Not too long ago, the economic invincibility of the developed world seemed immovable. But then BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) came along as serious contenders. The ‘BRIC’ countries, with more than 40% of the world’s population and a third of its land mass, attained a level of economic importance in 2005 that may see no turning back. It was circa 2005 that the emerging economies started to prevail over developed economies through their greater share in the world Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
While the international financial meltdown in 2008 produced economic crises in the developed world, BRIC demonstrated steady development and even outperformed some developed countries. For instance, when in 2009, the economies of Japan and Germany declined by 6%, Brazil sustained its growth, India’s  economy showed a 5.9% growth  and China 8.1%; Russia’s economy declined by 7% (Biggermann and Fam, 2011).
Reviewing the 2009 real GDP statistics, the World Bank noted that Brazil took the spot as the world’s 10th largest economy, Russia 13th, India 11th, and China 3rd; in 2009, the BRIC economies together were equivalent to 50% of the world’s largest economy, the U.S. economy.
But 10 years back in 1999, Brazil was the world’s 10th largest economy, Russia 15th, India 16th, and China 7th; and together they were equivalent to 30% of the U.S. economy. The World Bank further noted that between 1999 and 2009, the U.S. economy grew by 20%, Brazil’s growth was 36%, with Russia 69%, India 92%, and China was 2.5 times richer.
BRIC countries are now key players in the emerging economies’ world dominance; and with this emerging dominance of BRIC, some economies in the developed world are now on the defensive. BRIC countries continue to transform Wallerstein’s world system theory, among others, where for decades, if not centuries, under different ideological labels, there have been unequal economic and political relationships between the developed and the developing world.
BRIC countries persisted in the knowledge and applications that they will not allow themselves to remain in a state of permanent dependence. And they have moved on by removing the foundations of permanent dependence vis-à-vis making a dent on export dependency, the debt trap, and multinational corporations, as these remain poor nations’ predators.
The author presents a comparative focus on India in relation to the BRIC countries; India debatably is the least of the BRIC countries in terms of economic dominance. And using India, and perhaps any of the other BRIC country, may demonstrate that poverty is not a permanent condition, and many small, poor economies could strive for betterment vis-à-vis applying the BRIC model, where appropriate. Of course, you would need far more than the BRIC model to transform poverty into surplus.
Drawing mainly from the World Economic Outlook, India carried a 3.5% economic growth rate from the 1950s through the 1970s, sporting a stagnant economy for almost three decades.  But in the period 2000-2005, India experienced just over 6% average GDP growth rate, less than 5%  inflation, and all BRIC countries had about 10% unemployment; and in 2005, India’s GDP volume was about US$800 billion and its GDP per capita tottered around US$1,000. Among BRIC countries in terms of GDP composition in 2004, India had the largest agricultural sector with a growing service sector; India had no current account surplus in 2005, when the other BRIC countries did; and in the same year had a small amount of foreign reserves, approximating US$150 billion.
Extracting data from the World Economic Outlook (2011), here are some selected statistics for India and the other BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, China) in 2010: India’s real GDP was 10.4% (Brazil 7.5%, Russia 4.0%, China 10.3%); in 2012, India’s real GDP is projected to be 7.8%; India’s balance on current account was -3.2% of GDP (Brazil -2.5%, Russia 4.9%, China 5.2%) and projected to be -3.8% in 2012; India’s consumer prices were 13.2% (Brazil 5.0%, Russia 6.9%, China 3.3%) and projected to be 6.9% in 2012; India’s reserves were US$292.3 billion (Brazil US$287.5 billion, Russia US$456.2 billion, China US$2,889.6 billion) and projected to be US$305.8 billion in 2012.
On the basis of these selected data, India continues to be the weakling among the BRIC countries on average growth rate, consumer prices, and balance on current account. And its faltering growth rate may be gradually regressing toward the average GDP growth of 6% it had between 2000 and 2005. A high growth rate is necessary for a growing population and a growing workforce, and also a critical economic indicator to maintain its status within BRIC.
In addition, India would need an active Knowledge Economy (KE) to sustain a high growth rate that has a relationship with total factor productivity (TFP); TFP is the nation’s capability to create and use knowledge. And the World Bank projected that India’s TFP will grow by more than 50% in 2020 than what it was in 1991/92.
Nevertheless, in light of the World Economic Outlook 2011 statistics on India, it may be worth revisiting the concerns raised in the following: Das et al. (2010) found that in the 1980-2004 period productivity was moderate with pointed fluctuations; and productivity increases arose largely out of technical change, as there was little efficiency over the last 30 years (Alejandro, Yu, & Fan, 2009).
The World Bank (2005) noted that India would need to develop policies concentrating on effectively utilizing knowledge to increase productivity and the nation’s welfare. And, invariably, some people refer to this knowledge economy as ICT industries.
The World Bank suggests that KE is broader; KE refers to how an economy channels and applies new and existing knowledge to raise productivity and total welfare; for this reason, KE will make a difference between poverty and wealth.
India is forging ahead at a brisk pace with its KE. And perhaps, small, poor countries around the world, in order to rid themselves of their poverty, would have to show more than keen interest in KE, and start intensively building KE to spur economic growth; and to ensure that that economic growth reaches the poor and vulnerable population.