The social progress index was computed for a number of countries. Ten nations received an A grade. These included Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and Austria. The worst performers with a grade of D− included Afghanistan, Angola, Central African Republic, Chad, and Yemen. The BRICS were not too good. Brazil was the best with a grade of B−, Russia, China, and South Africa received a grade of C+ which was at par with the world grade. India was the worst performer at D+. These results, though only indicative to a large extent, and perhaps not exhaustive, do reveal that the BRICS may have a long way to go before they can claim to have achieved some important goalpost for sustainable development.
BRICS: The Emerging Superstars of Growth
In the BRICS countries, the market-friendly model of development has made them the emerging superstars of world economy, but they have experienced rising inequality and unacceptable levels of poverty and serious environmental damage as a consequence. The real challenge is whether these nations, if they are to lead the world economy in 2050, attain a path of sustainable development? What might be needed is a new model of development that consciously cooperates in changing the energy portfolio to a substantial degree, lowers the ecological footprint, redefines innovations in terms of eco-efficiency, and significantly reduces carbon dioxide and other green-house gas emissions. Brazil is still plagued by drought (through deforestations in the Amazon) and urban pollution, Russia is considered to be terribly inefficient and unsustainable in its energy use patterns. India is marked by large-scale urban pollution and is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide. China is similarly affected by the consequences of rapid economic growth. Air pollution is markedly high, and China has achieved the dubious distinction of being the highest polluter in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. It may be noted that as per the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005, the task of reducing green-house gases and mitigating the effects of global warming were differentiated across developed and developing nations. The Annex I developed countries were accountable for their emissions and expected to reduce them in a systematic way. The Non-Annex I nations on the other hand (mostly developing countries) were not required to reduce emissions except as a voluntary measure. Russia is in Annex I while the other BRICS are in Non-Annex I.
Would it be possible to put some numbers to the trends that are observed in terms of economic efficiency, social progress, and environmental improvements? A few studies have been done (Mizhou Research Institute, 2005)2 to try and put comparative values on the three important aspects of sustainable development, namely economic, social, and environmental aspects. Also, it is important that the BRICS show signs of innovative strategies toward sustainability. Exclusive focus on economic growth (from where the concept of BRICS began) will not suffice. The damages from very high rates of growth are well known and noticeable in the BRICS. In a way, what made BRICS a center of attention is exactly the opposite of what is required to keep it in the limelight as global leaders in 2050. The next section discusses some of the important empirics of BRICS success or failure to live up to the expectations it originally generated.
What the Data Suggest
This section draws on the results obtained by Santana et al. (2014) in a study done on the BRICS nations. The study is based on real data from 2000 to 2007 using the Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) technique. The study measured the efficiency of economic, environmental, and social processes where inputs considered were gross fixed capital formation, expenditures on research and development, and employed population. The outputs considered were GDP for economic efficiency, carbon emissions for environmental efficiency, and life expectancy at birth for social efficiency.
The following table shows the mean total efficiency results, according to each country. The higher the number, the more efficient is the process.
If one considers the ranks, and the sum of ranks, we get the following:
There are a few obvious features of the results that emerge. The countries considered within the block called BRICS are quite heterogeneous, not only in terms of geo-political and other socio-cultural features but also in terms of economic, environmental, and social efficiencies. Overall, Brazil is the best performer given the lowest sum of ranks. India followed closely by China, being the giants in the group, are significantly less efficient that Brazil or South Africa. If we go by environmental efficiency alone, then again Brazil and South Africa perform better than the others, and China is by far the worst.
China
Even though China is the largest economy in BRICS and the second largest in the world, with the highest fixed capital, its overall performance leaves much to be desired. China’s argument against cutting down of carbon emissions has been that it needs to grow fast for a longer period of time to remove poverty and unemployment. Hence, its performance cannot be expected to be moving to a sustainable path, at least in terms of carbon emissions. China has the highest carbon dioxide emissions in the world, and its economic efficiency (despite phenomenally high growth rates) has been poor. It implies that energy efficiency would be low, and the ability to use resources well, including labor, would be below par. This is revealed in the value for social efficiency too. Despite having the highest input value, its mean efficiency is only 56%. Poverty reduction, energy efficiency, creation of greater equality, and better management of urbanization remain challenges that will hold back China from transitioning to a sustainable development path in the near future.
China’s sustainable development strategy covers four broad areas. They are overall macropolicies, social development, sustainable economic development, and protection of natural resources. These four areas are further divided into nine priority areas covering capacity building, sustainable agriculture, cleaner industry, cleaner energy, conservation of nature, pollution control, poverty reduction, population control, and biodiversity conservation. These broad goals and priorities are embodied in the 5-year plans of China as formulated by the national government.
China faces a severe resource shortage, and in important resources such as land, water, and petroleum its per capita resource base is far lower compared to the global average. Also, many of the natural resources are distributed unevenly across China, leading to problems of demand and supply in regions. China’s environmental and ecological damage is quite severe. In some cities, air pollution has marked negative health effects on citizens. Water shortage in many regions has compromised the quality of drinking water for residents. The desertification of land and grassland has been occurring at an astonishing pace. China has realized that it requires substantial legal reforms to ensure that its sustainable development strategies can be implemented without too many legal hurdles and costly litigation. China has also taken initiatives to report on a regular basis to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Hence, its emissions and sinks of green-house gases would be known publicly: the steps taken as well as the results arising from them.
India
India is the second largest economy in BRICS with high amounts of fixed capital and investments in technological innovations. Yet its economic efficiency is low. India ranks last in both economic efficiency and social efficiency. Even in terms of environmental efficiency, though ranked fourth, the mean efficiency in India is much higher than that of China, at 81%. However, despite this, India is now the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world after China and USA. On this count itself, India, with its excessive dependence on coal, needs to do much better in terms of energy efficiency.
Like in China, the reduction of poverty remains the key challenge. Associated