">他就是Goldman Sachs的Jim O'Neill先生，他发明了BRIC这个词，就是金砖四国，促成了四国领导人开了第一次会议，打破了G8的统治地位，形成了新的战略格局。
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6557304.ece
We need Brics to build the world economy
Before long Brazil, Russia, India and China will be bigger than all the G7 countries combined
Jim O'Neill
Last week the four leaders of the Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) formally met together in their first summit. I have been asked a number of questions about the event. First, did I really think this would ever happen? Second, would it have happened if I hadn't created the acronym? Third, what real purpose did it serve, and fourth, where do I think the Bric path is heading?
I've also beeen asked a couple of supplementary questions: why these four countries and why not Indonesia, Turkey or indeed Iran? And do I think the global credit crisis has changed the picture from our prediction a number of years ago, that the combined GDP of the Bric economies could exceed that of the G7 countries before 2040?
Let me try to answer each of these questions, starting with the last. For the past 12 months, we have believed that it is conceivable that China's GDP could become as large as the GDP of the United States by 2027, ie, in less than 20 years and, as a result of that, the combined GDP of the Bric countries could be as big as the G7. Part of the reasoning behind this view is simply that, in the first seven years since I created the acronym, three of the four Bric countries, China, India and, importantly, Russia have all grown considerably more than we had assumed. The fourth, Brazil, grew a bit less but, encouragingly, in the year running up to the crisis and since the worst of it has calmed, Brazil is showing signs of its trend growth rate rising. The other reason, which is increasing our confidence, is that most of the Bric countries have had a “better” crisis than their developed counterparts.
Importantly, given that they are the most populous countries, both China and India could almost be said to be enjoying a “good crisis”. In the case of India, consensus forecasts for 2009 and 2010 are that it will grow by close to 6 per cent, a rate double that of the so-called Hindu decades of 3 per cent. Not bad at a time when the world economy is likely to have actually declined
In addition, and very excitingly, the Indian population has voted for what appears to be a less complex coalition Government, which implies that pro-growth reforms will be easier to enact.
In China, I find myself increasingly arguing that the crisis has been really good for China's sustainable growth, as it has been sufficiently shocking for policymakers in Beijing to realise that the days of massive export growth are over. By undertaking huge fiscal and monetary stimulus, as well as beginning serious social security reform and development, China appears committed to an era where development will be led by growth in domestic demand.
As a result, we forecast that China will still manage to grow by more than 8 per cent this year despite weak exports. We forecast that, in 2010, domestic demand will accelerate to more than 12 per cent, allowing GDP to grow in excess of 10 per cent. Both countries could quite conceivably grow by close to 10 per cent for many years at the same time.
Russia, undoubtedly the weakest of the four, is too dependent on oil, but now that oil prices have started to rise again, Russian growth will recover and only requires it to grow by an average of 3 to 4 per cent a year to justify its place in Brics.
The Bric path is unfolding broadly as we predicted and the crisis has made it more, not less, likely to happen. In 2009 and 2010 any GDP growth the world gets is going to be dominated by these countries. They already account for 15 per cent of global GDP, more than half the size of the US. China has overtaken Germany and is about to overtake Japan in the next year or so. The other three either have, or are about to become bigger than Canada.
They should be included at the centre of global economic policymaking, as was already obvious back in 2001. Today it is embarrassing that they are not involved in an improved version of the G7 and G8, and, of course, the IMF and World Bank need to have their governance structure changed dramatically to reflect this. The advent of the G20 is a step in the right direction.
I view the Bric meeting in Russia against this background. While each of the four is quite different, they are all heavily populated countries that either are already or have a reasonable chance of contributing at least 5 per cent of global GDP in the next couple of decades.
Until they can shake up or wake up the leaders of the developed world to stop treating them as guests for coffee, then the meetings of the Bric leaders will become a feature of the global landscape and indeed possibly one that interests global financial markets and the media more than the G8.
I suspect the Brics countries would have formed a club without my intervention. Let's help them, help ourselves and get to a more optimal state of world governance.
A few years ago we created another term, the Next 11, and studied their Bric potential. While none has the potential to be a true Bric, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Turkey and Mexico all have the potential to become much bigger.
In this regard, Iran is especially interesting as it has 80 million people, and the general level of education is quite high. On our GES (growth environment scores), Iran scores well, and, as we are witnessing in the current turmoil, the use of technology is quite sophisticated.
I have often thought if the leadership style were to change in Iran and it connected with the rest of the world, then this could be extremely positive, not just for them, but for the Middle East in general. If it coincided with Indonesia, then you would be really talking.
Jim O'Neill is head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs
