Cooperation and Capacity Building: Integrations Matter
In 2017 I started this chart to research my essay on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, “Cooperation and Capacity Building” that was published in American Quarterly, and since then, have been updating the data indicators to track changes to the global economy not through states, but through cooperations. Looking through the prism of cooperation and NGO capacity building between the OECD economies and the BRICS economies is the clearest evidence of the geopolitical maneuverings by the West to contain, obstruct, and destabilize regions from aligning themselves with not just the BRICS economies, but also the Belt and Road Initiative–the only access and infrastructure plan that provides tangible equity for the Global South.
Examining the current global landscape of economic integration, we once again find ourselves at a pivotal crossroads where the interplay of fundamental economic indicators—such as country area, population, nominal GDP, debt, and current GDP—shapes both the capacities for cooperation and the realities of economic discord. These indicators, often treated in isolation, acquire profound significance when viewed through the lens of economic integration, revealing the complex dynamics of global alliances and the troubling obstructions posed by geopolitical hegemony.
Why These Indicators Matter
- Country Area and Population: The geographical size and population of a country are not mere statistics; they are foundational determinants of a nation’s economic potential and constraints. Vast countries with abundant natural resources, such as Brazil or Russia, possess inherent economic advantages but also face challenges in managing these resources equitably across diverse and often dispersed populations. A region like the Pacific, with the lowest Population Density has historically been the hardest to manage, but for its population size, the first question we should be asking is why are Pacific peoples amongst the poorest and least developed by World Bank standards, when they should be amongst the wealthiest considering the size of the region. Could it be that Pacific values are not accounted for and if that is the case, why not? Population size directly influences the labor market and consumer base, determining both the productive capacity and the internal demand that drives economic growth. If we consider the inherent ecological value of our Pacific data, the Pacific should be leading the world, the way that OPEC countries primarily lead the world in terms of oil production, reserves, and export capacity.
- GDP (Nominal and Current): Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in both nominal and current (PPP) terms, remains a crucial measure of economic activity and wealth. Nominal GDP provides a snapshot of a country’s economic size without adjusting for inflation, while Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) GDP accounts for price changes, offering a more realistic view of economic performance over time. These indicators are critical in assessing a country’s economic strength, its ability to invest in infrastructure, and its capacity to sustain economic partnerships.
Current or PPP-adjusted GDP per capita at current prices reflects the most recent economic conditions and the present cost of living, making it an up-to-date measure for comparing living standards. This approach shows how much goods and services a typical person in each country can afford today, considering the current economic situation and price levels and is a better reflection of the economy.
(for a more anecdotal example defining GDP nominal and PPP) - Debt: Debt levels, particularly relative to GDP, are indicative of a nation’s economic health and its capacity to engage in sustainable development. High debt-to-GDP ratios often signal economic distress and can limit a country’s ability to invest in long-term growth or participate in international economic cooperation. Understanding debt dynamics is essential for appreciating the economic strategies countries might employ to enhance their global standing.
The Promise of Economic Integration: BRICS as a Model of Positive Exchange
The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—offer a compelling case study in the potential for economic integration to foster mutual benefits, particularly in terms of access and infrastructure. These countries, diverse in area, population, and economic output, have found common cause in their pursuit of economic development outside the frameworks traditionally dominated by Western powers.
Economic Integration and Capacity Building:
For the BRICS, economic integration is not merely an exercise in mutual gain but a strategic imperative for capacity building. By pooling resources and aligning policies, these nations have been able to undertake large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the New Development Bank, which provide both the capital and expertise needed to enhance domestic capacities. This cooperation has fostered economic resilience, allowing BRICS countries to diversify their economies and reduce dependency on traditional Western-dominated financial institutions.
Access and Infrastructure Development:
Access to markets and resources within the BRICS framework has been another notable outcome of their economic integration efforts. By lowering barriers to trade and investment among themselves, BRICS countries have enhanced their mutual access to each other’s markets, capital, and technological advancements. This has led to a virtuous cycle of growth, where increased economic activity drives further investment in infrastructure, improving connectivity and enhancing the quality of life for millions.
Economic Integration under US Dominance: A Malfeasent Reality
Contrasting the BRICS model, economic integration under U.S. dominance has often been characterized by a different set of priorities, which tend to favor economic and military containment over genuine cooperation.
Economic Obstruction:
The United States and its allies have often used economic integration as a tool for maintaining strategic dominance, sometimes at the expense of broader economic cooperation. By leveraging their control over key international institutions and financial systems, they have been able to impose economic sanctions, tariffs, and other restrictive measures that obstruct the economic development of rival nations. This form of economic integration serves more as a barrier than a bridge, limiting the ability of countries to engage in meaningful economic partnerships outside the U.S.-led order.
Military Containment and Undemocratic Conditions:
The economic policies of containment are often coupled with military strategies that further restrict the autonomy of nations seeking to chart an independent course. Under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights, military alliances and interventions are often used to contain the growth and influence of emerging economies that challenge the status quo. This approach not only undermines the sovereignty of nations but also erodes democratic norms by imposing external conditions that may not align with the domestic political realities of these countries.
Misinformation Campaigns and Media Manipulation:
In an era where information is a powerful currency, the use of media and NGOs to promote misinformation campaigns has become a significant tool in maintaining economic dominance. By shaping public perception and influencing political discourse, these campaigns create an environment where economic integration outside the Western sphere is viewed with suspicion or outright hostility. This strategy not only distorts the global narrative but also creates undemocratic conditions by manipulating the flow of information to serve strategic interests.
A Call for Genuine Economic Cooperation
The contrasting models of economic integration presented by BRICS and the U.S.-led order highlight the critical need for a reimagined approach to global economic cooperation. An approach that genuinely prioritizes equitable development, respects national sovereignty, and promotes sustainable growth must replace the current paradigm of economic obstruction, militarization, and containment.
To this end, economic integration should be seen as a tool for building global solidarity, not as a weapon for enforcing strategic dominance. Only through such a recalibration of priorities can we hope to achieve a world where economic growth serves as a foundation for peace, prosperity, and genuine cooperation among all nations.
This consideration of area, population, GDP, and debt—alongside the realpolitik of international relations—can provide a more informed pathway toward a more inclusive and sustainable global economy. This is an urgent call to move beyond the divisive tactics of economic dominance and toward a future where cooperation and capacity building pave the way for shared prosperity.