Commentary
Uri Dadush
{
"authors": [
"Uri Dadush"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China"
],
"collections": [
"China’s Foreign Relations",
"China and the Developing World"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"South America",
"Southern, Eastern, and Western Africa",
"South Asia",
"India",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Emerging Markets Unite!
A new initiative by the BRICS coalition of emerging countries, intended to establish a new development bank, will rival traditional development groups such as the IMF and World Bank and may shift the balance of power of the world's economy.
By Uri Dadush
Published on Mar 29, 2013
Source: Brian Lehrer Show
Speaking on the Brian Lehrer Show, Carnegie's Uri Dadush discussed the 2013 BRICS Summit, which took place March 26-27 in Durban, South Africa. The world's biggest economies met to discuss, among other things, the establishment of a new development bank that would rival traditional development groups, such as the IMF and World Bank, and potentially even shift the balance of power of the world's economy.
The five emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa account for a large part of world economic growth, Dadush explained, adding that their desire to establish a development bank is driven by two motivations. First, they would like to see more investment in infrastructure, which they believe organizations like the World Bank are not paying enough attention to. Secondly, and more importantly, they are driven by geopolitical ambitions. The BRICS are trying to assert themselves as players in the world economy by differentiating themselves from the United States and the rest of the G7 advanced countries, Dadush said.
Dadush stated that a BRICS development bank might be less concerned with the broader context of politics and more focused on specific projects. The BRICS development bank may not carry the conditionalities that characterize the World Bank and other multilateral development banks dominated by advanced countries. It is important to keep in mind that the amount of money the BRICS is discussing is not so significant-- about $50 billion, which Dadush described as "peanuts" in today's world. Furthermore, he added, although they've made progress on talks, they have yet to agree on specifics, including location, how the amounts will be divided, and other such issues. As far as western companies are concerned, most of the action in the foreseeable future will be taking place in the traditional development banks, where the big loans are and will continue to be. With their objective to raise influence, the BRICS will remain active members of the World Bank, IMF, and other traditional fora, where the center of discussions take place, Dadush concluded.
About the Author
Uri Dadush
Former Senior Associate, International Economics Program
Dadush was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He focuses on trends in the global economy and is currently tracking developments in the eurozone crisis.
- The Labors of Tsipras
- Greece, Complacency, and the EuroIn The Media
Uri Dadush
Recent Work
EconomyTradeNorth AmericaSouth AmericaSouthern, Eastern, and Western AfricaSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChinaRussia
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- From Trade Dependence to Geopolitical Leverage: The EU in an Era of Weaponized InterdependencePaper
As geopolitical rivalry weaponizes global supply chains, the EU’s true vulnerability lies in emerging-risk imports. For these goods, suppliers are growing more concentrated, substitution more difficult, and political risk is looming.
Sinan Ülgen
- European Security Strategy: In Search of a New AmbitionCommentary
The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.
Pierre Vimont
- Europe Should Not Let Nuclear Nonproliferation DieCommentary
Amid uncertainty caused by the Iran war, the global drive for nonproliferation has stalled. With Europe diplomatically marginalized and countries reassessing their nuclear options, efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons risk becoming irrelevant.
Jane Darby Menton
- Can Europe Compete with the United States and China?Commentary
Between the United States’ market-driven approach and China's state-led industrial strategy, Europe is reckoning with how it can remain competitive in the global economy. But is Europe in danger of becoming a U.S. or China colony?
Noah Barkin, Anu Bradford
- There Is No Shortcut for Europe in ArmeniaCommentary
Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.
Thomas de Waal
