by Miranda P Tahalele and Lili Yulyadi Arnakim (BINUS)
Since its formal establishment in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009, BRIC—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, and China—has evolved into one of the most influential coalitions of emerging powers in contemporary international politics. The admission of South Africa in 2011 transformed the grouping into BRICS, while China’s proposal for a broader “BRICS Plus” framework in 2017 laid the foundation for an expanded coalition that formally admitted new members in 2024. By 2026, BRICS+ consists of eleven full members and ten partner countries, making it one of the largest political and economic platforms representing the Global South. Its agenda has also expanded considerably beyond economic coordination to encompass political and security cooperation, financial governance, sustainable development, technological cooperation, cultural exchanges, and people-to-people connectivity. This institutional expansion has significantly elevated BRICS+ from a dialogue mechanism among emerging economies into an increasingly influential actor in global governance.
The rapid institutional development of BRICS has generated an extensive scholarly debate regarding its evolving role within the contemporary international order. Rather than being interpreted through a single theoretical lens, BRICS has become an increasingly contested subject in International Relations scholarship because its institutional evolution reflects the complexity of an international system characterized by power diffusion, institutional pluralism, and growing demands for more representative global governance. Consequently, scholars have proposed multiple and sometimes competing interpretations of BRICS’ position in global governance. Some regard BRICS as an alternative institutional arrangement capable of challenging the dominance of Western-led institutions; others conceptualize it as a complementary platform that seeks to reform rather than replace the existing international architecture; while another body of literature interprets BRICS as an emerging counter-hegemonic coalition designed to contest Western political and economic dominance (De Carvalho, Anand, & Naidu, 2025a; De Carvalho, Gruzd, & Wu, 2025b; Duggan et al., 2022; Larionova & Shelepov, 2022; Papa, Han, & O’Donnell, 2023). These competing perspectives demonstrate that BRICS cannot be adequately understood through a singular theoretical framework but instead requires a more nuanced conceptualization that captures its multiple and evolving institutional roles.
The emergence of BRICS coincides with the increasing activism of emerging powers in shaping the norms, institutions, and practices of global governance. Collectively, BRICS members have sought greater representation in international financial institutions, advocated reforms to global economic governance, promoted South–South cooperation, and coordinated diplomatic positions across major international forums. Beyond functioning as a coalition of emerging economies, BRICS has increasingly acted as a collective norm entrepreneur that advances principles such as multipolarity, sovereign equality, inclusive development, and greater participation of developing countries in international decision-making (De Carvalho, Gruzd, & Wu, 2025b). These initiatives reflect broader dissatisfaction among emerging powers with the unequal distribution of authority embedded within post-Second World War governance institutions.
One of the most tangible manifestations of this institutional activism is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB), which provides an alternative source of development financing alongside the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Although the NDB does not seek to directly replace these institutions, its creation symbolizes growing demands for a more diversified and representative international financial architecture. The emergence of BRICS-led institutions illustrates the gradual diffusion of institutional authority beyond traditional Western powers and reflects what Amitav Acharya conceptualizes as a “multiplex world”—an international order characterized by multiple centers of authority rather than a single hegemonic power. Within this perspective, BRICS simultaneously participates in, reforms, and selectively challenges existing global institutions, illustrating the coexistence of continuity and transformation within contemporary global governance (De Carvalho, Anand, & Naidu, 2025a).
Building upon this understanding, another influential strand of scholarship argues that BRICS should be viewed primarily as a complementary institution rather than an outright alternative to the existing global order. This perspective emphasizes that BRICS possesses both the ambition to reshape global governance and the structural limitations that constrain its ability to replace established institutions entirely (De Carvalho, Gruzd, & Wu, 2025b). Drawing upon the structural-multiplex framework, which integrates Acharya’s concept of a multiplex world with Susan Strange’s theory of structural power, this literature argues that BRICS operates within existing structures while simultaneously attempting to redistribute influence across multiple dimensions of global governance (De Carvalho, Anand, & Naidu, 2025a). Accordingly, BRICS is understood as an institutional innovation that complements existing governance arrangements by expanding representation, creating new financial mechanisms, and strengthening the collective bargaining position of emerging economies without fundamentally dismantling the current international system.
