Here's something for you to sink your teeth into!


*******************************************************************************************************************

(CP-Africa) - Reuters Africa Editor, Matthew Tostevin has an interesting topic for discussion on the Reuters Africa blog this week titled: Should South Africa be a BRIC?
Reuters reports that Russia recently revealed that South Africa applied to be become a member of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India & China) meaning that BRICs could as a result morph from “BRICs” to “BRICS.” (N.B. – The definition of what form the said “application” was tabled in remains unclear).

As the continent’s largest economy, South Africa’s inclusion might seem to some like a no-brainer but Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs executive who came up with the term BRICs in a 2001 paper titled: “The World Needs Better Economic BRICs” says he does not think South Africa should be a member of BRICs. When asked why by the Reuters news team he reminded them that not only does he not think that SA should not be included in BRICs but that Goldman Sachs also did not include SA as one of the N-11 or Next 11 emerging economies, a list that includes Nigeria and Egypt citing South Africa’s lack of a sizable working population as his main problem. Read the Reuters Africa blog entry, “Should South Africa be a BRIC?” here. “The country in Africa that has the real potential is Nigeria,” he said.

Despite SA’s weaknesses it  is important to remember that  it has still so far been able to come up ahead of Nigeria in many sectors  even though Nigeria is easily  three times its population size. SA is also currently a member of the G-20 nations, a group that Nigeria was not considered eligible for.

Which do you support? South Africa or Nigeria? Neither? Both?

G-20 members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

What's the aim of the G20 nations. Does not really make sense like BRIC. The countries in BRIC are potential world powers. South Africa does not fit into that equation because one thing that will militate against them is the working population. Nigeria is more like it.

South Africa does not fit the BRIC profile for a number of reasons
1. Its population is very small when compared with the other countries - Brazil 200M, China 1.3B, India 1.2B, Russia 141M. SA's population of 49M will not increase the size of the trading area
2. SA's economy has been established for a while, consequently, there isn't much room for growth
3. The BRIC countries are rich in commodities. SA is also rich in commodities but this seem to be in the hands of foreigners. SA mines are controlled by Europeans


Nigeria has the potential to be a member of BRIC but in the current climate, it is unlikely to be admitted. Nigeria needs to improve its infrastructure, fight corruption, spend more on education, etc
1. Nigeria has the largest population in Africa - 150M
2. Its economy has been increasing steadily over the last 10 years
3. It has a working population that can easily be trained
4. Stable product industries such as Agriculture and Oil
5. One of the fastest growing service industries (telecoms sector) in the world.

What is the point of organizations like this?

If population is put aside, there's no reason why SA shouldn't be part of BRIC.

Katsumoto:

2. SA's economy has been established for a while, consequently, there isn't much room for growth

I disagree - there is enormous room for growth, especially as SA continues to displace Europe/US companies as the source of imports for African countries.

3. The BRIC countries are rich in commodities. SA is also rich in commodities but this seem to be in the hands of foreigners. SA mines are controlled by Europeans

But this applies to Nigeria as well - the Oil is 'controlled' by foreign multinationals. . . NNPC only controls by name.

With no indigenous industrial/financial giants  (SA has SASOL, Standard Bank) , no exports of note outside of commodities (SA exports technology, cars, etc) and an unstable political system with no vision, there's no reason to admit Nigeria beyond it's population size.

debosky:


But this applies to Nigeria as well - the Oil is 'controlled' by foreign multinationals. . . NNPC only controls by name.

With no indigenous industrial/financial giants  (SA has SASOL, Standard Bank) , no exports of note outside of commodities (SA exports technology, cars, etc) and an unstable political system with no vision, there's no reason to admit Nigeria beyond it's population size.

Nigeria also has GTB which keeps growing. I stated that in the current climate would not be admitted but I believe that Nigeria has the potential. Before Lula was elected in 2002, Brazil would not have been admitted as well. If Nigeria gets its act together, it can easily become a leading exporter of Africultural produce in the short to long term and an exporter of technological products in the medium to long term. Case in Point - Brazil with ethanol. You may think it is insignificant but Nigeria also exports music and arts (Nollywood, etc) to the rest of Africa, Europe, and the US.

South Africa does not fit into the category of the BRICs. Turkey and maybe Vietnam would have been better options.
Using non-descript economic indicators, save for corruption and bad leadership, Nigeria is definitely a good candidate for what should be called the BRINCs.
Reason been that despite the numerous decadent problems in infrastructure and our political environment, the Nigerian economy is still pushing beyond its boundaries. Imagine for a moment that we fix our transport, power and leadership problems. The development that would take place thereafter would be enormous!!!We have the spirit and I believe we can easily be classified alongside one of the BRICs.

debosky:


With no indigenous industrial/financial giants  (SA has SASOL, Standard Bank) , no exports of note outside of commodities (SA exports technology, cars, etc) and an unstable political system with no vision, there's no reason to admit Nigeria beyond it's population size.

Your above statement is the exact reason why Nigeria and not South Africa could actually be classified the next BRIC.

The fact that SA has an already advanced economy, exporting cars and other sophisticated goods, an advanced agricultural economy et al, and yet its GDP is barely larger than Nigeria whose has just one advanced industry. Imagine the prospects in Agriculture, Entertainment, Manufacturing, IT, Solid Minerals and the likes. In the day we start harnessing just a minute portion of these resources SA would be left in the trenches!

Nigeria may not fit into the BRIC for several reasons and the most important would be the ability of the country to sustain its economical growth. The country's export that is dependent on oil and a few other agricultural commodities weighs below par on a diversification scale and this in turn increases the risk profile of the country.It can also be further argued that manufacturing sector in the country is not likely to experience a boost in another 6 or 7 years down the line this stems from poor power infrastructure which has consistently been the bane of the Nigerian state.

Furthermore, the country's underdeveloped financial markets and stock exchange impede an investor's ability from including in their portfolio, financial instruments that will enable them to achieve a fully diversified portfolio with reasonable returns.

PapaBrowne:

Your above statement is the exact reason why Nigeria and not South Africa could actually be classified the next BRIC.

The fact that SA has an already advanced economy, exporting cars and other sophisticated goods, an advanced agricultural economy et al, and yet its GDP is barely larger than Nigeria whose has just one advanced industry. Imagine the prospects in Agriculture, Entertainment, Manufacturing, IT, Solid Minerals and the likes. In the day we start harnessing just a minute portion of these resources SA would be left in the trenches!

Brazil exports aircraft and other sophisticated goods too, and they are one of the world leaders in offshore oil and gas technology. It even has astronauts on the ISS, so in terms of advancement, they are way up there as well. The likes of China and India also possess advanced technology as well, so in a sense, Nigeria doesn't bring much to the table beyond 'potential' and economic size.

SA would be a more beneficial candidate because they will, by proxy, be driving the sub-Saharan African economy for a while to come. While not having the large population or growth capacity of the likes of Nigeria, they are able to achieve that growth through their companies expanding across the continent.

SA has a clear vision and it is to dominate Africa first and foremost, and then move further abroad. Nigeria on the other hand, has little or no vision or leadership except to continue to collect oil receipts with little/no value added.

I don't consider Nigeria's potentials or current exports as insignificant, but there is too much institutional weakness - there is little or no long term vision or focus, and while you might have sporadic success like GLO or GTB, that is not sufficient to carry us through.

If we can sort out ourselves, BRIC membership is eminently achievable.

1- South Africa need to get rid of the "Economic Apartheid" first.
2- Nigeria need to fight corruption first.

debosky:

If population is put aside, there's no reason why SA shouldn't be part of BRIC.

I disagree - there is enormous room for growth, especially as SA continues to displace Europe/US companies as the source of imports for African countries.

But this applies to Nigeria as well - the Oil is 'controlled' by foreign multinationals. . . NNPC only controls by name.

With no indigenous industrial/financial giants  (SA has SASOL, Standard Bank) , no exports of note outside of commodities (SA exports technology, cars, etc) and an unstable political system with no vision, there's no reason to admit Nigeria beyond it's population size.

SA is one of the largest non-oil investors in SSA, yes. Our finance sector is definitely not as large as SA's, but we are growing , and may eventually outstrip them. Oil isn't controlled by foreign investors per se, not any more. NCD and PIB, if they are passed, will significantly change the game.

I do agree on the political front though. We need serious political reforms in Nigeria. At the very least, we need strong and purposeful leadership. Just someone who can come on board and put the structure in place to achieve some degree of the available potential.

BRIC are now major players in the game, especially since the recession.

With China funding almost all Western budgets, its fair to say that Nigeria is some way off sharing such company. As many have stated, the only qualification Nigeria holds to join BRIC is population. We hope for the Dangotes, Wale Tinubus and Mike Adenugas to continue projecting Nigeria onto the international scene for a while yet before we can talk of BRIC.

South Africa! Don't let us deceive ourselves, Nigeria has a long way to go. Who are the major investors in Nigeria now: South Africans. In terms of infrastructure, technology, telecommunications, we are not at par with SA. Many investors in Brazil are not Brazilians. Investment is investment even if the owners are from different climes. The world is a global village. So, the argument about investors in SA being Europeans is not tenable. And, there is room for growth in SA, as well. South African economy is diversified (unlike Nigeria's) and certainy not third world in terms of development, at least in the cities.


And, if I may add:

This reminds me about an article I read in The Economist last week about the Security Council. Which country in Africa deserves permanent membership? In reality, it's SA because Nigeria is just too anarchic to comtemplate that now.
And, in other parts of the world, Brazil (Latin America), India (Asia), Turkey (Arab world) and prolly Germany (Europe) should be made permanent members.

Am really enjoying the debate on this thread, shame that our numerous tribalists will soon be here to derail the topic.

ola olabiy:

South Africa! Don't let us deceive ourselves, Nigeria has a long way to go. Who are the major investors in Nigeria now: South Africans. In terms of infrastructure, technology, telecommunications, we are not at par with SA. Many investors in Brazil are not Brazilians. Investment is investment even if the owners are from different climes. The world is a global village. So, the argument about investors in SA being Europeans is not tenable. And, there is room for growth in SA, as well. South African economy is diversified (unlike Nigeria's) and certainy not third world in terms of development, at least in the cities.


And, if I may add:

This reminds me about an article I read in The Economist last week about the Security Council. Which country in Africa deserves permanent membership? In reality, it's SA because Nigeria is just too anarchic to comtemplate that now.
And, in other parts of the world, Brazil (Latin America), India (Asia), Turkey (Arab world) and prolly Germany (Europe) should be made permanent members.

Jim Oneil of Goldman Sachs coined the phrase to represent countries with newly advanced economic development. If it weren't so, more established economies such as Singapore, South Korea and Mexico would be in there. But those countries were excluded on the basis that there economies were already at an advanced stage. Besides, some of these other countries are all members of the OECD. South Africa's economy has been developed for a while and it can even be argued that it's economy has been on the decline since the 90s. Whereas BRIC countries have been on the up for the better part of the last 10 years. On that basis, Nigeria may qualify. So the criteria is not current development but more on size, room for growth, etc.

Again, what tangible benefit will this classification provide? Perhaps the benefits are obvious, but hopefully it is not too much to ask for them to be explained for non-experts like myself.

DapoBear:

Again, what tangible benefit will this classification provide? Perhaps the benefits are obvious, but hopefully it is not too much to ask for them to be explained for non-experts like myself.

The classification came in 2001 in a paper (The World Needs Better Economic BRICs) written by Jim ONeil but the first meeting of the presidents did not occur until 2009. Classification in itself will not do much for Nigeria other than make the world notice Nigeria. Nigeria has a lot of work to do to be accepted by these heavyweights. I suspect that if Nigeria were suddenly to get visionary and competent leadership and improved several aspects of its economy, it could be invited by the BRIC countries to join.

Goals of BRIC
1. Economic cooperation amongst members.
2. Better involvement in global affairs
3. Replacement of dollar as world reserve currency
4. A reform of financial institutions

Interestingly, Nigeria is ranked 18th by GDP between 2006 and 2050 in a study (BRICs and BEYOND) by Goldman Sachs. SA did not make the top 22 nations.

The members of BRIC might be emerging super powers but the underlying indicators that triggered the coining of the group would not favour SA and i think the inclusion of SA would make a mincemeat of the whole idea

brilliant and sustainable growing economy arent the only indices in forming BRIC or how come we dont have the Asian tigers in there

seriously, Nigeria should be considered ahead of SA if not for our deplorable infrastructures

be that as it may, if we have a solid govt in Nigeria for just 8 years, i dont think SA would be near Nigeria cos the potentials far outweigh whatever can come from SA

^^^^
I think the major consideration for BRIC is population. Many tigerist economies are doing bether than them in terms of development. So, I have to agree with your assumption. It is not just about development, the size in terms of land mass and population is what truely defines BRIC.

Katsumoto:

The classification came in 2001 in a paper (The World Needs Better Economic BRICs) written by Jim ONeil but the first meeting of the presidents did not occur until 2009. Classification in itself will not do much for Nigeria other than make the world notice Nigeria. Nigeria has a lot of work to do to be accepted by these heavyweights. I suspect that if Nigeria were suddenly to get visionary and competent leadership and improved several aspects of its economy, it could be invited by the BRIC countries to join.

Goals of BRIC
1. Economic cooperation amongst members.
2. Better involvement in global affairs
3. Replacement of dollar as world reserve currency
4. A reform of financial institutions

Interestingly, Nigeria is ranked 18th by GDP between 2006 and 2050 in a study (BRICs and BEYOND) by Goldman Sachs. SA did not make the top 22 nations.

Thanks for the overview. Perhaps the carrot of joining will be additional motivation to fix the country. Who knows, it worked for some of those EU countries, maybe it can work for us.

ola olabiy:

^^^^
I think the major consideration for BRIC is population. Many tigerist economies are doing bether than them in terms of development. So, I have to agree with your assumption. It is not just about development, the size in terms of land mass and population is what truely defines BRIC.

