and urban space along with the rapidly growing number of cars and trucks. Hence, each country needs to address its own specific set of problems, yet be consistent with global goals and targets.
BRICS is not one nation. It is a set of five countries that are quite diverse and spread over four continents — Brazil in South America, Russia in Europe, India and China in Asia, and South Africa in Africa. BRICS was born out of a changing political world order. The unipolar world after the Cold War with US hegemony gave way to a multipolar system after the great financial crisis of 2008. The BRICS nations were growing rapidly and collectively constituted a significant share in the global economy. Goldman Sachs conducted a study which claimed that these economies would be the fastest growing ones and by 2050 would provide leadership to the world economy. In the report, O’Neill (2001) claimed that these nations, especially China, would affect the rest of the world through their domestic policies, particularly fiscal and monetary policies. It was only after the publication of the report that the BRICS began to be considered together and aroused new interest in their progress. In data collected by Santana et al. (2014) Brazil, Russia, India, and China together accounted for 28.9% of the world’s land area, 43.2% of the world’s population, and 20.6% of crude oil production and even generated about 27% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). In 2010, South Africa was added to the BRIC acronym. It is quite clear that though these countries are treated as one block, their political, social, cultural, and economic features are quite diverse.
Despite their diversity in many respects, they were still treated as one for many other reasons of similarity. It was considered that these nations would comprise the largest economic block by 2050 because of their tremendous growth potential. The similarities were attributed to the presence of fertile land, abundant natural resources, and the large low-cost labor force. This combination of factors, along with good infrastructure, made these nations attractive to foreign direct investment. These features of infrastructure were telecommunications, which was growing rapidly, sharp rise in electricity consumption, increased access to water and growing urbanization, better sanitation, and improved road and rail connectivity. In terms of social and environmental development, all these countries had been successful in pulling a significant number of people out of poverty, allowing for greater consumption levels. All the BRICS are committed to a better environment and have preemptive as well as corrective policies in place to protect and conserve the natural environment. They all share the common aspiration to achieve a better quality of life for their citizens.
However, despite these positive features, BRICS do have problems that need quick and systematic remedies. These pertain to economic inefficiencies; lack of education, sanitation, and health facilities; and depletion of resources along with very alarming levels of urban pollution. Many of these problems have been a result of rapid economic growth that these nations have experienced in the recent past.
Global Citizen (2016) computed a People’s Report Card 20161 grading nations in terms of their performance in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals that replaced the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. The report took 2030 as the target date within which the goals were to be achieved. If all the goals were to be achieved, the world would get an A grade. This would be the benchmark, and then 2016 data would be compared to the ‘perfect’ grade, and a relative grade assigned to a nation for 2016.
The report computed three sets of indicators: basic needs, well-being, and opportunities. Basic needs included nutrition, medical care, water and sanitation, and shelter and personal safety. The world grade was a C. Well-being included access to basic knowledge, access to information, communications, health and wellness, and the quality of the physical environment. In this category, the world’s grade was slightly better at C+. Finally, the set of opportunity included personal rights, freedom of choice, tolerance and inclusion, and access to advanced education. Here the global grade was C once again. The three sets of measured characteristics were aggregated into a Social Progress Index and the world’s grade was marked as C+ in 2016.
The social progress index was computed for a number of countries. Ten nations received an A grade. These included Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and Austria. The worst performers with a grade of D− included Afghanistan, Angola, Central African Republic, Chad, and Yemen. The BRICS were not too good. Brazil was the best with a grade of B−, Russia, China, and South Africa received a grade of C+ which was at par with the world grade. India was the worst performer at D+. These results, though only indicative to a large extent, and perhaps not exhaustive, do reveal that the BRICS may have a long way to go before they can claim to have achieved some important goalpost for sustainable development.
BRICS: The Emerging Superstars of Growth
In the BRICS countries, the market-friendly model of development has made them the emerging superstars of world economy, but they have experienced rising inequality and unacceptable levels of poverty and serious environmental damage as a consequence. The real challenge is whether these nations, if they are to lead the world economy in 2050, attain a path of sustainable development? What might be needed is a new model of development that consciously cooperates in changing the energy portfolio to a substantial degree, lowers the ecological footprint, redefines innovations in terms of eco-efficiency, and significantly reduces carbon dioxide and other green-house gas emissions. Brazil is still plagued by drought (through deforestations in the Amazon) and urban pollution, Russia is considered to be terribly inefficient and unsustainable in its energy use patterns. India is marked by large-scale urban pollution and is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide. China is similarly affected by the consequences of rapid economic growth. Air pollution is markedly high, and China has achieved the dubious distinction of being the highest polluter in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. It may be noted that as per the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005, the task of reducing green-house gases and mitigating the effects of global warming were differentiated across developed and developing nations. The Annex I developed countries were accountable for their emissions and expected to reduce them in a systematic way. The Non-Annex I nations on the other hand (mostly developing countries) were not required to reduce emissions except as a voluntary measure. Russia is in Annex I while the other BRICS are in Non-Annex I.
Would it be possible to put some numbers to the trends that are observed in terms of economic efficiency, social progress, and environmental improvements? A few studies have been done (Mizhou Research Institute, 2005)2 to try and put comparative values on the three important aspects of sustainable development, namely economic, social, and environmental aspects. Also, it is important that the BRICS show signs of innovative strategies toward sustainability. Exclusive focus on economic growth (from where the concept of BRICS began) will not suffice. The damages from very high rates of growth are well known and noticeable in the BRICS. In a way, what made BRICS a center of attention is exactly the opposite of what is required to keep it in the limelight as global leaders in 2050. The next section discusses some of the important empirics of BRICS success or failure to live up to the expectations it originally generated.
What the Data Suggest
This section draws on the results obtained by Santana et al. (2014) in a study done on the BRICS nations. The study is based on real data from 2000 to 2007 using the Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) technique. The study measured the efficiency of economic, environmental, and social processes where inputs considered were gross fixed capital formation, expenditures on research and development, and employed population. The outputs considered were GDP for economic efficiency, carbon emissions for environmental efficiency, and life expectancy at birth for social efficiency.
The following table shows the mean total efficiency results, according to each country. The higher the number, the more efficient is the process.
If one considers the ranks, and the sum of ranks, we get the following:
