The BRICS Bank - A Symbol Of The Growing Aspiration Of Emerging Powers

Sharmin Chougule, LL.M. in International Law from ILS Law College, Pune (August 2019 - September 2021). A PhD candidate (March 2022- November 2024) in Civil Law and Constitutional Legality at the University of Camerino, Italy.

Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Dr. Lucia Ruggeri and Mr. Karan Mehrishi for their insightful observations as well as guidance in finalizing the paper.

ABSTRACT

This paper talks about the ever-augmenting yearnings of the emerging BRICS powers [“the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa”] to promote their role in the global financial architecture and foster their prioritised development. This belief system has led to the establishment of the New Development Bank [“NDB”] at Shanghai with a share capital of $50 billion, contributed equally by the said five members. With the use of voting power as an indicator, this paper takes notes of the fact that despite the growing political and economic prominence of the BRICS nations, the rising powers have substantially struggled to gain global respect under the current Bretton Woods structures. This paper then proceeds to conclude that with the establishment of NDB however, the BRICS nations have managed to create an alternative multilateral system, squarely pitting it against the established order of the Bretton Woods system.

Keywords: “BRICS”, NDB, Bretton Wood Institutions, New Age Economies, Emerging Nations

I. CONCEPTUALISATION

The BRICS Bank, as noted by Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, marks ‘a fundamental change in global economic and political power’.[2] The current (ignorant) financial architecture, has led to discontentment among the BRICS members. BRICS is an outcome of a tottering series of multilateral treaties and arrangements between a core circle of certain powerful imperialist nations presiding over the credit and cross-border money transfers.[3]

Experts argue that the founding of NDB represents the first instance of power projection by the so-called BRICS countries. It represents equal voting right in actuality i.e., irrespective of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) size or global ranking. NDB as against the Bretton Woods Institutions, will now help these BRICS nations in catering to their investment needs - not based on the policies of the already established institutions of the west. These institutions have their own preferences over the sectors to which their fundings will be made available.

The NDB will be a platform in helping these nations to ‘Mobilize capital, supplement the current activities of multilateral and regional financial institutions for global development and expansion, to finance their own infrastructure, sustainable development programmes and other emerging and developed economies. It will also collaborate and provide technical assistance to initiatives to be funded by the Bank, foreign organisations’[4]

This paper hence examines the position that led to the establishment of NDB with a special focus on the dissatisfaction among BRICS countries. The countries’ role in the well-established Bretton Woods institutions will be considered and used as an indicator towards this end. The author will make an attempt to build an argument pertaining to the shifting of power from the old guards (winners of the World War 2) to the new age economies of BRICS and analyse the case of international institution building in a bid to project power (as done by BRICS). In these organisations, the voting power of the BRICS members is far lower than that of the certain developed countries, even though the latter have lost their clout in the present global economic order.

The sector focus and investment priorities of the traditional institutions is also not aligned with the aspirations of the BRICS countries. This is because these newly industrialized nations are now at a socio-economic stage of development, where they are investing in 1) Urban Renewal, 2) Infrastructure, 3) Irrigation for Sustainable Farming, And 4) Clean Energy. On the other hand, the funding patterns of the traditional institutions circle around the pivot of poverty alleviation and efficient public administration. The understanding here is that the ‘One Size Fits All’ philosophy, according to the perspectives of the BRICS nations, is clearly not the correct approach. Finally, while it could improve since the NDB has been set up, the BRICS nations still cannot control the actions of the Bretton Woods bodies.

This paper is divided into six sections, including the current section, 1) ‘Conceptualization’. The other parts are, 2) The Evolution of the Bretton Woods System: Reflection of the Past, 3) The Background of the BRICS and Institution Building Goal, 4) Establishment, Comparison, and Sector Focus 5) Conclusion.

