BRICS New Development Bank

By+SHEN+YI

ON July 15， 2014， at the 6th BRICS Summit in Brazil， the heads of the BRICS countries signed the Fortaleza Declaration， which announced the founding of the BRICS New Development Bank （NDB） and an emergency reserve fund. The initial authorized capital of the bank will be US $100 billion with a first investment of US $50 billion contributed equally by each of the five member states. At the same time， a US $100 billion contingent reserve arrangement （CRA） shall be established， of which China will provide US $41 billion， Russia， Brazil and India will each provide US $18 billion and South Africa will provide the remaining US $5 billion. In addition， all members will have equal share of stock rights and voting rights in the new bank and take turns to nominate the president of the bank， which is headquartered in Shanghai.

The World Bank Now U.S.s Pawn

Both the World Bank （specifically the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development， IBRD） and the NDB emphasize “development.” This suggests that these financial institutions were designed to promote development through finance and facilitate progress by development. After WWII， the U.S. established a hegemonic system by virtue of its own power. In a sense， this system has been able to survive until today because it met the demands of a world that was in a state of devastation. It provided capital aid that was required to restart the global economy. The normal functioning of the world depends on support from entities that work for the public good.

However， since the establishment of the World Bank， the U.S. has always used it as a state strategic tool and put it above the goals of facilitating development and progress. In order to guarantee the state interest of the U.S.， the international reconstruction and development under the framework of the World Bank needs to meet some requirements. For instance， the internal voting mechanism of the World Bank ensures Americas supremacy status. The U.S. has the sole veto power over the ratio of contributions. Moreover， the U.S. political system guarantees that its legislative and administrative institutions are able to offset any verbal commitment the U.S. government has made to change the contributions ratio.

In addition， the World Bank imposes conditions of reforms on its assistance projects. Such reforms are generally “successful.” However， the criteria for “success” are not set and judged by the countries receiving aid， but by the World Bank and the U.S. capital and strategic forces behind the bank. How successful are these reforms actually？ One way of measuring this is to look at the developing countries that achieved independence after WWII and the countries that accepted the World Banks aid after certain crises. Comparing the situations in these countries before and after the reforms， we can see the true effects. The most typical case， perhaps， is South America represented by Brazil. In this sense， Brazils positive attitude towards the NDB is understandable.

BRICS Bank in the Best Interests of Developing Countries

The establishment of the NDB is， in fact， a challenge to the World Bank. Nevertheless， it represents neither the transfer of power that is often discussed in traditional international relations theories of the West， nor another version of the so-called challenge posed by emerging countries to hegemonic powers drawn from far-fetched historical analogies. The focus of this challenge is to give back a fair system to the world. The large number of developing countries that have achieved economic growth aspire to effective development. They long for an international financial institution that genuinely carries out the concept of promoting development through finance and facilitating progress by development， and offers support and assistance in a more just and equitable manner than the current international system represented by the World Bank.

The BRICS members are representatives of these developing countries. The foundation of the bank， its future development and the challenge it poses to the World Bank to a certain extent embody the expectations of developing countries.

As a matter of fact， the so-called challenge is a driving force for the World Bank to change its ways， or rather， its criteria. If the World Bank refuses to reform under such pressure， it will face the consequences of its inherent structural weaknesses， rather than from the challenge of the NDB.

At the end of the fiscal year 2011， the IBRDs total assets amounted to US $313.9 billion and its total subscribed capital reached US $193.7 billion. Once the NDB accomplishes its capital contribution scheme， its capital amount may surpass that of the World Bank.

The Inevitable Choice of a Multipolarized World Economy

Data from the International Monetary Fund （IMF） show that just after the end of the Cold War， developed countries accounted for 83.6 percent of the global economy in terms of nominal price， with the U.S. alone monopolizing 26 percent. The share of developing countries and economies in transition stood at just 16.4 percent. The BRICS countries contributed 5.7 percent and China， two percent.

The situation has changed over the past decades. In 2012， developed countries took up 61.9 percent of the worlds economy in terms of nominal price， and Americas contribution fell to 21.9 percent. The portion of non-Western countries rose to 38.1 percent while that of BRICS members increased to 20.7 percent. China contributed 11.5 percent， increasing from less than eight percent of Americas portion to 52 percent.

Calculated by purchasing power parity （PPP）， the proportion of developed countries economic aggregate in the world economy dropped from 64.3 percent to 49.8 percent from 1992 to 2012. In the same period， the figure of non-Western countries went up from 35.9 percent to 49.9 percent， surpassing developed countries for the first time. Meanwhile， the proportion of the Group of Sevens economic aggregate in the global economy decreased from 51.4 percent to 37.8 percent and that of the U.S. declined from 22.8 percent to 18.9 percent. The figure of BRICS countries increased from 15.3 percent to 27.2 percent and China， from 4.3 percent to 14.8 percent.

According to a report on global governance released by Fudan University earlier this year， the above numbers imply that a multi-polarized world economy has roughly taken shape. Moreover， as the economy in non-Western countries grows faster than that of the Western world， the structure of multi-polarization will be more stable in the future.

Chen Zhimin， a professor at Fudan University， points out that against the above-mentioned background， the establishment and the future development of the NDB is the inevitable consequence of the decaying legality of the international order that was set up predominately by Western developed countries. Under such framework， the NDB and its subtle relationship with the World Bank can be taken as an embodiment of the efforts by developing countries to create an alternative organization that is independent of the current system.

Financial Risk Prevention for Developing Countries

It should be noted that when talking about the impact and challenges posed by the NDB to the World Bank， Western press and researchers often ignore a fact， whether intentionally or unintentionally. Before proceeding with the establishment of the NDB， BRICS member countries， especially China， first tried to promote the reforms of the World Bank and the IMF. But attempts were always met with a cliché – the U.S. administration obtains substantial cooperation and rewards by making various sugar-coated promises， but the legislative and judicial authorities never hesitate to use their veto power to renege on such promises. Then the administration complains that it is willing to help but unable do so because of the separation of powers in a modern legal state and， despite everything， hopes the BRICS countries will treat the U.S. as well as before， without considering its track record of bad behavior.

Any change is still in the early stage. The masses of developing countries， although they have made considerable achievements in terms of economic aggregate， are still under development and， thus， are vulnerable. After it had put forward the BRIC concept， Goldman Sachs then developed a series of similar terms including CIVITS and MINT. However， these concepts never became as popular as the BRICS； neither did they succeed in building a new quasientity that resembles the BRICS. The reason partly lies in Goldman Sachs own problems but mainly in the vulnerability of emerging economies and developing countries， and the uncertainty that comes with their development.

That is why the establishment of the NDB has strategic significance. It allows developing countries and emerging economies， which are often in an unfavorable position when faced with complicated global economic and financial situations， a financial risks prevention and control mechanism that they can independently run and fully control. Moreover， it provides a reliable source of funds to facilitate the structural reforms and further development of BRICS countries.

Focus on Infrastructure Projects

In early discussions of the founding of the NDB， it has been confirmed that one of the objectives is to support the infrastructure projects that are badly needed in developing countries but require long periods of time and large amounts of money， and yield relatively low economic returns. Such projects include high-speed railways， electricity lines， dams， computing centers， and data centers.

Owing to the large number of applications for such projects， the World Bank is unable to give assistance thoroughly. Besides， the economic and political conditions imposed are hard to accept as most applicant countries have learned hard lessons. On top of that， to commercial investors and politicians who focus on polls and public opinions in developed countries， engaging in infrastructure projects means investing in the long term. The high risks and low economic results this entails make it seem to them an ir- rational act.

In this regard， the BRICS countries have their own advantages. First， they are able to solve the problems of construction and funding simultaneously by themselves. They can offer relatively complete solutions to boost development instead of simply making a show. Second， BRICS countries do not impose economic and political conditions on recipient countries， because they have been in the same shoes. Finally， compared with developed countries， emerging economies， which are often less democratic states judged by Western criteria， are able to pay more attention to long-term strategic projects.

Moving towards Multipolarization in Global Governance

In short， the establishment of the NDB is an important step for BRICS countries to promote inclusive growth as well as a significant process for a global governance system moving substantially towards multipolarization. It is a long， historic process in which emerging economies represented by the BRICS， developing countries in general， and the NDB itself can expect to face and cope with various challenges.

For China， the establishment and improvement of the NDB is a key point in implementing its BRICS strategy， whose significance equals that of Chinas policies towards the Third World when the classification of three worlds was proposed. Through this bank， China will illustrate the mode of action for new-model major countries it put forward， and advance reforms of win-win results. In this process， world history is expected to turn a new page， deserving concerted efforts from all of us.