) "Dreaming with BRICS: The Path to 2050,"
published in 2003:

 China's economy will surpass Germany in the next few years, Japan by 2015, and the
United States by 2041.
 India's growth rate will be the highest -- not China's -- and it will overtake Japan
(today the world's second-largest economy) by 2032.
 BRICs’ currencies could appreciate by 300% over the next 50 years, providing a big
tailwind for investors in BRIC assets.
 Taken together, the BRICs could be larger than the United States and the developed
economies of Europe within 40 years.
 By 2025, BRICs will bring another 200 million people with incomes above $15,000
into the world's economy. That's equal to the combined populations of Germany,
France and the United Kingdom.

However, Goldman Sachs has now become more bullish on the BRICs since it published its
original report. The size of China's economy overtook Germany's economy in 2008, a year
earlier than expected, and will overtake Japan in 2010. Goldman Sachs now believes that the
Chinese economy will overtake the United States by 2027. And with India accounting for 10
of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world and 700 million people moving to cities by
2050, its influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in 2003.

The BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China[13] have changed their
political systems to embrace global capitalism. Goldman Sachs predicts China and India,
respectively, to be the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services while
Brazil and Russia would become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials.
Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil
and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers to India and China. Thus, the
BRICs have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc to the exclusion of the modern-
day states currently of "Group of Eight" status. Brazil is dominant in soy and iron ore while
Russia has enormous supplies of oil and natural gas. Goldman Sachs' thesis thus documents
how commodities, work, technology, and companies have diffused outward from the United
States across the world.

Following the end of the Cold War or even before, the governments comprising BRIC all
initiated economic or political reforms to allow their countries to enter the world economy. In
order to compete, these countries have simultaneously stressed education, foreign investment,
domestic consumption, and domestic entrepreneurship.

[edit] (2004) Follow-up report

The Goldman Sachs global economics team released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC
study in 2004.[14] The report states that in BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual
income over a threshold of $3,000, will double in number within three years and reach 800
million people within a decade. This predicts a massive rise in the size of the middle class in
these nations. In 2025, it is calculated that the number of people in BRIC nations earning over
$15,000 may reach over 200 million. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be
restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first
China and then a decade later India will begin to dominate the world economy.

Yet despite the balance of growth, swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the
average wealth level of individuals in the more advanced economies will continue to far
outstrip the BRIC economic average. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2025 the income per
capita in the six most populous EU countries will exceed $35,000, whereas only about 500
million people in the BRIC economies will have similar income levels.

The report also highlights India's great inefficiency in energy use and mentions the dramatic
under-representation of these economies in the global capital markets. The report also
emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it
relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the G6, while per-capita income levels
remain far below the norm of today's industrialized countries. This phenomenon, too, will
affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the
enormous potential markets in the BRICs by producing, for example, far cheaper automobiles
and other manufactured goods affordable to the consumers within the BRICs in lieu of the
luxury models that currently bring the most income to automobile manufacturers. India and
China have already started making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector
respectively in the global arena. Developed economies of the world have already taken
serious note of this fact.

[edit] (2007) Second Follow-up report

This report compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi gives insight into "India's
Rising Growth Potential". It reveals updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth
trends in India over the last four years. Goldman Sachs assert that "India's influence on the
world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs
research". They noted significant areas of research and development, and expansion that is
happening in the country, which will lead to the prosperity of the growing middle-class.[15]

"India has 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world and, based on current trends,
we estimate a massive 700 million people will move to cities by 2050. This will have
significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services."[15]

In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into
foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per
capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the United
States (in US$) by 2050.[15] It states that the four nations as a group will overtake the G7 in
2032.[15]

[edit] The BRIC numbers

The Economist publishes an annual table of social and economic national statistics in its
Pocket World in Figures.[citation needed] Extrapolating the global rankings from their 2008 Edition
for the BRIC countries and economies in relation to various categories provides an interesting
touchstone in relation to the economic underpinnings of the BRIC thesis. It also illustrates
how, despite their divergent economic bases, the economic indicators are remarkably similar
in global rankings between the different economies. It also suggests that, while economic
arguments can be made for linking Mexico into the BRIC thesis, the case for including South
Korea looks considerably weaker. A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005
explained why Mexico wasn't included in the original BRICs.

