Join the BIRCS, they said, see the world

Should you ever find that there really are just too many hours in the day you can spend a diverting afternoon perusing through the lists of organisations which a happening nation may choose to join.

There’s the International Organization for Standardization which promotes international standards (except in spelling).  The Paris Club negotiates national debt defaults.  The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is for China and Russia to eyeball each other in the company of mates.  The Conference of Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia sounds terribly illustrious. The Commonwealth of Independent States is for ex-Eastern bloc countries wanting to bring back the good-old-days of Stalin while the Baltic Assembly is for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to wax lyrical about how horrible this all was.

And let’s not forget the full groups of Gs: 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 24 and 77.

Even that most isolated of pariah states, North Korea, manages to be a member of the ARF, FAO, G-77, ICAO, ICRM, IFAD, IFRCS, IHO, IMO, IOC, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, NAM, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNWTO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO and WMO.

Each of these organisations has its set of delegates from back home earnestly representing national issues and ensuring that no wadge of papers goes unfiled.

So, really, the days are quite full.

Cyril Parkinson, writing for The Economist in 1955, expounded the view that, “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.”  This happens through two forces: "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and "Officials make work for each other."  It is for this reason that the British Colonial Office reached its greatest number of staff at precisely the moment that Britain no longer had any colonies to administer.

In a similar vein, the number of international organisations expands until the members of the ruling parties of the world no longer have friends, relatives or important constituencies whom they need to fob off with a nice job with opportunities for plenty of international shopping.

This isn’t as pithy, but it gives you a sense that there will never, ever, be sufficient international bodies to meet the endless demand for gravy.

Which brings us round to BRIC. 

Coined by Jim O'Neill, head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs, in a 2001 paper entitled "The World Needs Better Economic BRICs", it helped show investors that Goldman Sachs was serious about emerging markets.  It became a marketer’s dream for Goldman as the term caught fire and enforced the idea of the post-US world order.

O’Neill never imagined that Brazil, Russia, India and China would actually find any common ground to form a new international organisation.  However, O’Neill had forgotten his Parkinson.  Of course there are plenty of friends and relatives in the BRICs to necessitate the creation of an actual BRIC club.

Between them they neatly span all the world’s most important emerging market regions.  Russia for Eastern Europe, China for Eastern Asia, India for Western Asia and Brazil for Latin America.

They constitute 40% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s land, a combined nominal GDP of $10.6 trillion a year – 17% of the world total – and have nothing in common. They already collaborate on dozens of organisations but there’s always room for more.

The notable absence from BRIC is a representative from Africa.  Yet this is unsurprising. 

For all the scare-stories about tantalum (coltan) exploitation supporting conflict in the Congo, the actual central African contribution to world supplies is less than 1%. Africa’s total nominal GDP is only 2% of the world total.  South Africa makes up just over 23% of that tally.

Despite this lack of economic or population clout, the South African government has expended tremendous political capital to join the BRIC club.  China just extended an invitation.

Now they just need a new name.  BIRCS anyone?