Regimes, Neo-Regionalism and BRICS: A Conceptual Perspective of the Study

Kranti Singh

Assistant Professor Dept. of Political Science, BPSMV Khanpur Kalan, Sonipet.

ABSTRACT                                            

This paper tries to revive the debate on ‘new regionalism’, focusing on the evaluating regional trade agreements (RTAs). Paper also finds that much analytical description using tools from old trade theory in the Viner-Meade tradition, focusing on trade creation, trade diversion and terms-of-trade effects. These tools try to look BRICS in new contemporary scenario. Among the international regimes,BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping emerging as the new Centre of power factors in global politics. The five countries created an international regime whose members cooperate in the view of acquiring, collectively and individually, increased influence in international financial and economic institution among the RTAs regimes.

KeyWords: BRICS, RTAs, Regimes, Regionalism, Neo-Regionalism.

The world economy after world war two has been much more integrated and competitive. Many successive rounds of negotiations under the general agreements on tariffs and trade (GATT) have resulted in significant global trade liberalization, globalization and there has been an accelerating trend towards regional integrating in every corner of the world. Most of the early afferts at regional trade agreements ( RTAs ) in the 1950’s and 1960’s many of them among developing countries met with little success¹.BRICS is also a birth of this Neo-Regionalism, in the old decades countries worked on colonialism and imperialism. They fetched countries for their political and economic interests. Regional Hegemony, arms military wars etc. are the common equipment of the each nation².

After the ending of Cold War, New Trade Policy is concerned with a number of issues relevant to Neo- Regionalism, and is providing new tools; the work is electric and is far from providing a unified framework forempirical and scientific analysis of new regionalism. Under the global free trade, countries would relocate factors of production to achievement structure of trade, production, ad employment of primary factors consistent with their comparative advantage, win-win situation,, with welfare gains arising from increased efficiency³.

There are two theoretical narratives that constantly recur in discussion how the international system influences the foreign policy of  Brazil, India China, South Africa and Russia;

The first focus on the distribution of power and on the patterns pf power politics that inevitably result. For Neo- Realistic the crucial feature of any system in the distribution of the material power and hence the dominant political reality of the post cold war order is the preponderance of the US. Military power and war are central to understanding how power is distributed and what counts as a great power. Great are determined on the base of their relative military capabilities. To qualify as a great power,  a state must have sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in an all out conventional war against the powerful states in world. From the prospective, the puzzle of the post cold war period has been the absence of overt balancing behavior against the US⁴.

Before making an understanding attempt the BRICS in international politics as a regime, there is very important to know, what is Regimes actually and what kind of norms they have?  The definition of the Regime coined on 1973 by R.O. Koehane, ‘Regime can be defined as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’expectations in a given area of international relationst⁵. According to S.Strange, ‘political regimes’ is understood to entail the core rules and procedures that determine three key political features⁶;

1.     The number and type of actors who are allowed to gain access to government power.

2.     The method to access to such position, and

3.     The rules that are followed in the making of publicly binding decision.

Around this core set of elements, several different typologies of political regimes have emerged that identify a wide range of potential regime types, with the classic categories of democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism being supplemented by an extensive list of alternatives.

The first wave of regionalism has been originated by exponential growth in the number of RTAs formed over the past 14 years, as of May 2003, 201 RTAs were in force. Almost every WTO member has Joined at least one RTAs and some have entered 20 or more⁷.

FIGURE 1: RTAs force by year of entry into force.

at

Source: WTO; vertical line shows the number of RTAs and horizontal line shows years.

Amultilateral ties sighed under negations by individual BRICS countries, as shown in the table suggests that there is considerable asymmetry among them with regard to their sectorial and geographic interests⁹.

Table: 1 List of RTAs under the negations by the BRICS regime

RTAs in Force/ Announced	Status of RTAs(in force/ in discussion)
BRAZIL
Global system of trade performing among Developing countries(GSTP)
Latin American Integration Association (LAIA)
India MERCOSUR PT	OPERATIONAL SINCE 2009: Agreements covering goods exists
Protocols on trade Negotiations (PTN)
Brazil United States Trade and economic cooperation
RUSSIA
Armenia- Russian Federation FTA
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)
Commonwealth of Independent States(CIS)
Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC)
Georgia- Russia FTA
Kyrgyz Republic-Russian Federation
EFTA Russian Federation/Belarus/Kazakhstan	Announced
INDIA
ASEAN-India free trade agreement
Asia Pacific trade agreement(APTA) including china and India in addition to Bangladesh, South Korea and Shri Lanka	Agreement covering goods exit: negations underway for significant expansion of coverage to include services and taxes
Chile- India Preferential trade Agreement	Under negations
Indi- Afghanistan PTA
India-Bhutan free trade agreement
India-Nepal Thailand framework agreement
India –Singapore  comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
India- MERCOSUR PTA	Operational since 2011
Bengal Initiative on multispectral technical and economic cooperation(BIMSTEC)
SAFTA	Announced
SAPTA	Announced
SAARC agreement on trade and services	Under negations
CHINA
China Asia free trade agreement
Asia-pacific trade agreement	Agreement covering goods exits
Chili-China FTA
Mainland and Hong KONG Closer economic partnership agreement
China Morocco CEPA
CHINA Singapore free trade agreement
China –Pakistan free trade agreement	Under negotions
China –Peru free trade agreement
Australia China FTA	Under negation
China Norway FTA	Declared
Switzerland- China FTA	Announced
Costa Rica- Chia FTA	Announced
SOUTH AFRICA
EC-South Africa trade development and cooperation agreement	Under negotions
EFT-SACU
South African Customs Union
Southern African Development(SADC)	UNDEER NEGOTIONS
India-SACU PTA

Source:WTO RTA Database, http://rtas.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx

Neo-Regionalism can be specified as involving many of the elements found in the horizontal level of integration or the aachievments of economic union:

·   Fascinating financial an foreign direct investment flows by stabling investment protocols and protections.

·   Liberalizing movement of labor within the RTAs.

·   Harmonizing domestic tax and subsidy polices especially those that affect production and trade incentives.

·   Harmonizing macro policies, including fiscal and monetary policy, o achieve a stable macro economic environment within the RTA, including coordination exchange rate policy.

·   Establishing institutions to manage and facilitate integration development funds, institutions to set standards, dispute resolution mechanisms improvements of communications and transformation infrastructure to facilitate increased trade and factor mobility.

·   Harmonizing legal regulation of product and factor markets (e.g. anti-trust law, commercial law, labor relations, and financial institutions.)

Monetary union establishment of a common currency and completely integrated monetary and exchange rate policy⁹.

BRICS have largely endorsing to the traditional approach behind entering RTAs. Most of the initial FTA concluded by BRICS countries have been partners who shares similar geo-political and economic background. Further, BRICS in their own agenda have not addressed the problem arising out of asymmetrical and deep FTAs and their ramifications on the global economy. Therefor the description of the current global phenomenon on the RTAs and description of each of the BRICS countries policy stance on regionalism, gives ample platform for further policy thinking by BRICS¹⁰.

On the other hand, After these keen description of Regimes Theory, Regionalism and Neo_ regionalism, paper through some glimpses on BRICS as a growing new regime in today’s neo-regionalism concept. There is an important findouting that BRICS is not developed as EU. EU is well organized regime which has many factors to show that they are bounding in RTAs¹¹. All the countries of EU have common currency, work as a union, fully unbounded with transportation system, direct investment plays huge role for their development due to RTAs. But on the other hand BRICS is still in a naïve age. It is not fully organized. Although last 3 years, it is evaluating itself in a better way. Now BRICS has its head quarters, chairperson, annul meetings and summits and Developing Bank. But still BRICS is not as facilitated as EU, UNASUR, NATO, OEDC, OPEC etc.. But it is not far in the night that when BRICS will complete all norms of Neo-Regionalism.

REFERENCES

1.     Winter,L.A.,’’ Regionalism and the rest of the world: Theory and Estimates of the effects of European Integration.’’ Review ofInternational economy, Special Supplements,1997,pp.134-141.

2.     Waldman, Thomas, ‘’Shadows of Uncertainty: Clausewitz’s Timeless Analysis of Chance in War’’ Defense Studies, Vol. 10, No.3, September20, p.339.

3.     Burifisher, E. Mry,Regionalism: Old and New Theory and Practices, International Food Policy and Research Institution. P.18

4.     Ikenberry, G.K.‘’ America Grand strategy in the Age of terror’’, Survival,Vol.24, No.1,1999,pp.7-8.

5.     Keohane,O.R., Regimes theory and International Relations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993,p.29.

6.     Strange, S., ‘‘Cave! Hic Dragons: A Critique of regime analysis’’, International Organization, Vol.36, No.2, p.497,1982.

7.     Facts about RTAs are available and regularly updated by the WTO at in website:http://www.wto.org/English/tratope/region_e/region_e_htm.

8.     Burfisher, E. Mary, Regionalism: Old and New theory and practices, International Food Policy and Research institution, Washington 2004,pp. 9-10.

9.     Marhur, Sajal and MeghaDasgupta,” BRICS Trade Policies, Institutions and areas os Deepening Cooperation”,Center for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade- New Delhi, march 2015,p.277.

10.                       Sharma, Gitanjali, ‘’Regionalism and BRICS: Understanding BRICS’ Trade policy Agenda in the era of growing regional trade agreement’’, Jindal Global Law Review, Vol.5, ISSUE April 2014.

11.                       Ibid.

Russia