From A Goldman Sachs Acronym To A Geopolitical Force: The Evolution Of BRICS

When leaders from some of the world’s biggest emerging economies gather at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi for the 18th BRICS Summit on September 12-13, they will be representing a grouping that began not in a foreign ministry or at a diplomatic summit, but in a Wall Street research paper.

More than two decades ago, BRIC was simply an acronym coined to describe four economies that Goldman Sachs believed could reshape the global economy. Over time, Brazil, Russia, India and China turned that economic label into a diplomatic grouping. South Africa later joined, BRIC became BRICS, new institutions were created and the grouping expanded further.

Today, BRICS has 11 members and has become an important platform for emerging and developing economies seeking

a greater say in how the international system is run. Yet, it is not a unified geopolitical bloc, with its members differing sharply over their relationships with the West and what they want the grouping to ultimately become.

So how did an acronym created by Goldman Sachs turn into a geopolitical force?

It Started With A Paper

The story begins in 2001, when Jim O’Neill, then head of Global Economic Research at Goldman Sachs, authored a paper titled “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”.

BRIC stood for Brazil, Russia, India and China. The argument was economic: these large emerging economies were becoming increasingly important to global growth and their collective weight in the world economy was expected to rise sharply.

The idea gained further prominence in 2003, when another Goldman Sachs paper, “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050”, projected that the BRIC economies could collectively overtake the largest developed economies by 2039.

How An Economic Acronym Became A Diplomatic Group

In 2006, the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India and China met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, beginning the transformation of BRIC from an economic concept into a diplomatic forum.

The process gathered pace over the next few years. The leaders of the four countries held an informal meeting on the sidelines of the G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan, in 2008.

A year later, the first formal BRIC leaders’ summit was held in Yekaterinburg, Russia.

Russia played an important role in the grouping’s early political evolution. Rachel S Salzman, in her book Russia, BRICS, and the Disruption of Global Order, linked Moscow’s leadership in BRIC’s nascent phase to its desire to challenge US predominance and reshape the international order.

The 2008 Financial Crisis Gave BRIC A Bigger Purpose

The global financial crisis exposed vulnerabilities in an economic system dominated by developed countries and intensified questions about whether emerging economies had sufficient influence within institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Despite the growing economic weight of countries such as China and India, the leadership and voting structures of major post-war financial institutions continued to reflect an older distribution of global power. By convention, the World Bank has been headed by an American, while the IMF has traditionally had a European managing director. The United States also effectively holds veto power over major IMF decisions requiring an 85 per cent majority.

Against this backdrop, BRIC acquired a purpose beyond celebrating the rise of four economies. It became a platform for demanding reform of global governance, greater representation for developing countries and more cooperation outside institutions historically dominated by the US and Europe.

From BRIC To BRICS

The grouping underwent its first expansion when South Africa was invited to join in 2010. Its participation from 2011 added the “S” and turned BRIC into BRICS. Its agenda gradually broadened to include trade, investment, sustainable development, energy, health, technology and reform of international institutions.

BRICS also began building institutions of its own. The New Development Bank (NDB), established by the BRICS countries, began operations in 2015 to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging economies.

The grouping also established the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, designed to provide support to members facing short-term financial pressures.

Together, they gave BRICS greater institutional weight and showed that the grouping could move beyond annual declarations.

Expansion Changed The Scale Of BRICS

The next major transformation came with expansion. At the 2023 summit, six countries were invited to join: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Argentina subsequently declined the invitation.

Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE entered the expanded grouping in 2024, while Indonesia joined in 2025.

The additions widened BRICS’ geographical, economic and strategic reach, bringing in major energy producers and important economies from West Asia and Africa.

Expansion also exposed competing ideas about what BRICS should become.

China and Russia strongly supported enlargement as a means of strengthening the grouping as a counterweight to Western-led institutions, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. India and Brazil were more cautious amid concerns that a larger grouping could dilute their influence and increase China’s weight.

Is BRICS An Anti-West Bloc?

Describing BRICS simply as an anti-Western coalition misses the differences among its members. They have different political systems, strategic interests and relationships with Washington and other Western capitals.

India has articulated that distinction most clearly. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in 2024, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar described India as “non-West, not anti-West”, while acknowledging that the description might not apply equally to every BRICS member.

Russia and China have pushed for a stronger challenge to Western dominance. India, meanwhile, maintains deep relationships with the United States and Europe even as it argues through forums such as BRICS for greater representation of the Global South.

There are contradictions among newer members too.

Writing in Foreign Policy, C Raja Mohan, a former member of India’s National Security Advisory Board, pointed to the strategic divide between Iran and Gulf states such as the UAE.

“The problem lies within the grouping itself: the structural rivalry between Iran and the conservative Gulf monarchies such as the United Arab Emirates, which is also a BRICS member. The strategic divide between them is too deep. Iran has defined itself in opposition to the United States since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, while the UAE and its fellow monarchies have long been partners of Washington,” he wrote.

What About De-Dollarisation?

Another debate that has increased BRICS’ geopolitical profile is the effort by some members to reduce dependence on the US dollar.

Russia and China have supported greater use of national currencies in trade, while Brazil has also advocated reducing reliance on the dollar. India’s position is more nuanced.

Under its 2026 BRICS chairmanship, India is pushing for a payments framework that could allow member countries to settle trade directly in their own currencies without routing transactions through the dollar or American banks.

But the idea is not to create a new BRICS currency. India has opposed a separate currency for the grouping. Instead, New Delhi is looking at ways to make cross-border payments easier using existing national currencies and payment systems.

According to The Economic Times, India is likely to propose greater use of central bank digital currencies and seamless cross-border digital payments at the September summit. The RBI has explored linking digital currencies such as India’s e-rupee with those of other BRICS members, as well as connecting fast-payment systems such as UPI and Brazil’s Pix.

Why BRICS Matters Today

BRICS’ influence does not come from its members speaking with one voice. It comes from the platform it provides emerging and developing economies to push for greater representation in a global system long dominated by Western powers.

Its growing membership and economic weight have made that voice harder to ignore, even as differences within the grouping limit how far it can act collectively.