II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE BRETTON WOODS SYSTEM: REFLECTION OF THE PAST

It can be argued that the reserve system which was an offshoot of the Bretton Woods Conference has better served the Global Community, as compared to its predecessors, the gold standard. This is because, the gold standard favoured the exporting countries as well as those countries which had significant colonial powers. At the same time, it was against under-developed importing countries as well as peripheral states which were dependent on their colonial masters. This led to a classic situation of the ‘rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer’ as gold was hoarded among the few superpowers as the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), Germany, and Japan. [5]

The reserve system which replaced the gold standard to an extent even though was better serving and far more democratic gave US unprecedented powers. As most countries pegged their currencies to US dollar. Global trade utilised US dollars as a means of payment, overwhelmingly.

With the formation of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other commodity trade associations – U.S. dollar became the de facto currency of choice for global trade, elevating its status as a global reserve currency.[6]

This has allowed the U.S., powers that no other country enjoys. This is because the world will always be in a constant need of the U.S. dollar. Therefore, this allows the American Treasury to print money at will and maintain large deficits without a concern for inflation in the domestic market. This power allows the U.S. government to influence global politics at will, just as the French predicted in the earlier onset of the Bretton Woods System.

Finally, it can be argued that one of the Bretton Wood institution, IMF provided the global community with what is called a code of action guiding international exchange adjustment While disciplining the global system, the arrangement gives the US policing power over the rest of the world absolving it of any commitment for itself. Also, the negotiators at Bretton Woods wanted an institutional forum on monetary matters. However, just like the state of affairs at the World Bank and the ADB, which are dominated by the American and the Japanese, respectively, the IMF has evolved into a European bastion with a significant French dominance, designed to offset the American supremacy. What this means is that though Bretton Woods has achieved some form of power sharing arrangement, former European powers as well as the American juggernaut continues to dominate the global monetary system. Therefore, the emergence of the NDB by BRICS economies and its associated Currency Reserve Arrangement, is so important in the current context.

III. THE BACKGROUND OF THE BRICS AND INSTITUTION BUILDING GOAL

While the three multilateral institutions positioned themselves as the central financiers of the global economy, their top leadership and decision making continuingly originated from their founding members. Case in point is the fact the World Bank, almost always has US citizen as its President, the IMF, a European (primarily French) and the ADB, a Japanese. While the world continued to operate in the climate of allied hegemony, there were often voices of descent. These voices were, however, short lived and generally given no heed in the grand scheme of things.

Since the rise of China in the 1990s and India in 2000s, the world is a very different place. As the Chinese economy gained prominence and vigorously climbed the world GDP league tables,[7] China realized its inability in influencing the global agenda. This was happening despite its significant aid to the least developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa,[8] East Africa[9] and Northwest Asia. India too, even though less influential and having smaller strategic interests in Africa and Northwest Asia experienced similar uneasiness.

This change of perception of the outside world was also driven by the fact that the new world order appeared very different to the one seen in 1950 and 1960s. During those two decades, immediately after the WW2, massive industrial capacities created in the US, Europe and Japan allowed for massive economic value add for the countries concerned. These countries in turn created employment opportunities for their people, ultimately establishing robust market economies. Towards the end of the century however, it was noticed that most of those industrial capacities had moved elsewhere, i.e., Southeast Asia and primarily China. India too successfully established itself as a child of capitalism by taking advantage of globalized services network. What this meant for the former leaders was that while they continued to own technology proprietaries and to some extent capital, actual low and medium end economic activities were generated in Asia.

This shift created a significant schism in the global pecking order as these booming Asian economies started to attract massive western capital and propelled themselves into high growth market economies in their own right. Soon, China and India figured as the world’s 2nd and the 6th largest economies in nominal terms[10] and 2nd and 3rd in Purchasing Power terms, respectively.[11] They were also the de-facto leaders in global growth, remaining the fastest growing major economies in earth, creating massive wealth in the process, and taking millions of people out of absolute poverty over the years.

