• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Moisés Naím"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "South America",
    "Southern, Eastern, and Western Africa",
    "India",
    "China",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Trade"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

BRICs

It has become clear that, other than large territories and populations, the BRICs have little in common.

Link Copied
By Moisés Naím
Published on May 1, 2014

Source: Washington Post

People blame Goldman Sachs for many things. I blame the investment bank mainly for popularizing the acronym BRIC — Brazil, Russia, India and China — in a 2001 report by economist Jim O’Neill arguing that long-term growth in these emerging markets would surpass that of the world’s richer nations.

Investing in the BRICs sounded like a good idea when these countries were growing quickly and when the most-developed economies were sputtering. But the grouping quickly outlived its usefulness. It has become clear that, other than large territories and populations, the BRICs have little in common. Brazil and India have different domestic political challenges, China and Russia are pursuing disparate development strategies, and China’s geopolitical role is far more complicated than that of its BRIC comrades.

Now that the BRICs have entered a rough patch, the allure of these fast-growing economies has faded. Yet the bankers and consultants who dream up such monikers have simply created new ones. They include CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa), from the Economist Intelligence Unit; CARBS (Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil and South Africa), identified by Citigroup; and MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey), coined by Fidelity Investments. Even O’Neill came back with the “Next Eleven” or N-11 (Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam).

The rhetoric is familiar. The CIVETS countries are blessed with “diverse and dynamic” economies; the MINT nations enjoy “favorable demographics for at least the next 20 years”; and the N-11 “could potentially rival the G7 in terms of economic growth over time.”

But these categories reflect smart marketing and packaging of financial products rather than analytical originality or investment acumen. The main trait these countries share is that their economies are as volatile as their politics.

According to all indicators, the best acronym to invest in is still USA.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.

About the Author

Moisés Naím

Distinguished Fellow

Moisés Naím is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a best-selling author, and an internationally syndicated columnist.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    The World Reacts to Biden’s First 100 Days
      • +10

      Rosa Balfour, Frances Z. Brown, Yasmine Farouk, …

  • Commentary
    View From Latin America

      Moisés Naím

Moisés Naím
Distinguished Fellow
Moisés Naím
EconomyTradeNorth AmericaSouth AmericaSouthern, Eastern, and Western AfricaIndiaChinaRussia

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Russia–Armenia Relations Improve Following Pashinyan’s Re-Election?

    For all the menacing rhetoric, the Armenian prime minister remains a leader with whom Putin is prepared to interact: not as an ally, but as a partner, albeit a problematic one.

      • Alexander Atasuntsev

      Alexander Atasuntsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The World According to Putin: No Deal on Ukraine in Sight

    The issue is not that the president only has selective information at his disposal, but that the decision-making process consists of one person with an unshakeable vision of how the world works.

      Tatiana Stanovaya

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Elite Conflict Over Internet Restrictions Does Not Herald Regime Collapse

    A much-discussed disagreement over internet restrictions in Russia was never an existential threat for Putin: It was about elite groups protecting their interests.  

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Belarus Really Set to Return to the Ukraine War?

    By reminding the world that Lukashenko is a threat to NATO and Ukraine, Kyiv is trying to return the focus to why the Belarusian regime needs to be contained rather than rewarded.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could Migrants From India and Africa Solve Russia’s Labor Shortage?

    The demands of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, demographic problems, and public hostility toward Central Asians mean Russia does not have enough workers.  

      Salavat Abylkalikov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.