[edit] Global giants

Painting BRIC by numbers[citation needed]

Categories  Brazil  Russia  India  China
Area 5th 1st 7th 3rd
Population 5th 9th 2nd 1st
Population growth rate 107th 221th 90th 156th
Labour force 5th 6th 2nd 1st
GDP (nominal) 8th 12th 11th 3rd
GDP (PPP) 9th 7th 4th 2nd
GDP (nominal) per capita 60th 59th 139th 98th
GDP (PPP) per capita 75th 51st 128th 99th
GDP (real) growth rate 113st 206th 12th 4th
Human Development Index 75th 71st 134th 92nd
Exports 21st 12th 23rd 1st
Imports 24th 14th 15th 2nd
Current account balance 47th 5th 169th 1st
Received FDI 11th 12th 29th 5th
Foreign exchange reserves 7th 3rd 5th 1st
External debt 28th 24th 26th 23rd
Public debt 47th 122th 29th 98th
Electricity consumption 9th 4th 5th 2nd
Number of mobile phones 5th 4th 2nd 1st
Number of internet users 5th 8th 4th 1st
Motor vehicle production 6th 19th 7th 1st
Military expenditures 12th 5th 10th 2nd
Active troops 14th 5th 3rd 1st
Rail network 10th 2nd 4th 3rd
Road network 4th 8th 3rd 2nd

[edit] BRIC in future

The list of 22 selected countries by nominal GDP from year 2006 to 2050: BRICs, G7 and
Next Eleven. The bottom chart list the same 22 countries by nominal GDP per capita (the
rankings for this bottom chart do not reflect the GDP per capita for all the world's countries).
BRIC countries are highlighted and labeled in bold. Figures reflect data published in 2007.

Gross Domestic Product [2006-2050] (in US2006$ billions)[16]