Russia, which despite of its membership of powerful groups such the G8 and the Security Council (P5) also found its influence dwindling after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Brazil, the Latin American behemoth, which was stuck in a middle-income trap for over forty years was another candidate for a potential alternate alliance. The nations got their chance with the introduction of the BRIC theory, propounded by the then Goldman Sachs Asset Management team, which augured the rise of these four countries and how they would rule the global economic order in the next fifty years.[12]

The BRIC theory gave the four nation states, all apart in geography, culture and demographics, a reason to come together and forge an alliance that would give them their due influence and do justice to their newfound economic clout.[13] On the insistence of the Indian Prime Ministers, the BRIC nations agreed to form the BRICS Bank (along with South Africa being a representative of the African continent), head quartered in Shanghai, China. The formation of NDB itself is a sign that the BRICS countries wanted an alternate solution. NDB functions as the world’s newest multilateral institution, not controlled by western powers. With significant financial muscle, the Bank represents the combined aspirations of the BRICS nations and their commitment to the less fortunate world, providing an alternate avenue to what the well-established west could offer.

IV. ESTABLISHMENT & COMPARISON

With the intention of portraying an alternative multilateral institution, the BRICS nations, established the New Development Bank (NDB). At NDB, the strategy is about working towards the goals of providing both development grants as well as emergency reserves. This strategy in a way fuses the roles of both the World Bank and “the IMF”.

The Member States always have a minimum voting strength of 55 per cent,[14] of which they will hold equal shares, in case any future member joins (from among other emerging nations), they will split the other 45 percent in equal ratios. Specifically, the Member States have invested US$ 50 billion as subscribed share capital and none of them has any veto power.[15] With an authorized share capital of US$100 billion, the NDB claims the subscribed capital can be increased from US$50 billion to US$100 billion. An emergency liquidity scheme worth US$100 billion is for used in recessionary situations, supersedes the usual role of the IMF. This fund is often used to provide emergency liquidity in member nations. The Bank also set up a ‘Coronavirus Combating Bond and two COVID Response Bonds (of US$ 1.5 billion for three years and US$ 2 billion for five years)’ to make a contribution in the efforts globally to cope with the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, the path to NDB has been difficult to follow. Out of the seven instalments of paid-in capital, the outstanding as on December 31, 2020, remains US$ 1912 million, with Russia paying a part of the seventh instalment in advance and further paying off the entire outstanding by June 30, 2021. China, whose seventh instalment was outstanding as of December 31, 2020, also paid off the same by June 30, 2021.[16] On the other hand, Brazil has an outstanding from the sixth while the entire seventh instalment.[17] India and South Africa are yet to pay the seventh instalment. Bangladesh, the most recent member, is yet to pay its first instalment of US$ 188 million. While their receipt of paid-in capital amounts to US$ 8783 million[18], these payments are tough economically, since the bulk of the BRICS have their own cash and economic challenges.

A. Comparison with the Bretton Woods

The BRICS nations, though over time emerged as the hotspots of global investments, remained subjugated under the hegemony of the Bretton Woods. Although they accounted for 24% of the world GDP,[19] their percentage of voting in the IMF is only 14.39%,[20] with just one nation having a leading position amongst the six countries (with new member Bangladesh).[21] This is because a country’s influence on the world economy is based on factors beyond just per capita GDP, proportion of public debt to GDP and the domain of commerce. Questionably, these aforementioned factors remain critical in assessing controlling stakes of the IMF and the World Bank. The owners of these controlling shares, the developed world, do not wish to dilute their influence on global finance. This has resulted in their lack of accommodation for the newly industrialised nations, recognising their rising power and influence. In other words, there is no consensus in the global order pertaining to the new economic realities currently prevailing in the world. And no matter how much they would try to establish their presence in these two multilateral financial institutions, their influence will be undermined considering the veto power like that of the United States (with a quota share of 16.5%), prevailing over Executive Board decisions[22].

In the below table, it can be noticed that voting power share as a percent of actual global economic output is flawed and doesn’t reflect the current picture. Countries such as the UK and France, which over the years have lost their potency, continue to wield considerable power in the IMF and the World Bank. With a voting share of 4.03% each, in IMF, for instance, these countries have more power than much larger India (2.63%) and slightly lower than China’s 6.08%, which is almost five times larger comparably. It is therefore clear that traditional institutions don’t really follow a democratic when it comes to voting right distribution and influence on a concerned institution’s daily affairs.[23]

Countries such as South Africa, on the NDB manages to own just 0.64% of the Bretton Woods setup, never likely to wield any power on its affairs neither for itself nor for other African republics. The NDB however, attempts to change this, providing an equal footing to all founding members including South Africa. In fact, the NDB is the only multilateral Bank, which represents equal voting right distribution amongst all five member states, irrespective of their economic might and growth.

B. Voting Rights Comparison

IMF

World Bank

NDB/ BRICS (No Veto)

UK

4.03%

3.84%

0%

USA

16.50%

15.05%

0%

France

4.03%

3.84%

0%

Germany

5.32%

4.16%

0%

Japan

6.15%

7.28%

0%

China

6.08%

5.40%

20%

India

2.63%

3.12%

20%

Russia

2.59%

2.73%

20%

Brazil

2.22%

2.04%

20%

South Africa

0.63%

0.77%

20%

Kenya

0.14%

0.16%

0%

Kazakhstan

0.26%

0.20%

0%

Bangladesh

0.24%

0.31%

1.88%

United Arab Emirates

0.49%

0.27%

1.08%

Source: Bank Websites[24]

NDB, which is now planning on expanding its membership[25] is not just another Bank for regional and integrated global development but also a result of the prolonged resentment and frustration of the emerging economies (which are gradually becoming more important in the global economy). Its purpose is to provide these emerging markets voting rights that reflect the economic realities of today.

Importantly, the BRICS countries focus areas are noticeably different as compared to other emerging countries. This is because these countries now realise that the sectors where they need to invest are not a priority of the Bretton Woods Institutions. Further, the member countries of NDB are filling the void left by the Bretton Woods Institutions for those sectors, where focus is needed within these nation states.

Sector focus is, therefore, another important parameter in the establishment of the NDB. While the traditional institutions have their own agenda in finalizing investment themes, the NDB has responded to the new age requirements of the BRICS nations.

C. Sector Comparison

The below table explains the different focus areas of traditional institutions and the NDB as described through the themes of investment. While the primary influence of WB, IMF, and ADB circles around segments such as Social Infrastructure, Agriculture and Public Administration, the focus of the NDB has been on new age avenues pertaining to Transport, Clean Energy, and Urban Development. With the establishment of the NDB, the BRICS nations now have the freedom to define the most pressing agenda for the NDB and actuate investment that is most productive for their development.

Sector Focus (Selected Sectors)

Sector Focus

WB

NDB

Transport

9%

27%

Clean Energy

7%

14%

Irrigation, Water Management

7%

8%

Urban Development

0%

14%

Environment Efficiency

0%

NA

Social Infrastructure

26%

4%

Digital Infrastructure

NA

Agriculture & Fishing

11%

0%

Financial Sector

3%

0%

Industry, Trade & Services

15%

0%

Public Administration

10%

0%

Source: Bank Websites[26]

NDB being the first multilateral development bank, sets a vision to be of a global scope geographically. Its ‘membership is open to all members of the United Nations’.[27] With its demand-driven approach set within the framework of respect for national sovereignty, it finances the public and private projects which are a priority for its member countries. These projects, in nine key areas,[28] are supported through ‘financial instruments such as loans, guarantees, equity participation, and other financial products.’[29] These nine key areas are bifurcated under the sectors NDB supports. Transport, clean energy, urban development being the ones NDB traditionally supports, while the unconventional ones being, water resource management supply and sanitation, environment efficiency, social infrastructure, digital infrastructure, and COVID-19 emergency assistance. The Bank also provides technical assistance for the projects it supports.

An analysis of the sectors NDB finances through its projects, opens details of a few facts on why these sectors are important to its members on priority and why it has been diversifying the funding portfolio across these strategically selected areas. Also, another most important aspect here is that out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), NDB aligns its commitment to finance with 11 based on its current priorities.[30] These 11, at present are primarily important, inter alia, to NDB’s nation states, and help in choosing projects within infrastructure and sustainable development with its ultimate aims to contribute to the global growth and development.

Aligning with SDG 9 and making a direct contribution to SDG3 and SDG11,[31] a chunk however, of the approved projects of NDB, goes into transport infrastructure forming 24% of NDB’s portfolio. As at the end of 2020, NDB catered to 16 projects with a total of US$ 5.7 billion. These projects will contribute to the construction of ‘15,300 km of new or upgraded roads and 820 new or upgraded bridges, among other outputs.’[32]

Connectivity between metro cities and rural areas as well as within metro cities has remained an important focus area for NDB members. NDB’s projects improves rural roads, which in turn help in increasing accessibility by the rural populations to important necessities like education and health services. These projects also ensure connectivity of rural folks to markets in urban and metro cities as well as consumers.

Given its importance, the support of NDB, to transport sector is also reflected in other key operational areas like urban development[33] and multi theme.[34]Along with infrastructure (that includes transport, urban development, and social infrastructure), Sustainable Development, since its incorporation, has remained major focus of the Bank’s operations.

NDB’s funded projects aligned with the 2030 Agenda[35] are anticipated to bring about ‘transformative impacts that contribute to member countries efforts to achieve their development aspirations’[36] These transformative projects and their tracking to report NDB’s commitment through ‘Multilateral Development Banks tracking methodology’[37] are becoming an important part of the development impact management of NDB’s operations, ever more. NDB’s cumulative ‘climate finance commitments’ are estimated to be 19% of the cumulative approvals.

Keeping in line with the SDG 7 and directly contributing to SDGs 9, 11, 12 and 13,[38] the NDB with 14% of its portfolio, focuses on clean energy projects with a total of USD 3.5 billion.[39]

Another key operational area is urban development wherein NDB aligns with SDG 11 and direct contribution to SDGs 6, 8, 9 and 13.[40] Since 2018, this area in NDB’s portfolio has drawn sharp interest from member countries. During 2016-2020, NDB approved 14 urban development projects totalling US$ 3.5 billion. At the end of 2020, ‘the Bank’s portfolio included 13 projects that represented 14% of the portfolio and are expected to benefit 40 cities in four member countries and build 230 km of metro or tram rails, among other outputs.’[41]The urban development projects are focused on enhancing the urban infrastructure to facilitate and encourage the urban mobility by developing regional rapid public transit systems and thereby plummeting congestion and travel time; improvising safety conditions; creating additional economic opportunities for locals (India and Brazil).[42] While doing so the emissions are reduced thereby obliging with Bank’s environmental commitment. These projects also aim at protecting the cultural heritage by promoting its preservation and development, driving tourism, and improving local economies.[43]

NDB also finances Irrigation, water resource management and sanitation since 2017. At the end of 2020, NDB has projects approved to four members with US$ 1.9 billion, representing 8% of its portfolio.[44] Aligned with SDG 6 and SDG 2, this sector makes contribution to SDG 3, SDG 11, and SDG 13.[45]

NDB also finances Environmental Efficiency projects totalling US$ 1.2 billion.[46] Aligning with SDG 9 and SDG 13 this makes contribution to SDG 6 and SDG 12.[47] These projects enable member countries to transition to more environmental, sustainable, and accountable patterns of production and consumption with the help of novel and advanced technologies applied in new activities or to mitigate and reverse the ill-effects of the past actions.

NDB also finances Social infrastructure (in Russia and Brazil), Information and Communication Technology (in Russia) projects.[48]Although not forming a major focus area with 4% representation of Bank’s portfolio, Social Infrastructure projects are primarily aligned to SDG 4 and SDG 16 and directly contribute to SDG 8 and SDG 11.[49] NDB approved two projects, one, to Russia for judicial system support project and another for Brazil, to enhance school infrastructure to increase the number of students attending fulltime elementary schools and to enhance safety conditions for student.[50]

Digital infrastructure in NDB’s portfolio, aligns with SDG 9.[51] It is only Russia as of now, to whom a non-sovereign loan has been approved of for the project ‘Cellular Network and Cloud Services Expansion’.[52] It aims to improve broadband access and mobile network penetration across Russia as well as to reduce cost in migrating to cloud-based infrastructure. It is noted that NDB recognizes the importance of digitalisation and understands the interlinkages between traditional infrastructure and the digital economy, technological landscape, and fourth industrial revolution. The Bank has committed to support its member countries on these fronts in the coming years and this forms a part of its digital infrastructure related efforts.

In its effort to comprehensively provide for more than one key area mandate, NDB finances multi-theme projects since 2019. These refer to ‘on-lending and investment through financial intermediaries with sub-projects in various key areas of NDB’s operations.’[53] Multi-theme projects align with SDG 9 and contribute to other SDGs thereby making impact development possible. These areas include ‘renewable energy and energy efficiency, urban mobility, water and sanitation, transport and logistics, information and communication technology and social infrastructure; green infrastructure, social infrastructure, affordable housing, infrastructure services, agribusiness, financial services and other activities with a focus on job creation and supporting small and medium enterprises.’[54] In 2020, NDB approved three multi-theme projects totalling US$1.5 billion in two member countries.[55]

Well within its SDGs mandate, with its Emergency Assistance Program,[56] NDB not only supports the member countries (a total of US$ 10 billion) but also promotes digital inclusion of several families in the national single registry of social benefit programmes as well as in the mobile banking system.

The NDB also has a Project Preparation Fund[57] to enable project preparation, facilitation, conducting feasibility studies with local expertise in the member nations to optimize resource utilization.

Although the importance of these other sectors which do not align with NDB’s current priorities cannot be dismissed, it is right to say that NDB member nations in their own discretion and based upon their understood needs of the hour have decided well for themselves. Since they all have boarded the same boat, they all understand each other’s situation.

V. CONCLUSION: MOVING AWAY OR DEMOCRATIZE?

Since the emergence of Asia as the world’s economic centre, several countries of the continent have entered the league tables pertaining to GDP size and economic influence. Perhaps the most meteoric rise amongst these nations has been that of China and India, which have now occupied the 2nd and 6th spot in global rankings, respectively. This is obviously a far cry from the days of Bretton Wood (post war era) when these countries figured amongst the poorest in the world.

GDP Size (US$ Trillion) Year 2021

Global Rank

USA

22.6

1

UK

3.1

5

France

2.9

7

Germany

4.3

4

Japan

5.7

3

China

16.6

2

India

3.1

6

Russia

1.7

11

Brazil

1.5

13

South Africa

0.3

41

Kenya

0.1

65

Kazakhastan

0.2

54

Source: Author’s Research

With the economic reshuffle, the former powers that dominated the global scene have suddenly found themselves trailing in terms of their economic clout. While the US has continued to dominate the global scene, UK and France have fallen behind to 5th and 7th place respectively. Germany and Japan, though still having respectable rankings have been already overtaken by China with India closing in. Consequently, the new world order is rather different than before, with even countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and Russia (after the dissolution of the USSR) have managed to join the top 15 list, gradually pushing down the rankings of nations such as Australia, Canada, Italy, and Spain.

However, despite these achievements, the BRICS nations have realized that their voting rights (proxy for influence in multilateral institutions) have not evolved and kept pace with time.

It is therefore clear that the NDB has been filling a niche that the traditional multilaterals have focused little. The lacuna was unfilled for a long time and the special needs of newly industrialized nations such as those of BRICS were largely unmet. With a portfolio of over $9 billion, the NDB has quickly emerged as an important source of financing and technical expertise for member states, which are collectivizing their resources to not only help each other but less fortunate states in Africa and North-West Asia.

The objective of the NDB’s establishment can therefore be summarized as follows:

1. The evolving economic landscape not reflected by the voting rights in Bretton wood Institutions.

2. Investment priority of Bretton wood institutions not aligned with BRICS nations.

3. Sector focus of Bretton wood institutions and BRICS nation differ.

The biggest threat to the future of the NDB is the disparity in political interests (as highlighted by the Ukraine War), culture, geography, and economic might amongst member states. There are also mistrust amongst certain member states for each other (China and India), a condition that pre-exists the Bank’s establishment agreement. One solution is a road map that must be adapted by founding states – under which they quickly dilute their voting rights and include other nations as part of a resource diversification drive. Unless and until the NDB does not become a truly global project, its successes will remain limited, and it may never achieve its true potential. Nevertheless, the long-term success of the NDB project is not in the scope of this paper and the researcher believes that a separate paper can accommodate these findings and their impact on institutional functioning.

