BRICS Bank now operational

The New Development Bank BRICS (NDB BRICS), formerly referred to as the BRICS Development Bank is now operational. The Bank is a multilateral development bank founded by the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) as an alternative to the existing US-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The Bank is set up to foster greater financial and development cooperation among the five emerging markets. Unlike the World Bank, which assigns votes based on capital share, in the New Development Bank each participant country will be assigned one vote, and none of the countries will have veto power.

The five big emerging market economies (BRICS) have strengthened co-operation with a constant goal in mind: to challenge the West’s grip on the Bretton Woods institutions by creating their own monetary fund and development bank.

They chafe at their under-representation at the IMF; the voting rights of China, the world’s second-largest economy, are not even a quarter of those of the US. An IMF reform that would slightly correct the imbalance has been languishing for three years. A battle seems to have a foregone conclusion because of the composition of the IMF executive board, which names the managing director. It is dominated by Europeans and Americans.

The BRICS Bank shall in its role mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies and developing countries, complementing the existing efforts of multilateral and regional financial institutions for global growth and development.

To fulfill its purpose, the Bank shall support public or private projects through loans, guarantees, equity participation and other financial instruments. It shall also cooperate with international organizations and other financial entities, and provide technical assistance for projects to be supported by the Bank.

Even though the bank has 5 founding members, the Bank shall be open to members of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Agreement of the New Development Bank and shall be open to borrowing and non-borrowing members.

To fulfill its purpose, the Bank is authorized to exercise the following functions:

(i) to utilize resources at its disposal to support infrastructure and sustainable development projects, public or private, in the BRICS and other emerging market economies and developing countries, through the provision of loans, guarantees, equity participation and other financial instruments;

(ii) to cooperate as the Bank may deem appropriate, within its mandate, with international organizations, as well as national entities whether public or private, in particular with international financial institutions and national development banks; 

(iii) to provide technical assistance for the preparation and implementation of infrastructure and sustainable development projects to be supported by the Bank; 

(iv) to support infrastructure and sustainable development projects involving more than one country; 

(v) to establish, or be entrusted with the administration, of Special Funds which are designed to serve its purpose. 

The Bank has its headquarters in Shanghai.China and the Bank may establish offices necessary for the performance of its functions and as such the first regional office is in Johannesburg, SA.

The Bank shall have a Board of Governors, a Board of Directors, a President, Vice-Presidents as decided by the Board of Governors, and such other officers and staff as may be considered necessary. With India providing the bank’s president, the bank’s four vice-president’s come from each of the other Brics member countries (Brazil, Russia China and SA). SA’s vice-president is Leslie Maasdorp, who, as chief financial officer, will be responsible for treasury and portfolio management as well as the finance, budgeting and accounting functions.

The Bank in its operations may provide financing in the local currency of the country in which the operation takes place. 

The Bank shall possess full international personality and enjoy wide immunities.

BRICS- SA's Role

Interesting analysis below from the business day. Should note that SA's BRICS membership also adds another dimension to the tripartite  FTA consisting of COMESA-EAC-SADC Member States.

------------------------------------------------

There is wide consensus that SA’s place in the emerging-market bloc that groups Brazil, Russia, India and China together, is only justified by SA’s strategic importance on the continent.

That means the country needs to tread a careful path between touting its own interests and facilitating links to the rest of Africa.

"It would be in SA’s interest to see this as a bargaining opportunity for the continent rather than just being expedient," said Standard Bank ’s group chief economist, Goolam Ballim. "Otherwise this could be harmful in the longer term for inter- African relationships."

It is a delicate task as SA does not have a mandate at this point to speak for any other African country. Jim O’Neill, the banker from Goldman Sachs who invented the acronym for the first four Bric countries, has said that Nigeria is in a better position to join the grouping.

SA’s economy is only a quarter the size of Russia’s, the next-smallest Brics member, and its share of world trade has been stagnant at 0,5% over the past decade. Its pace of growth also lags well behind the bloc’s other members.

But SA has a lot to offer the group, which analysts say could evolve into a political force rivalling the Group of Seven developed nations, campaigning for the interests of emerging economies. SA has one of the strongest financial sectors in the world, and receives about 95% of Africa’s portfolio inflows — foreign buying of local shares and bonds.

It could provide capital for companies looking to expand into the continent and is rated as the easiest place to open a business among all the other BRICS countries.

That would make it the logical choice for firms to establish their headquarters in SA.

The country is already the services hub for the continent and has significant corporate clout in the global arena.

Where it falls short is on transport infrastructure, both within the country and linked to its African neighbours.

Nonetheless, SA’s place on the continent is seen as key to its debut in the Brics club this week at the meeting at a Chinese resort.

"We are not individually important enough but if we can fill the role of an entry point to Africa, it will be an enormous opportunity," says Absa Capital economist Jeff Gable.

Sub-Saharan Africa has become the second-fastest growing region in the world after Asia and has been more resilient to the global financial crisis then Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. It offers an untapped market of hundreds of millions of people.

Standard Chartered’s regional research head for Africa, Razia Khan, thinks that the summit is unlikely to come up with concrete measures that will immediately affect the Brics economies.

But some analysts are expecting preferential trade agreements and developmental finance deals, given the participation of state-owned financial institutions.

Iraj Abedian, chief economist for Pan African Capital Holdings, hopes that the Brics summit will establish a "credible institution" to underpin its political clout. If that does not happen, it will remain a political multilateral rather than an economic leadership forum, he says.

For another piece on BRICS see here.

BRICS’ to Discuss Economic Coordination

and some politics as well....

Leaders from five of the world’s top emerging economies will discuss a coordinated stance on economic issues such as commodity price fluctuation (however, the yuan’s exchange rate is off the agenda).

The mid-April ‘BRICS’ summit will gather leaders from China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa in the southern Chinese beach resort of Sanya.  The summit will give the world’s big rising economies a venue to coordinate views on global financial reforms, commodity prices and other shared concerns since the BRICS countries have similar concerns on important questions like the global economy, international finance and development, reform of the international currency system, commodity price fluctuations, climate change and sustainable development. 

See full report here.

Predictions: The Next BRICs and EAGLEs

There is much debate about the economic or political merits of South Africa's invitation to join the BRIC group of countries. The term BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was invented in 2001 by Economist Jim O’Neill, now the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. While path-breaking when coined, the concept of BRIC seems outdated today given increased growth differential among the four countries and given that the grouping is also not considered a structural concept since it depends on a country’s growth projections. 

Which countries were predicted to be the next BRICs? Goldman Sachs identified the Next 11 (N-11) countries that could rival the G7 over time, in the context of several important BRICs themes: energy, infrastructure, urbanisation, human capital and technology. The N-11 include Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey and Vietnam. 

Meanwhile, a new group of countries have been coined EAGLESs by BBVA. The EAGLEs, which stands for Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies include the four giant economies (China, India, Brazil and Russia) but also six more countries, namely Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Egypt and Taiwan. 

BBVA has also identified the Next 11 Eagles which which have common characteristics with the EAGLEs and could be included if their growth prospects (already very positive generally) improved in coming years. The 11 countries in the Nest are: Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, Colombia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Argentina, Peru and Philippines.

Some facts about the EAGLEs:

In terms of the criterion for inclusion, each of these ten countries are expected to contribute more to global GDP growth than the average of the countries which have long been considered the most relevant ones worldwide, namely the G7.

In other words, EAGLE countries are chosen because they will be the most relevant in terms of new generated business. The EAGLEs are expected to be responsible for 50% of all global growth in the next 10 years. That compares with 14% for the G7.

This is not only about China or the BRICS. The EAGLEs countries outside the BRICS will grow by almost 4 trillion the next decade, equivalent to 10% of world growth. That compares with 2.4 trillions for the aggregate of Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Italy (six percent of world growth).

From an African perspective, Egypt appears to have made both lists (Next BRIC and EAGLE) while Nigeria was identified as a Next BRIC and potential EAGLE. Meanwhile South Africa was identified as a potential EAGLE but may now be the newest Member of the BRIC group.

China and the US: The World's Largest Economies

China is expected to surpass the US as the world's largest economy by 2025. This is unsurprising given China has maintained about four times the US growth rate and population, which currently consists of approximately six times the US labour force. Additionally, China's exports to the US already quadruple US exports to China.  China surpassed Japan this year to take its place as the world's second largest economy. 

Click to Enlarge.

 Source: Reuters

US Services Trends 2010

The United States (US) is once again the single most competitive global services economy and the US has the largest services surplus. This is according to the 2010 USITC Study on Services Trends in the US. 

As the world’s top exporter of services, the US accounted for $521.4 billion, or 14 %, of global cross-border commercial services exports in 2008. Other top single country exporters included the United Kingdom (7 %) and Germany (6 %) which  further confirms that the EU as a region, is the largest services exporter. Although most of the world’s top 10 services exporters in 2008 were developed countries, China and India, two of the BRIC economies, ranked as the world’s fifth- and ninth-largest services exporters respectively. Overall, the top 10 exporting countries accounted for 52 percent of global cross-border services exports in 2008 and US services exports to the Middle East and Africa accounted for only 5% of total US services exports.

The US was also the world’s largest services importer in 2008, with $367.9 billion, or 11 percent, of global commercial services imports. In that same year, Germany and the United Kingdom respectively accounted for 8 % and 6 % of such imports, while the top 10 importing countries together accounted for one-half of total global commercial services imports. China, which was the fifth-largest importer of commercial services in 2008, was the only developing country to rank among the top 10 global importers. The Middle East and Africa accounted for 8% of of US services imports reflecting a trade deficit with the US.

Overall, sales volumes of affiliates in host economies remained much larger than cross-border trade, with U.S.- owned affiliates (in foreign markets) reporting sales of $1 trillion in 2007, and foreign owned affiliates (in the US) reporting sales of $677.8 billion. This reflects the prominent outward nature of the US mode 3 services exports.

Among the world’s top 10 exporters and importers of commercial services, the US recorded the largest services trade surplus ($153.5 billion) in 2008, followed by the United Kingdom ($86.8 billion). Germany and Japan recorded the largest services trade deficits, with imports exceeding exports by $41.4 billion and $21.0 billion, respectively.

USITC draws much of the services trade data used throughout this report from the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).  Trade data remains an area of concern for African countries who might lack the research and data management capabilities required undertake credible analysis for services negotiations.

South-South trade risks reinforcing Africa's commodity dependence

This is Africa By Peter Guest | Published: 18 June, 2010

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has warned that trade flows between Africa and industrialising players in the “Global South” are currently reinforcing the longstanding trend that sees Africa export unprocessed commodities and import manufactured goods.

In its annual 2010 Economic Development in Africa Report, UNCTAD says that this trend needs to be reversed while the South-South relationship remains in its early stages. Companies and sovereign investors from China, India and Brazil are all investing heavily into Africa across a variety of sectors, but minerals, hydrocarbons and agricultural products continue to attract the most interest. These relationships need to be managed in order that they result in economic diversification in African countries, the report recommends.

Africa’s total merchandise trade with non-African developing countries rose from $97bn in 2004 to $283bn in 2008, the report says. For the first time, trade with this group of countries outstripped trade with the European Union. The number of greenfield foreign investment projects by investors from non-African developing countries was 184 in 2008, compared to 52 in 2004.

Chinese total merchandise trade with Africa increased from $25bn in 2004 to $93bn in 2008, according to the report. Over the same period, the continent’s trade with India increased from $9bn to $31bn and with Brazil from $8bm to $23bn.Aside from the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – relationships between other emerging nations, including South Korea and Turkey, and Africa, look likely to take on greater prominence.

While trade is taking on traditional patterns, foreign direct investment from the rest of the developing world into Africa is, to some extent, having a more positive effect on diversification, according to the report’s author, Charles Gore.

“What you see from the trade flows is that that is reinforcing commodity dependence. What you see from the FDI is a more mixed picture. Some of it is going into extractive industries, but a lot of the new Chinese investment, small and medium enterprises, is actually market-seeking,” Mr Gore says. “That’s tended to have a pattern where they first go in as traders but then they start producing there locally, and now they’re starting to cluster to get the benefits of being located closer to each other.”

Official finance is also following new patterns. The majority of developing world official development assistance is directed to infrastructure, with some, notably that of Brazil, also being used for technology transfer.

China is also becoming the most significant bilateral source of support to African infrastructure and production, rising from $470m in 2001 to $4.5bn in 2007. With a slowdown in growth in the developed world prompting concerns of reductions in Western ODA, these relationships are likely to increase in importance.