In contrast, a more critical body of literature interprets BRICS as an increasingly counter-hegemonic coalition aimed at challenging Western dominance within the international order. This interpretation has gained greater prominence following the expansion of BRICS+ and the intensification of geopolitical competition between major powers. Scholars adopting realist and neo-Gramscian perspectives argue that China and Russia have strategically utilized BRICS as a platform to expand their geopolitical influence and promote a more multipolar distribution of global power (Duggan et al., 2022). From this viewpoint, BRICS functions as a form of soft balancing against Western unipolarity by developing alternative economic arrangements, promoting local currency settlements, expanding South–South cooperation, and advancing governance norms that differ from those traditionally associated with liberal international institutions. Papa, Han, and O’Donnell (2023) further argue that BRICS constructs a counter-hegemonic narrative grounded in normative legitimacy, historical experience, and institutional performance. Normatively, BRICS promotes principles of non-interference, sovereign equality, and development-oriented cooperation; historically, its establishment reflected longstanding aspirations among emerging powers for a more balanced international order; and institutionally, BRICS seeks to demonstrate that alternative models of global cooperation can coexist alongside, and potentially compete with, established Western-led institutions.
Taken together, these three perspectives—BRICS as an alternative institution, a complementary governance mechanism, and a counter-hegemonic coalition—illustrate the richness and complexity of contemporary debates surrounding the transformation of global governance. Rather than representing mutually exclusive interpretations, these perspectives reveal different dimensions of BRICS’ evolving institutional identity and strategic behavior. Depending on the issue area, geopolitical context, and institutional setting, BRICS may simultaneously complement existing institutions, establish alternative governance mechanisms, and challenge prevailing distributions of global authority. This multidimensional character underscores the limitations of binary interpretations that portray BRICS as either purely revisionist or entirely status quo oriented.
Despite the rapid expansion of the BRICS+ framework and the growing body of scholarship examining its institutional evolution, there remains limited theoretical integration across these competing perspectives. Existing studies often examine BRICS through isolated analytical frameworks, thereby overlooking how the organization simultaneously embodies complementary, alternative, and counter-hegemonic characteristics. Addressing this conceptual fragmentation is essential for understanding the strategic significance of BRICS in an increasingly multipolar international system. Consequently, this article argues that BRICS should be understood not as a fixed institutional category but as a dynamic governance platform whose role varies across different dimensions of global governance. Such an approach contributes to broader debates on the transformation of the international order by demonstrating how emerging powers increasingly shape global governance through institutional innovation, coalition-building, and the gradual redistribution of structural influence beyond the traditional Western-centered architecture.
Short Bio
Miranda Tahalele is the managing director of CBDS and lecturer in the department of International Relations at BINUS University. Her research interests are in international development cooperation, South-south Cooperation, gender and development, as well as Global Governance.
Dr Lili Yulyadi Arnakim is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations and the editor of the Journal of ASEAN Studies (JAS) at BINUS University, Jakarta. He previously served as a visiting professor at the Asia-Europe Institute (AEI), University of Malaya, from 2016 to 2019. His current research projects include: Rumpunism as an indigenous conception of regionalism in southeast Asia (2026), Integrating the SDGs into National Development Planning in Southeast Asian Countries (2024), Development Financing in Southeast Asia (2023), Dr. Lili Yulyadi Arnakim earned his Ph.D. from the University of Malaya. He can be reached at lili.yulyadi@binus.edu.
References
De Carvalho, G., Anand, J., & Naidu, S. (2025a). BRICS expansion: Adaptive response or proactive restructuring of global governance? South African Journal of International Affairs, 32(1-2), 9-32.
De Carvalho, G., Gruzd, S., & Wu, Y. S. (2025b). The BRICS expanded: Shaped by–or shaping–the global order? South African Journal of International Affairs, 32(1-2), 1-8.
Duggan, N., Hooijmaaijers, B., Rewizorski, M., & Arapova, E. (2022). Introduction:‘The BRICS, global governance, and challenges for South–South cooperation in a post-Western world’. International Political Science Review, 43(4), 469-480.
Larionova, M., & Shelepov, A. (2022). BRICS, G20 and global economic governance reform. International Political Science Review, 43(4), 512-530.
Papa, M., Han, Z., & O’Donnell, F. (2023). The dynamics of informal institutions and counter-hegemony: introducing a BRICS Convergence Index. European Journal of International Relations, 29(4), 960-989.