[1] LL.M. in International Law from ILS Law College, Pune & PhD candidate in Civil Law and Constitutional Legality at the University of Camerino, Italy. [2] “Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz Hails New BRICS Bank Challenging U.S.-Dominated World Bank & IMF”, Democracy Now, (July 2014), online: ‘https://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/17/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_hails_new’ Also see, Elena SCISO, ed., Accountability, Transparency and Democracy in the Functioning of Bretton, 1st ed. (Italy, Springer International Publishing AG and G. Giappichelli Editore 2017) at 65. [3] Marina LARIONOVA, “The rise of new institutions”, in John KIRTON & Marina LARIONOVA, ed., BRICS and Global Governance, 1st ed. (London, Routledge Publishing 2018) at 3-5. [4] 6th BRICS Summit, ‘https://brics2021.gov.in/’. [5] Isaac O.C. IGWE, “History of the International Economy: The Bretton Woods System and its Impact on the Economic Development of Developing Countries”, 4, 2, Athens Journal of Law, 105-126, https://www.athensjournals.gr/law/2018-4-2-1-Igwe.pdf William ADAMS BROWN, JR., "The International Gold Standard Reinterpreted, 1914-1934”, 1940, National Bureau of Economic Research, https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c5949/c5949.pdf Robert TRIFFIN, "The Myth and Realities of the so-called Gold Standard” in Barry EICHENGREEN, Marc FLANDREAU ed., The Gold Standard in Theory and History, 2nd ed. (London & New York, Routledge Publishing 1997) 101. [6] Pierre SHAMMAS*, “Saudi Arabia: Petroleum Industry Review”, 18, 1, Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 1-86, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0144598001491888 [7] The World Bank, China, online: https://data.worldbank.org/country/china [8] The World Bank, “Global Economic Prospects”, online: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2015b/Global-Economic-Prospects-June-2015-China-and-Sub-Saharan-Africa.pdf [9] Wade SHEPARD, “What China Is Really Up to In Africa”, Forbes, (3 October 2019), online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2019/10/03/what-china-is-really-up-to-in-africa/#73f6cf3b5930 [10] Centre for Economics and Business Research, “World Economic League Table 2021”, https://cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WELT-2021-final-23.12.pdf [11] The World Bank, “Fundamentals of Purchasing Power Parities”, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/332341517441011666-0050022018/original/PPPbrochure2017webformatrev.pdf [12] Goldman Sachs, “BRICS And Beyond”, https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/archive/BRICs-and-Beyond.html [13] Daniel EPSTEIN, “New Development? The BRICS Bank and the International System”, (Fall 2014/Winter 2015) 36, Harvard International Review, 12-13, https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40146133 [14] NDB, “Article 8, Data and documents, Agreement on The NDB”, https://www.ndb.int/wp-content/themes/ndb/pdf/Agreement-on-the-New-Development-Bank.pdf [15] Article 2, Ibid. [16] See Attachment 2, Agreement on The NDB, at 15, Russia and China have paid the entire outstanding amount of all the seven instalments to the total of US$ 2000 million. [17] See Attachment 2, Agreement on The NDB, at 15, Brazil is yet to pay the balance of US$ 517 million which includes US$ 167 million from the sixth instalment and US$ 350 from the seventh instalment. Also see, note 28, Paid-in Capital, ‘Condensed Financial Statements,’ NDB. 'Condensed Financial Statements for the nine months ended 30 September 2021,' https://www.ndb.