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 Endowment for International Peace
- Europe Is Falling Behind in General-Purpose Robotics. Here’s What It Can Do to Catch Up.Commentary
The continent needs to improve conditions for production of complete AI robotic systems and preserve its edge in hardware.
Pavlo Zvenyhorodskyi
- India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 EraResearch
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
- +6
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
- Europe’s New Industrial Policy Can Learn From U.S. MistakesCommentary
Although the IAA often differs from the IRA, European policymakers can still take note of the U.S. act’s shortcomings.
Milo McBride
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Gen Z Protests Across Asia Offer a Delicate but Renewed Democratic OrderArticle
A disconnect between Gen Z citizenry and older rulers has fueled massive demonstrations. What are the key issues and how is protest energy translating into electoral change?
Usama Khilji