The report recommends that African governments play a more active role in managing the support and investment that they are receiving from the Global South. This means that their focus should not be on simply attracting FDI from other developing countries, but on directing investment into sectors which will promote development. “What we emphasise is developmental leadership. I think the approach of the new Southern partners is encouraging this more developmental approach to governance.”

The Global Structural Realignment of Historic Significance

"The traditional split between North and South makes little sense in an increasingly multi-polar world where the largest and most dynamic economies may no longer be the richest, nor the world’s technological leaders”.

The OECD Shifting Wealth 2010 Report raises an interesting point above regarding the traditional north south divide which seems to have outlived its relevance. In fact, the Report finds that OECD non-member economies have markedly increased their share of global output since the 2000s, and  as shown below,  projections predict that this trend will continue. This realignment of the world economy is not a transitory phenomenon, but instead is described as a structural change of historical significance.Other interesting facts...

"In 2007, just before the global financial crisis hit, no fewer than 84 developing countries grew their per capita income at a rate more than twice the OECD average. Among them were more than 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The five-year growth performance of Latin America was its best since the 1960s.

In 2009 China became the leading trade partner of Brazil, India and South Africa. The Indian multinational Tata is now the second most active investor in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 40% of the world’s researchers are now in Asia. As of 2008, developing countries were holding USD 4.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves, more than one and a half times the amount held by rich countries.

This structural realignment in the trade context can be considered in light of the fact that Africa trades predominantly with the rest of the world and Asia is the fastest growing trading partner and major source of imports with the US, EU the largest export destinations.  


On Africa-EU trade, the EPAs are deep policy instruments that open Africa's markets to Europe yet Asia is the largest source of imports. One can wonder if EPAs will accelerate or hinder Africa's integration with other developing countries especially with their restrictive rules of origin.

In the WTO Doha Round, traditionally the focus has been on developed and major developing countries with LDCs, (predominantly in Africa) exempt from multilateral liberalization. Hence Africa's south-south engagement would need to be concluded outside of the WTO for developing countries. 

What does this new economic geography mean for global governance, the G20, BRIC economies and is Africa adequately represented in this new world order?

Genesis of the EC's MFN Clause in the EPAs

There has been much discontent regarding the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Clause found in the Africa-EU Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), and the effect the clause would have on south-south trade and the standing of the Enabling Clause.

The genesis of the MFN clause can be understood in the context of OECD's recent 2010 publication: Shifting Wealth, which finds that between 1990 and 2008, world trade expanded almost four-fold, but South-South trade multiplied more than ten times. Hence developing countries now account for around 37% of global trade, with South-South flows making up about half of that total. This trade could be one of the main engines of growth over the coming decade, especially if the right policies are pursued.

It would seem that the EU would like a slice of this rapidly expanding south south pie.  In fact as shown above, the contribution to world GDP and PPP growth by developing countries has risen sharply since the nineties and has outpaced the contribution of advanced economies, and has doubled it.  Hence, the MFN clause could be intended to accelerate the EC’s ability to benefit from south south market-opening especially with fast growing economic giants that the EU has not concluded an FTA with.  These include the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).  

As an example, Africa's south-south trade with non African countries, has increased from a low of 8% of Africa's total trade to almost 30% and this increase is largely trade with Asia. Trade between Africa and China was estimated at US$6.5billion in 1999 but in 2008 was valued at US$107 billion, making China, Africa's second largest single country trading partner following the United States (see previous posts on Asia China Trade). Meanwhile, in the last 30 years, Africa's trade with the EU has continued to decline, from a high of 55% in the mid eighties to about 35% share of total Africa trade in 2008.

In light of the above, it is necessary for African countries to take caution with regard to forward-looking concessions between Africa and fast growing economies and concessions between Africa and shrinking economies.  In addition, it should be noted that the EU is undertaking numerous FTA negotiations with developing and BRIC economies. Therefore, the future standing of the MFN clause in the EPAs should also be considered in light of the EU's rapidly expanding list of future FTAs. 

Other legal and systemic concerns regarding the EPAs can be found here. 

Shifting Wealth: Recommendations for the Future

According to the 2010 Perspectives on Global Development: Shifting Wealth, by the OECD Development Centre, the economic and financial crisis is accelerating a longer-term structural transformation in the global economy. In fact, longer-term forecasts in the Report suggest that today’s developing and emerging countries are likely to account for nearly 60% of world GDP by 2030.  

These findings should indeed transform the way we configure ourselves in Africa especially with the key economic engines of the world; China and India. 
To this end, the Report makes useful recommendations below with regard to development strategies in developing countries, which need to be adapted to harness the opportunities of shifting wealth. 

National development policies should:

● promote South-South foreign direct investment and learning the lessons from successful examples of clusters and Export Processing Zones. They should harness investment links to achieve technological upgrading through national innovation systems;

● ensure appropriate revenue management policies in resource-rich economies and consider using sovereign wealth funds to smooth consumption and channel resources to promote growth and investment in the domestic economy;

● respond to the growing demand for agricultural exports and increasing pressure on arable land by strategies to improve agricultural productivity, through greater support to R&D and extension services, and through South-South technological transfer;

● implement pro-poor growth policies, focusing on providing more and better jobs and improving social protection through further development and replication of institutional innovations such as conditional cash transfers;

● expand South-South peer learning to help design policy based on successful experiences in the South.

A shift from predominantly North-South cooperation to predominantly South South (African and non African) cooperation especially with india and china may require a shift in foreign policy for some African countries. However, that shift is not only necessary but crucial. 

Is Sub Saharan Africa Positioned to be the Fifth BRIC-A?

Inspiring remarks by Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of The World Bank can be found here .

new ideas include:

1. Infrastructure remains a major constraint in Africa and to finance infrastructure development projects, Africa should securitize development aid. Hence instead of donors disbursing small amounts of aid cyclically, they could  issue African Development Bonds in New York, with a yield that matches the US 30-year treasury bond rate, currently averaging around 4.5% per year.  excerpt "Infrastructure spending needs for Sub-Saharan Africa (capital plus operations and maintenance) are estimated at $93 billion per year; deducting the amount governments actually spend and raising efficiency leaves a net funding gap $31 billion a year, mostly in the power sector. Therefore, a $100 billion bond could go a long way in filling the gap for a few years. Most importantly, issuing a bond like this could change perceptions overnight about Africa as a place to do business. Faced with secure financing of $100 billion, private firms across the world would line up to provide infrastructure in Africa".

2. Volatility: Sub Saharan Africa suffers from domestic and external volatility with the former requiring rigorous internal governance systems in order to manage volatility emanating from bad policies, social conflict, institutional weaknesses in fiscal, financial, terms of trade and judicial sectors. excerpt" Two things can be done to cushion Africa against the harmful effects of externally-driven volatility. First, donor resources can be used more aggressively as countercyclical instruments—as indeed was done with IDA and IBRD resources during the global financial crisis, with IDA front-loading country allocations to help low-income countries. Second, steps can be taken to eliminate the costs associated with aid volatility".

3. Skills: Progress has been made in primary education however gross tertiary education has fallen short hence affecting the cognitive skills necessary for innovation and technology diffusion. excerpt "The finding on the importance of cognitive skills for long-run growth should be a wake-up call for Africa, with questions being raised about the quality of the education now being provided. New tests show that in Mali, 94 percent of Grade 2 students cannot read a single word; in Uganda, half of grade 3 students fail this simple test.  The good news is that rate of return to skills is high in Africa. What is therefore needed is a big push on quality education and skills, as Korea and other East Asian countries did to underpin their growth miracles. For this, partnerships among industry, government and perhaps even civil society in vocational and tertiary education should be formed".

In conclusion- Africa is one of the youngest continents with a population of 820 million in 2008, that will soon rival that of China and India. Therefore the youth especially need to seize the opportunity to change the destiny of this rapidly growing continent.  Hence its only a matter of time before Africa  will position itself as the fifth BRIC alongside Brazil, Russia, India and China.


My take: while the title sounds ambitious, there is concrete evidence that Africa has made great strides in recent years. However some of the proposed solutions are centred largely on donor funds, an aspect which is outside of the continent's control especially with the current financial crisis- most recently in Europe. According to Africa Economic Outlook, in the OECD/DAC report of February 2010,  expected overseas development aid levels to developing countries will reach record levels in 2010, in dollar terms, increasing by 35% since 2004.  Africa, however is likely to get only about USD 12 billion of the USD 25 billion increase envisaged at Gleneagles Summit in 2005. This shortfall is due in large part to the under-performance of some European donors who give large shares of ODA to Africa