Search
Searching with a thematic focus on Rising powers in international development, South-South cooperation in Brazil, China, South Africa
Showing 51-60 of 63 results
Pages
- Document
The BRICS fallacy
Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2013Focus on the BRICS began in 2001. Back then, the group only included Brazil, Russia, India, and China (South Africa was added in 2010). It all started with a November 2001 Goldman Sachs research paper titled ‘‘Building Better Global Economic BRICs,’’ written by Jim O’Neill.DocumentTraditional and emerging partners’ role in African regional economic integration: issues and recommendations
South African Institute of International Affairs, 2013Regional integration in Africa is still an active agenda item for African nations and pan-African institutions such as the African Union. Regional integration is motivated by the need for larger markets in order to grow trade and investment.DocumentThe India-Brazil-South Africa Forum a decade on: mismatched partners or the rise of the South?
Global Economic Governance Programme, University College Oxford, 2013Gridlock in the Doha round of international trade negotiations in the WTO since 2001 has led developing countries to pursue different strategies to boost trade and investment among various partners.DocumentThe economic engagement footprint of rising powers in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of trade, foreign direct investment and aid flows
Institute of Development Studies UK, 2013Rising powers such as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, the Gulf states or Turkey have entered the development arena through their expanding relationships with low-income countries (LICs) . A widespread perception is that these countries are establishing new forms of engagement, mainly under a South–South cooperation framework.DocumentAfrica-BRICS cooperation: implications for growth, employment and structural transformation in Africa
UN Economic Commission for Africa, 2013What effect could trade with, and investment and aid from, the BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa) have on growth, employment and structural transformation in Africa? How can Africa maximize the benefits of its engagement with the BRICS, and minimize the risks?DocumentBRICS – South Africa’s way ahead?
Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa, 2013South Africa’s admission to the group was motivated by China and supported by Russia. Its accession to the BRICS generated much discussion about the country’s suitability to be part of the formation. One of the real issues raised is that South Africa does not measure up to the other BRIC economies in terms of population, trade levels and performance, and growth rates.DocumentWhat next for the BRICS Bank?
Institute of Development Studies UK, 2013A new development bank to be created by the ‘Rising Powers’ of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is intended to promote greater cooperation between developing countries, and address what is seen by many as a history of misguidance and underinvestment by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).DocumentRising Powers in International Development: an annotated bibliography
Institute of Development Studies UK, 2013The Rising Powers – a category that includes the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) as well as other key countries such as Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia – are establishing themselves as an influential presence in the global development landscape, and playing an increasingly important role in shaping prospects for poverty reduction in lowincome countries.DocumentBuilding blocks for equitable growth: lessons from the BRICS
Overseas Development Institute, 2013The BRICS countries have been lauded for their economic growth and resilience through the 2008/09 financial crisis; they are becoming models of development for development practitioners, researchers and other emerging economies.DocumentAnother BRIC in the wall? South Africa's developmental impact and contradictory rise in Africa and beyond
2012Globalisation is transforming the nature of authority in international relations, as hegemony is replaced by geo-governance, involving a more varied set of actors. However, private authority over markets and resources is still often constituted and refracted through states.Pages
