Helena Valls

CLASSIFICATION

Introduction to Global Studies

AND

COMPARATION

BEWTEEN

09/11/2016

THE

BRIC

COUNTRIES AND THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

Recently we have made an analysis of several regions or organizations from around the
world to comprehend their origins, scope and functions. In my case, the object of study
was the BRIC countries. Now I intend to compare it with another organization (the
Non- Aligned Movement) taking as a starting point the classification of regions by
Robert C. Ostergren and Mathias Le Boss.
To expose it briefly, this classification differentiates three types of regions:
Firstly, the instituted regions, which are the ones created by some sort of authority and
generally recognised. They have clear borders and an organizational or administrative
function (usually as a part of a hierarchy of institutions). An example would be any state
or its provinces.
Secondly, the naively perceived regions, which are the regions perceived internally or
externally by the population without formal or official recognition. Since they are a
social construct, they are up to interpretation and debate. Nations are an example, but
also larger communities, such as the Hispanics in South America.
Thirdly, the denoted regions, which are those created by scholars or geographers in a
pedagogical attempt to classify and simplify the world. These regions can be uniform
(when a specific phenomena is homogeneous in all the area) or nodal (when all the
areas are related to a central space, the node).
The BRIC countries would fit in this last category, the denoted regions. As we exposed
in our blog, the term BRIC was coined by Jim ONeill (a Goldman Sachs economist)
in 2001, when referring to the similarities between the increased development of Brazil,
Russia, India and China. Therefore, it was an external perception aimed to group

Helena Valls

Introduction to Global Studies

09/11/2016

together and label four countries that had something in common. More concretely, the
circumstances shared by these four emerging countries were a rapid GDP growth, a
transition to a market economy, a huge population and a vast extension of land.
Moreover, as they themselves would later declare, they all felt unsatisfied with their
minor role or representation in the current world order.
Thus, we can say that the BRIC countries are a denoted (and more specifically, a
uniform) region. However, we must keep in mind that since 2006 onwards the BRICs,
aware of their similarities, started actively shaping themselves into a region or
organization, by cooperating and collaborating in their common goals (mainly, support
their economic growth and reclaim their position as an influent actor in the world
arena). This cooperation wasnt at first performed through binding agreements: it was
not only until their 6th Summit in 2014 when they signed a treaty so as to establish the
BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement. Regardless that this institution (among
others) was created by an authority, the BRICs governments, we cant consider the
BRICs themselves to be an instituted region, since the countries integrating it are not
engaged by the administration or organization of a shared activity or procedure, but by
their common goals.
Having classified my region, I will now proceed to compare it with a similar one. A
special aspect of the BRIC countries as a region was their lack of geographical unity:
the region includes four separate countries from different continents. Therefore, I chose
a region or group of countries with this same characteristic to compare it to: the NonAligned Movement (NAM).
To expose it briefly, the NAM is an (evolving) set of countries first gathered in the
Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries of 1961, which

Helena Valls

Introduction to Global Studies

09/11/2016

are joined in the basis of peace, cooperation and mutual respect. This movement
appeared mainly amongst the countries of the Third World in response to the bipolar
world division the Cold War represented, as a neutral, pacific alternative.
If we were to classify the NAM according to the Ostergren and Le Boss division of
regions, we would have to define it as a naively perceived region, more specifically
internally conceived, as its creation was an initiative of the countries governments in
response of a sense of community (or at least the lack of a sense of belonging in either
side of the dual Cold War division). While it is true that this movement has some of the
characteristics of instituted regions (it was created by an authority, it is recognised...) it
was never established as a formal organization, and it is not aimed to have a better
administration of itself as a region, but rather to promote a set of shared goals and
values.
We can see, thus, a first similarity between the BRICs and the NAM: they are unofficial
organizations, with few binding agreements, set on the basis of cooperation and mutual
aid, without a formal infrastructure of connections or rules. The mean of interaction is
also similar- through meetings in Summits and Conferences.
Secondly, as I pointed out, both regions are constituted of a set of different countries
geographically separated. In the former, however, there are several more members (120
countries without including the observers). Regarding their members, it is also
important to point out that both regions are organizations formed between developing
countries, bringing them together in cooperation aside of their relations with the
developed countries.
One final trait that the BRICs and the NAM have in common, maybe due to the fact that
both regions include multiple and in several aspects- diverse countries, is the internal

Helena Valls

Introduction to Global Studies

09/11/2016

differences. The four BRIC countries differ greatly politically, and even in economic
terms we can spot a clear superiority of China among the rest. Regarding the NAMs
countries, it is obvious that with such a larger number of members disagreements and
differences (in practically every level) are unavoidable.
An important difference between the two regions is their motives as an organization:
on one hand, the BRICs gather under common characteristics and goals in the economic
and political fields. They aim to potentiate their economic growth and acquire more
representation in political and economic global institutions. The NAM, on the other
hand, while they are also against the status quo of the world order (both in times of its
creation and in the current situation) have a political common interest: they unite and
work for peace, mutual respect and cooperation. They aim to fight imperialism, neocolonialism or any form of domination of a territory.
In a concluding note, we will consider the BRIC countries as a denoted region and the
NAM as a naively perceived one, despite observing some similarities in their
organization and diverse membership. As to differences, the main one is the motives of
each region.
REFERENCES
-

Ostergren, Robert C.; Le Boss, Mathias (2004). Introduction: Europe as a cultural

realm.

The

Europeans

Second

Edition

A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment (p. 1-32). New York. The Guilford
Press.
-

Valls,

Helena;

Romero,

Ada

http://thebriccountries.blogspot.com.es/

(2016).

The

BRICS.

6/11/2016.

Helena Valls

Introduction to Global Studies

09/11/2016

Herzog, Sofia; Marzo, Nria; Muoz, Alex (2016). The Non-Alignment Movement
7/11/2016 http://the-non-alignment-movement3.webnode.es/