Rank
Country 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
 United
1 13,245 14,535 16,194 17,978 20,087 22,817 26,097 29,823 33,904 38,514
States
2  Japan 4,336 4,604 4,861 5,224 5,570 5,814 5,886 6,042 6,300 6,677
 German
3 2,851 3,083 3,326 3,519 3,631 3,761 4,048 4,388 4,714 5,024
y
4  China 2,682 4,667 8,133 12,630 18,437 25,610 34,348 45,022 57,310 70,710
 United
5 2,310 2,546 2,835 3,101 3,333 3,595 3,937 4,344 4,744 5,133
Kingdom
6  France 2,194 2,366 2,577 2,815 3,055 3,306 3,567 3,892 4,227 4,592
7  Italy 1,809 1,914 2,072 2,224 2,326 2,391 2,444 2,559 2,737 2,950
8  Canada 1,260 1,389 1,549 1,700 1,856 2,061 2,302 2,569 2,849 3,149
9  Brazil 1,064 1,346 1,720 2,194 2,831 3,720 4,963 6,631 8,740 11,366
10  Russia 982 1,371 1,900 2,554 3,341 4,265 5,265 6,320 7,420 8,580
11  India 909 1,256 1,900 2,848 4,316 6,683 10,514 16,510 25,278 37,668
 South
12 887 1,071 1,305 1,508 1,861 2,241 2,644 3,089 3,562 4,083
Korea
13  Mexico 851 1,009 1,327 1,742 2,303 3,068 4,102 5,471 7,204 9,340
14  Turkey 390 440 572 740 965 1,279 1,716 2,300 3,033 3,943
 Indonesi
15 350 419 562 752 1,033 1,479 2,192 3,286 4,846 7,010
a
16  Iran 245 312 415 544 716 953 1,273 1,673 2,133 2,663
17  Pakistan 129 161 206 268 359 497 709 1,026 1,472 2,085
18  Nigeria 121 158 218 306 445 680 1,083 1,765 2,870 4,640
 Philippi
19 117 162 215 289 400 582 882 1,353 2,040 3,010
nes
20  Egypt 101 129 171 229 318 467 718 1,124 1,728 2,602
 Banglad
21 63 81 110 150 210 304 451 676 1,001 1,466
esh
22  Vietnam 55 88 157 273 458 745 1,169 1,768 2,569 3,607
The five largest economies in the world in 2050, measured in GDP nominal (millions of
USD), according to Goldman Sachs.[16]
Gross Domestic Product per capita (nominal) [2006-2050][16]
Rank
Country 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
 United
1 44,379 47,014 50,200 53,502 57,446 62,717 69,019 76,044 83,489 91,683
States
 United
2 38,108 41,543 45,591 49,173 52,220 55,904 61,049 67,391 73,807 80,234
Kingdom
3  Canada 38,071 40,541 43,449 45,961 48,621 52,663 57,728 63,464 69,531 76,002
4  France 36,045 38,380 41,332 44,811 48,429 52,327 56,562 62,136 68,252 75,253
 German
5 34,588 37,474 40,589 43,223 45,033 47,263 51,710 57,118 62,658 68,253
y
6  Japan 34,021 36,194 38,650 42,385 46,419 49,975 52,345 55,756 60,492 66,846
7  Italy 31,123 32,948 35,908 38,990 41,358 43,195 44,948 48,070 52,760 58,545
 South
8 18,161 21,602 26,012 29,868 36,813 44,602 53,449 63,924 75,979 90,294
Korea
9  Mexico 7,918 8,972 11,176 13,979 17,685 22,694 29,417 38,255 49,393 63,149
10  Russia 6,909 9,833 13,971 19,311 26,061 34,368 43,800 54,221 65,708 78,576
11  Brazil 5,657 6,882 8,427 10,375 12,996 16,694 21,924 29,026 38,149 49,759
12  Turkey 5,545 6,005 7,460 9,291 11,743 15,188 20,046 26,602 34,971 45,595
13  Iran 3,768 4,652 5,888 7,345 9,328 12,139 15,979 20,746 26,231 32,676
14  China 2,041 3,463 5,837 8,829 12,688 17,522 23,511 30,951 39,719 49,650
 Indonesi
15 1,508 1,724 2,197 2,813 3,711 5,123 7,365 10,784 15,642 22,395
a
 Philippi
16 1,312 1,688 2,075 2,591 3,372 4,635 6,678 9,815 14,260 20,388
nes
17  Egypt 1,281 1,531 1,880 2,352 3,080 4,287 6,287 9,443 14,025 20,500
18  Nigeria 919 1,087 1,332 1,665 2,161 2,944 4,191 6,117 8,934 13,014
19  India 817 1,061 1,492 2,091 2,979 4,360 6,524 9,802 14,446 20,836
20  Pakistan 778 897 1,050 1,260 1,568 2,035 2,744 3,775 5,183 7,066
21  Vietnam 655 1,001 1,707 2,834 4,583 7,245 11,148 16,623 23,932 33,472
 Banglad
22 427 510 627 790 1,027 1,384 1,917 2,698 3,767 5,235
esh

[edit] BRIC summits

Leaders at the 1st BRIC summit. From left are: President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil;
President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia; President Hu Jintao of China, and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh of India.

The BRIC countries met for their first official summit on 16 June 2009, in Yekaterinburg,
Russia,[17] with Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Dmitry Medvedev, Manmohan Singh, and Hu
Jintao, the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, all attending.[18] The core
focus of the summit was related to improving the current global economic situation and
discussing how the four countries can better work together in the future, as well as a more
general push to reform financial institutions.[17][18] There was also discussion surrounding how
developing nations, such as those members of BRIC, could be better involved in global
affairs in the future.[18] In the aftermath of the summit the BRIC nations suggested that there
was a need for a new global reserve currency that is 'diversified, stable and predictable'.[19]
The statement that was released stopped short of making a direct attack on the perceived
'dominance' of the US dollar, something which the Russians have been critical of; however, it
still led to a fall in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.[20]

The foreign ministers of the BRIC countries had met previously on May 16, 2008 also in
Yekaterinburg.[9]

One week prior to the summit, Brazil offered $10 billion to the International Monetary Fund.
[21]
It was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan.[21] Brazil had previously
received loans from the IMF and this announcement was treated as a significant
demonstration of how Brazil's economic position had changed.[21] China also announced plans
to invest a total of $50.1 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion.[21]

Summit Date Host country Host leader Location held

1st June 16, 2009  Russia Dmitry Medvedev Yekaterinburg
2nd April 16, 2010  Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Brasília
3rd TBA  China Hu Jintao Beijing