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NDB.pdf [18] Audited as at December 31, 2020, note 28, Paid-in Capital, ‘Condensed Financial Statements,’ NDB https://www.ndb.int/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Condensed-Financial-Statements-for-the-three-months-ended-31-March-2021.pdf [19] BRICS India 2021, “Evolution of BRICS”, https://brics2021.gov.in/about-brics [20] International Monetary Fund, “IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors”, https://www.imf.org/en/About/executive-board/members-quotas [21] Ibid. [22] Noel GASTON, Ahmed M. KHALID, Globalization and Economic Integration: Winners and Losers in the Asia-Pacific, 1st ed. (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010) at 31. [23] “India calls for increase in voting rights at World Bank”, Press Trust of India, Financial Express, (22 April 2018), https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/india-calls-for-increase-in-voting-rights-at-world-bank/1141681/ [24] International Monetary Fund, https://www.imf.org/en/About/executive-board/members-quotas The World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/leadership/votingpowers NDB, https://www.ndb.int/wp-content/themes/ndb/pdf/Agreement-on-the-New-Development-Bank.pdf [25] NDB, NDB’s General Strategy 2017-2021, https://www.ndb.int/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NDB-Strategy.pdf [26] The World Bank, ‘Projects and Operations’, https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-sector ; NDB, ‘Strategy’, Supra note 24. [27] NDB, ‘Organisation’, https://www.ndb.int/about-us/organisation/members/ [28] Supra note 24, In its General Strategy of 2017-2021, NDB is guided through key areas of operation. [29] Supra note 13, Article 1 and related Articles. [30] NDB, Annual Report 2020, ‘Development impact of NDB’s operations’, https://www.ndb.int/annual-report-2020/pdf/NDB%20AR%202020_complete.pdf [31] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, ‘The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ https://sdgs.un.org/goals; [32] Supra note 29 at 58. [33] NDB, Projects, https://www.ndb.int/curitibas-bus-rapid-transit-rideability-improvement-project-3/ ‘Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Rideability Improvement Project.’ This loan was issued under Sector Urban Development and aims encouraging the use of public transport by improving the BRT quality further thereby reducing costs, time of travel, congestion, and emissions. [34] Ibid. ‘BNDES-NDB Sustainable Infrastructure Project’, https://www.ndb.int/bndes-ndb-sustainable-infrastructure-project-2/ [35] Supra note 29 at 44, ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 17 SDGs, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’ [36] Supra note 29 at 44. [37] Multilateral Development Banks, ‘Joint Report on Multilateral Development Banks’ https://www.miga.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/2020-Joint-MDB-report-on-climate-finance_Report_final-web.pdf; [38] Supra note 30. [39] NDB, List of all Projects, ‘Putian Pinghai Bay offshore wind power’, ‘Renewable energy integration and transmission augmentation project (South Africa),’ ‘Financing of Renewable Energy Projects and Associated Transmission (Brazil)’, ‘Canara Renewable Energy Financing Scheme’, and ‘REC Renewable Energy Sector Development Project (India)’, ‘Lingang Distributed Solar Power Project (China)’, ‘Development of Renewable Energy Sector in Russia Project’, https://www.ndb.int/projects/list-of-all-projects/ [40] Supra note 30. [41] Supra note 29 at 9. [42] See Supra note 29 and ‘Mumbai Metro Rail II Project (Second phase will include implementation of Line 6 for eastern and western suburbs connectivity) and Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System’, ‘BRICS' NDB approves loans for Mumbai Metro, Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut RRTS, Economic Times (September 30, 2020), online: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/railways/brics-ndb-approves-loans-for-mumbai-metro-delhi-ghaziabad-meerut-rrts/articleshow/78406596.cms Also see, supra note 32. [43] Supra note 29 at 60 ‘Small Historic Cities Development Phase II (Russia)’ [44] ‘Eurasian Development Bank to the Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (Russia)’ Press Releases https://www.ndb.int/press_release/ndb-board-directors-held-28th-meeting-approved-infrastructure-sustainable-development-projects/ [45] Supra note 30. [46] NDB, Projects, ‘SIBUR Sustainable Infrastructure & Environmental Safety Project, Russia’ https://www.ndb.int/zapsibneftekhim/ [47] Supra note 30. [48] Supra note 29 at 62 and 63. [49] Ibid. [50] Ibid. [51] Ibid. [52] Ibid. [53] Supra note 29 at 64. [54] Ibid. [55] Ibid. [56] NBD, ‘NDB Board Statement on COVID-19’, https://www.ndb.int/covid-19-response-programme/; [57] Supra note 29 at 55.