The BRICS Bank: Now Comes the Hard Part

Source: Getty
Article
Summary
The BRICS bank is good news for developing countries. If done right, it could change the landscape for multilateral development financing.
Related Media and Tools
 

No sooner had the dust settled from the World Cup than Brazil played host to the five leaders of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. An immediate outcome of the Fortaleza summit was the formation of the New Development Bank, a development finance institution to rival the World Bank. The group also announced a currency reserve pool as an alternative to the IMF. Done right, both initiatives could change the institutional landscape for multilateral development financing.

The two institutions are the direct result of the obduracy of the advanced countries, which have steadfastly refused to alter the governance structures in the World Bank and the IMF to reflect the growing role of the BRICS in the global economy.

The BRICS initiatives meet three other useful strategic objectives as well. They strengthen South-South engagement. They provide another avenue to advance the regional and global strategic interests of the bank’s five founders. And they offer a new investment vehicle to raise the rate of return on the member states’ burgeoning foreign exchange reserves.

Another big step, the BRICS summit marked a breakthrough on a number of difficult questions that had stymied earlier meetings: the location of the new bank’s headquarters (now to be Shanghai), its first president (who will be Indian), and the chair of its board of governors (Russian).

In addition, the founders agreed that the BRICS bank will have an initial authorized capital of $100 billion, of which $50 billion would be subscribed. This means that even if it borrows conservatively from capital markets, the bank could eventually outstrip the World Bank’s current size. Its annual lending could reach $34 billion a year, which, with co-financing, could potentially fund investment projects worth much more. The currency reserve pool would be worth another $100 billion.

The five BRICS will be not only the founders of these two institutions but also their initial members. Membership will be open to other emerging market economies as well.

This is all good news for the developing world. The formation of the BRICS bank in particular is a welcome step because developing countries’ needs far exceed the availability of investment finance. They require long-term finance to fund public investment and fuel their development. But only twenty developing countries have access to private capital, and in any case, such funds are usually used to finance private investment. Most of these states rely on development assistance, which has been shrinking rapidly as a share of total financial inflows.

The bulk of the investment need in developing countries is for infrastructure. The growth potential of these countries is estimated to be 5–7 percent a year. Because of that, along with rapid urbanization and rising shares of manufacturing and services in GDP in the developing world, transport and energy infrastructure has become a growth bottleneck. Increased infrastructure is not only expected to unleash growth. It will also help promote inclusive, sustainable, and resilient development.

Total infrastructure investment demand in developing countries has been estimated at somewhere north of $2 trillion a year. Of this, only about $1 trillion is currently available, most of it from national budgets. That leaves a substantial chunk unfinanced.

Indeed, the unmet investment needs in the developing world are so large, the establishment of the New Development Bank will not affect the operations of the World Bank or any other multilateral development bank. There is more than enough room for all of them.

But if the new institution is to make a significant difference in filling the gap, it will need to attract substantial additional funds. The good news is that there are large pools of capital looking for investment opportunities to improve returns. OECD countries alone have over $75 trillion—yes, that’s trillion—held by investment funds, insurance companies, and pension funds that are earning low returns. The bad news is that they demand high-quality projects in countries with strong governance and legal standards—which developing countries still need to develop.

These global realities make it imperative for the BRICS bank to establish the highest operational, prudential, and corporate governance standards. Otherwise its impact will remain marginal.

Most importantly, the new bank will need to work closely with other multilateral development banks to promote a new asset class that will attract financing from private sources in advanced countries. Among other things, this will mean working upstream with its developing country clients to design high-quality infrastructure projects and supportive regulatory frameworks that will encourage public-private partnerships.

That does not mean the BRICS bank must start slowly. It could begin lending quickly through co-financing with established multilateral development banks that already have a pipeline of high-quality projects. It could then gradually develop its own pipeline.

To keep costs low, it will need to maintain a good credit rating, use cost-effective approaches to apply social and environmental safeguards, and establish its own research and knowledge management capabilities. It should also recognize that, ultimately, rapid, inclusive, and sustainable development in its client states will depend on their own reforms.

The BRICS countries should be congratulated for forging ahead to establish their own multilateral bank. But they will soon realize the hard part is yet to come.

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments

 
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/07/17/brics-bank-now-comes-hard-part/hg8d

Eurasia Outlook

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。