[edit] The BRIC term

The BRIC leaders in 2009

The BRIC leaders in 2010

Various sources (see external links below) refer to a purported "original" BRIC agreement
that predates the Goldman Sachs thesis. Some of these sources claim that President Vladimir
Putin of Russia was the driving force behind this original cooperative coalition of developing
BRIC countries. However, thus far, no text has been made public of any formal agreement to
which all four BRIC states are signatories. This does not mean, however, that they have not
reached a multitude of bilateral or even quadrilateral agreements. Evidence of agreements of
this type are abundant and are available on the foreign ministry websites of each of the four
countries. Trilateral agreements and frameworks made among the BRICs include the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (member states include Russia and China, associate
members include India) and the IBSA Trilateral Forum, which unites Brazil, India, and South
Africa in annual dialogues. Also important to note is the G-20 coalition of developing states
which includes all the BRICs.

Also, because of the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC", this term has
sometimes been extended whereby "BRICK"[22][23] (K for South Korea), "BRIMC"[24][25] (M
for Mexico), "BRICA" (GCC Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman
and the United Arab Emirates)[26] and "BRICET" (including Eastern Europe and Turkey)[27]
have become more generic marketing terms to refer to these emerging markets.

[edit] Marketing

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (January 2010)
The BM&F Bovespa, São Paulo's Stock Exchange is the fifth largest in the world.

The BRIC term is also used by companies who refer to the four named countries as key to
their emerging markets strategies. By comparison the reduced acronym IC would not be
attractive, although the term "Chindia" is often used. The BRIC's study specifically focuses
on large countries, not necessarily the wealthiest or the most productive and was never
intended to be an investment thesis. If investors read the Goldman's research carefully, and
agreed with the conclusions, then they would gain exposure to Asian debt and equity markets
rather than to Latin America. According to estimates provided by the USDA, the wealthiest
regions outside of the G6 in 2015 will be Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Combined
with China and India, these five economies are likely to be the world's five most influential
economies outside of the G6.

A view of the Rajiv Gandhi Salai in Chennai, an emerging destination for outsourcing

On the other hand, when the "R" in BRIC is extended beyond Russia and is used as a loose
term to include all of Eastern Europe as well, then the BRIC story becomes more compelling.
At issue are the multiple serious problems which confront Russia (potentially unstable
government, environmental degradation, critical lack of modern infrastructure, etc.[citation
needed]
), and the comparatively much lower growth rate seen in Brazil. However, Brazil's lower
growth rate obscures the fact that the country is wealthier than China or India on a per-capita
basis, has a more developed and global integrated financial system and has an economy
potentially more diverse than the other BRICs due to its raw material and manufacturing
potential. Many other Eastern European countries, such as Poland, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and several others were able to continually sustain
high economic growth rates and do not experience some of the problems that Russia
experiences or experience them to a lesser extent. In terms of GDP per capita in 2008, Brazil
ranked 64th, Russia 42nd, India 113th and China 89th. By comparison South Korea ranked
24th and Singapore 3rd.

Brazil's stock market, the Bovespa, has gone from approximately 9,000 in September 2002 to
over 70,000 in May 2008. Government policies have favored investment (lowering interest
rates), retiring foreign debt and expanding growth, and a reformulation of the tax system is
being voted in the congress. The British author and researcher Mark Kobayashi-Hillary is
editing a new book titled 'Building a Future with BRICs' for European publisher Springer
Verlag that examines the growth of the BRICs region and its effect on global sourcing.
Contributors to the book include Nandan Nilekani, and Shiv Nadar, with publication
scheduled for October 2007.

[edit] Criticism

A criticism is that the BRIC projections are based on the assumptions that resources are
limitless and endlessly available when needed. In reality, many important resources currently
necessary to sustain economic growth, such as oil, natural gas, coal, other fossil fuels, and
uranium might soon experience a peak in production before enough renewable energy can be
developed and commercialized, which might result in slower economic growth than
anticipated, thus throwing off the projections and their dates. The economic emergence of the
BRICs will have unpredictable consequences for the global environment. Indeed, proponents
of a set carrying capacity for the Earth may argue that, given current technology, there is a
finite limit to how much the BRICs can develop before exceeding the ability of the global
economy to supply.[28]