If it is just that, then Indonesia should have been there and would be there before Nigeria, methinks.

AjanleKoko:

SA is one of the largest non-oil investors in SSA, yes. Our finance sector is definitely not as large as SA's, but we are growing , and may eventually outstrip them. Oil isn't controlled by foreign investors per se, not any more. NCD and PIB, if they are passed, will significantly change the game.

I do agree on the political front though. We need serious political reforms in Nigeria. At the very least, we need strong and purposeful leadership. Just someone who can come on board and put the structure in place to achieve some degree of the available potential.

South Africa needs the same.
Its successes are being gradually washed away by a corrupt and inept political elite that is still stuck in the stupidity of silly revolutionary tendencies.
What is wrong with the black man sef?

yemi313:

Goldman Sach's last report about potential BRIC's from Africa didnt even mention SA. It mentioned just Nigeria and Egypt.
SA is long past a BRIC status, and it would be like demoting them. BRIC's have an "emerging" potential. SA is long established, just another whiteman's land within Africa.
Nigeria has all it takes (Population, Land, HR, Natural Resources), though we need a game changing plane that would make us the next target of the benefits that comes from been the next BRIC.
If we can fix security, education, electricity, and the government can build good roads, the rest will take care of itself, and SA can kiss her status in Africa goodbye.

On what basis do you make these assertions.
They sound worrying and incorrect.

yemi313:

Goldman Sach's last report about potential BRIC's from Africa didnt even mention SA. It mentioned just Nigeria and Egypt.
SA is long past a BRIC status, and it would be like demoting them. BRIC's have an "emerging" potential. SA is long established, just another whiteman's land within Africa.
Nigeria has all it takes (Population, Land, HR, Natural Resources), though we need a game changing plane that would make us the next target of the benefits that comes from been the next BRIC.
If we can fix security, education, electricity, and the government can build good roads, the rest will take care of itself, and SA can kiss her status in Africa goodbye.

I agree. In terms of development, SA is ahead of India. Illiteracy is still very high in India and and their national grid's coverage is less than 50%, I think. SA is developed at least in the context of BRIC and Third World.

ola olabiy:

I agree. In terms of development, SA is ahead of India. Illiteracy is still very high in India and and their national grid's coverage is less than 50%, I think. SA is developed at least in the context of BRIC and Third World.

Well ahead in terms of infrastructure, literacy, and poverty levels, yes.

South Africa invited to join Bric group
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA Dec 24 2010 15:34



South Africa has received a formal invitation to join the Brazil, Russia, India and China (Bric) group of large emerging economies, International Relations and Cooperation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said on Friday.

"China, in its capacity as rotating chairperson of the Bric formation, based on agreement reached by the Bric member states, invited South Africa as a full member into what will in future be called Brics," Nkoana-Mashabane told journalists in Pretoria.

She said she received a phone call on Thursday from Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi informing her of the invitation to join the group, whose current members will account for 61% of global growth in 2014, according to the International Monetary Fund.

"(Chinese) President Hu Jintao also issued a letter of invitation to President Jacob Zuma to attend the third Brics leaders' summit, to be held in China in the first quarter of 2011," Nkoana-Mashabane added.

The Bric countries are not formally linked but have held summits and taken steps to boost financial cooperation and investment opportunities among them.

South Africa, whose economy is about one-fourth the size of India's, had been lobbying heavily to be admitted to the club.

Meanwhile, Reuters reported Chinese state media agency Xinhua had confirmed China had South Africa to join the four-member grouping of fast-growing emerging markets on Friday.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said Bric has accepted South Africa as a full member of the group, according to Xinhua, which was monitored in Johannesburg.

China, South Africa's largest trading partner, will invite President Jacob Zuma to attend a summit of Bric leaders that Beijing will host next year, it said.

CONTINUES BELOW



South Africa is the world's 31st-largest economy, according to World Bank data for 2009 and is less than a quarter the size of the smallest Bric economy, Russia.

Projected growth for SA
The Bric countries have sought greater clout for their grouping, holding a summit in Russia in 2009. "Bric" is a term invented in 2001 by Jim O'Neill, the chairperson of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

South Africa applied to join Bric at the G20 meeting of the world's leading economies in Seoul in November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at the meeting.

Its economy is projected by its government to grow about 3% this year, hardly the blistering pace seen in other Bric countries.

Some investors make asset allocations based on the Bric classification and all of the countries that currently make up the grouping have seen their global financial clout increase substantially in recent years. -- AFP, Reuters

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-12-24-south-africa-invited-to-join-bric-group

LOL, This discussion is a bit toooo late. SA is already a member of BRIC which is now called BRICS,

^^
Rightly deserved, really.
South Africa seems to be the only nation that is not only industrialised, but is also industrialising the rest of the continent.

An attempt at self deception?