IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/idsxxx/v45y2014i4p85-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China and the BRICS Development Bank: Legitimacy and Multilateralism in South–South Cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Erthal Abdenur

Abstract

In 2013 the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping agreed to undertake what will, when implemented, become its most concrete project yet: the BRICS Development Bank (BDB). From the perspective of the Chinese government, which already leads a vast and far‐reaching cooperation programme, the bank will not represent a significant addition to its cooperation portfolio. What, then, motivates China's participation in the initiative, and what can it bring to the table? This article analyses China's interests in the BDB in the light of its past experiences with development, at home and abroad. I argue that China's interests in backing the bank project are primarily political. In addition to offering a concrete opportunity to legitimise China's multilateralism strategy – burnishing China's image as a responsible yet pro‐reform global player – the bank project also allows China to influence international development norms. At the same time, the project also poses challenges for China, especially in terms of promoting poverty alleviation without resorting to trickle‐down assumptions about an infrastructure‐focused approach to development.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Erthal Abdenur, 2014. "China and the BRICS Development Bank: Legitimacy and Multilateralism in South–South Cooperation," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(4), pages 85-101, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:45:y:2014:i:4:p:85-101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1759-5436.12095
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samuel Brazys & Johan A. Elkink & Gina Kelly, 2017. "Bad neighbors? How co-located Chinese and World Bank development projects impact local corruption in Tanzania," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 227-253, June.
    2. Sreeram Chaulia, 2021. "In Spite of the Spite: An Indian View of China and India in BRICS," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(4), pages 519-523, September.
    3. Gu, Jing & Renwick, Neil & Xue, Lan, 2018. "The BRICS and Africa's search for green growth, clean energy and sustainable development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 675-683.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:45:y:2014:i:4:p:85-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-5012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.