Academics and experts have suggested that China is in a league of its own compared to the
other BRIC countries.[29] As David Rothkopf wrote in Foreign Policy, "Without China, the
BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the wine that goes
with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective veto
power over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one
with the big reserves. They are the biggest potential market. They are the U.S. partner in the
G2 (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a G8 meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal
without them) and so on."[30] Deutsche Bank Research said in a report that "economically,
financially and politically, China overshadows and will continue to overshadow the other
BRICs." It added that China's economy is larger than that of the three other BRIC economies
(Brazil, Russia and India) combined. Moreover, China's exports and its official forex reserve
holdings are more than twice as large as those of the other BRICs combined.[31]

Another criticism is the understatement of GDP growth in China over the next 45 years;
which predicts growth falling far below normal development. This contradicts the rapid
economic growth that has already taken place in the country and the experience of countries
like South Korea catching up with western GDP per capita, which China has been growing
faster than in a similar period of development.[citation needed]

There are many uncertainties and assumptions in the BRIC thesis that could mean that any or
all of these four countries will not live up to their promise.[citation needed] The preeminence of
China and India as major manufacturing countries with unrealised potential has been widely
recognised, but some commentators state that China's and Russia's large-scale disregard for
human rights and democracy could be a problem in the future. Human rights issues do not
inform the foreign policies of these two countries to the same extent as they do the policies of
other large states such as Japan, India, the EU states and the USA. There is also the
possibility of conflict over Taiwan in the case of China and smaller democracies that lie in
the vicinity of these two authoritarian giants will no doubt be affected by human rights issues
being relegated to a lower global priority.

There is also the issue of population growth. The population of Russia is beginning to shrink
fast. Brazil's and China's populations will begin to decline in several decades[citation needed], with
their demographic windows closing in several decades as well. This may have implications
for those countries' future, for there might be a decrease in the overall labor force and a
negative change in the proportion of workers to retirees.

Brazil's economic potential has been anticipated for decades, but it had until recently
consistently failed to achieve investor expectations.[citation needed] Only in recent years has the
country established a framework of political, economic, and social policies that allowed it to
resume consistent growth. The result has been solid and paced economic development that
rival its early 70's "miracle years", as reflected in its expanding capital markets, lowest
unemployment rates in decades, and consistent international trade surpluses - that led to the
accumulation of reserves and liquidation of foreign debt (earning the country a coveted
investment grade by the S&P and Fitch Ratings in 2008).

Finally, India's relations with its neighbor Pakistan have always been tense. In 1998, there
was a nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India.[citation needed] Border conflicts with Pakistan,
mostly over the longheld dispute over Kashmir, has further aggravated any economic ties.
The BRIC countries have enormous populations of extremely impoverished people. This
impedes progress by limiting government finances, increasing social unrest, and limiting
potential domestic economic demand. Factors such as international conflict, civil unrest,
unwise political policy, outbreaks of disease and terrorism are all factors that are difficult to
predict and that could have an effect on the destiny of any country.

Other critics suggest that BRIC is nothing more than a neat acronym for the four largest
emerging market economies,[citation needed] but in economic and political terms nothing else (apart
from the fact that they are all big emerging markets) links the four. Two are manufacturing
based economies and big importers (China and India), but two are huge exporters of natural
resources (Brazil and Russia). The Economist, in its special report on Brazil, expressed the
following view: "In some ways Brazil is the steadiest of the BRICs. Unlike China and Russia
it is a full-blooded democracy; unlike India it has no serious disputes with its neighbors. It is
the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb." The Heritage Foundation's "Economic Freedom
Index", which measures factors such as protection of property rights and free trade ranks
Brazil ("moderately free") above the other BRICs ("mostly unfree").[32]

It is also noticed that BRIC countries have undermined qualitative factors that is reflected in
deterioration in Doing Business ranking 2010 and other several human indexes.[33]

In a not-so-subtle dig critical of the term as nothing more than a shorthand for emerging
markets generally, critics have suggested a correlating term, CEMENT (Countries in
Emerging Markets Excluded by New Terminology). Whilst they accept there has been
spectacular growth of the BRIC economies, these gains have largely been the result of the
strength of emerging markets generally, and that strength comes through having BRICs and
CEMENT.[34]

