Twenty years of BRICS: political and economic transformations through the lens of land
Twenty years of BRICS: political and economic transformations through the lens of land
Authors: Mihika Chatterjee & Ikuno Naka
Journal: Oxford Development Studies
Volume & Issue: Volume 50, Issue 1
Published online: 23 March 2022
This article reflects on the 20-year evolution of BRICS, focusing on political and economic transformations through land-use changes. The BRIC acronym was introduced in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, and the group formalized in 2009, later adding South Africa in 2011 to become BRICS. Collectively, the BRICS account for 26% of the global landmass and 20% of global GDP.
The study emphasizes large-scale land transformations as a lens to understand economic and political shifts. Examples include China’s Silk Road Economic Belt, India’s smart city initiatives, Russia’s economic zones, and industrial farming expansions in Brazil and South Africa. Land becomes a medium to observe how capital, state policies, and governance interact to realize BRICS development visions.
The Special Section stems from an interdisciplinary Oxford conference in 2019. Papers examine contested spaces—belts, cities, and farms—highlighting capital accumulation, local politics, and structural economic forces. State intervention adapts formal land governance to new capital demands, revealing flexibility in pursuing sustainable and smart development.
Despite political tensions and uneven economic performance across member states, BRICS continues to function through annual summits and the New Development Bank. Land-driven development reflects broader questions of political economy, economic interests, and governance, particularly in Brazil, India, China, and South Africa.
The study notes gaps in coverage for Russia and South Africa, but leverages existing scholarship and keynote insights to assess BRICS’ impact on Southern-led investment and land-centric development projects. The lens of land provides a tangible measure of the bloc’s evolving economic, political, and institutional strategies.