[edit] Other additions

Mexico and South Korea are currently the world's 13th and 15th largest by nominal GDP,[35]
just behind the BRIC and G7 economies, while both are experiencing rapid GDP growth of
5% every year, a figure comparable to Brazil from the original BRICs. Jim O'Neill, expert
from the same bank and creator of the economic thesis, stated that in 2001 when the paper
was created, it did not consider Mexico, but today it has been included because the country is
experiencing the same factors that the other countries first included present.[24][25] While South
Korea was not originally included in the BRICs, recent solid economic growth led to
Goldman Sachs proposing to add Mexico and South Korea to the BRICs, changing the
acronym to BRIMCK, with Jim O'Neill pointing out that Korea "is better placed than most
others to realize its potential due to its growth-supportive fundamentals.[36]

A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South
Korea weren't included in the original BRICs. According to the paper,[4] among the other
countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs,
but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked at them as
already more developed. However, due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis,
"BRIMC" and "BRICK" are becoming more generic marketing terms to refer to these six
countries.

In their paper "BRICs and Beyond", Goldman Sachs stated that "Mexico, the four BRIC
countries and South Korea should not be really thought of as emerging markets in the
classical sense", adding that they are a "critical part of the modern globalised economy" and
"just as central to its functioning as the current G7".[37]

The term is primarily used in the economic and financial spheres as well as in academia. Its
usage has grown specially in the investment sector, where it is used to refer to the bonds
emitted by these emerging markets governments.[38][39][40]

[edit] Mexico

Mexico City, Mexico

Primarily, along with the BRICs,[41] Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of
Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China is such that they may become (with the USA) the six
most dominant economies by the year 2050. The thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neill, global
economist at Goldman Sachs. These countries are forecast to encompass over forty percent of
the world's population and hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 14.951 trillion dollars. On almost
every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage. Goldman Sachs did not
argue that these five countries are a political alliance (such as the European Union) or any
formal trading association, like ASEAN. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their
political cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the United States position on major
trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting
political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with
India. Due to Mexico's rapidly advancing infrastructure, increasing middle class and rapidly
declining poverty rates it is expected to have a higher GDP per capita than all but three
European countries by 2050, this new found local wealth also contributes to the nation's
economy by creating a large domestic consumer market which in turn creates more jobs.

[edit] South Korea & United Korea

Seoul, South Korea

Despite being a developed country, South Korea has been growing at a speed comparable to
Brazil and Mexico. More importantly, it has a significantly higher Growth Environment
Score (Goldman Sachs' way of measuring the long-term sustainability of growth) than all of
the BRICs or N-11s.[37] Commentators such as William Pesek Jr. from Bloomberg argue that
Korea is "Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall", suggesting that it stands out from the Next Eleven
economies (N-11). South Korea will overtake Canada by 2025 and Italy by 2035 according to
their paper "The N-11: More Than an Acronym".[42] Economists from other investment firms
argue that Korea will have a GDP per capita of over $90,000 by 2050, virtually identical to
the United States and the second highest among the G7, BRIC and N-11 economies,
suggesting that wealth is more important than size for bond investors, stating that Korea's
credit rating will be rated AAA sooner than 2050.[43]

Korea in 2050[44]
United Korea  South Korea  North Korea
GDP in USD $6.056 trillion $4.073 trillion $1.982 trillion
GDP per capita $86,000 $96,000 $70,000
GDP growth (2010–2050) 4.1% 3.3% 12.4%
Total population 71 million 42 million 28 million

In September 2009, Goldman Sachs published its 188th Global Economics Paper named "A
United Korea?" which highlighted in detail the potential economic power of a United Korea,
which will surpass all current G7 countries except the United States, such as Japan, the
United Kingdom, Germany and France within 30–40 years of reunification, estimating GDP
to surpass $6 trillion by 2050.[45] Cheap, skilled labor from the North combined with
advanced technology and infrastructure in the South, as well as Korea's strategic location
connecting three economic powers, is likely going to create an economy larger than the bulk
of the G7. According to some opinions, a reunited Korea could occur before 2050,[45] or even
between 2010-2020[46]. If it occurred, Korean reunification would immediately raise the
country's population to over 70 million.

[edit] See also

 Potential superpower
 Emerging markets