Search

Inequality refers to the extent to which income is evenly distributed across a population (IMF, 2022). The World Inequality Report (WIR, 2022) reveals the latest trends in global income inequality. It shows that the richest 10% of the global population currently earns 52% of global income, while the poorest half of the population takes 8.5% of it. In emerging market economies, indications are that income inequality is rising; sometimes accompanied by accelerating economic growth. Reports reveal that Brazil's six richest individuals command the same wealth associated with the poorest 50% of the population, or about 100 million people. The World Inequality Report (2021) reveals India as a poor and unequal country, with the bottom half of the population earning only 13% of the nation's income, while the top 10% controls 57% by 2021. In South Africa, the IMF (2020) acknowledges that the nation's inequality has remained at high levels, perhaps the highest in the world. This is characterized by a highly skewed income distribution pattern, with the top 20% of the population controlling 68% of national income. These developments hold grave implications for emerging markets, particularly their ability to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The main objective of this paper is to explore income inequality in emerging market economies, with a multi-country study of Brazil, India and South Africa. The methodological approach to the study involves both qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. It relies on secondary data in publications from various sources, complemented by interviews of stakeholders in the study areas. Findings reveal the income inequality is undermining economic growth and development in emerging markets, fueling conflicts and triggering migration in some countries. The paper presents recommendations, underpinned by progressive taxation, social safety nets, gender equality, development of social services, and leveraging economic and financial incentives for labour-intensive industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses the role of the BASIC countries — Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — in UN climate change negotiations. The paper explores the formation and evolution of the group, and focuses on how the four major developing countries of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa have coordinated their positions and acted jointly to achieve an agreed outcome with other players in the recent UN Climate Change Conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun, based on an analysis of their country profiles and negotiation positions on a wide range of climate issues. The paper argues that the emergence of the BASIC Group is a reflection of the ongoing power shift from EU–US agreement to BASIC–US compromise in UN climate negotiations since the early 1990s. The rise of BASIC also has its roots in recent global market dynamics and further reflects the power transformation in the economic dimension of the international system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on recent and upcoming mega-events in South Africa, China and Brazil, this paper contrasts and critiques the associated image and identity opportunities and risks, as well as comparative motivations for hosting such events. Accordingly, the paper considers the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the scheduled 2014 World Cup and 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics in Brazil. In the context of an increasing number of mega-events being hosted in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India and China; South Africa is to join), the paper provides broader continuity and introduces a broader research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the national and transnational character of mobilization against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil in the ten-year period to 2005. By examining the contexts and practices of mobilization across the three countries, and in particular the complex, often fraught, local and global connections, the paper examines the diverse mobilizations that have occurred. The paper argues that to understand these processes, particular national political and economic contexts must be appreciated, alongside how the GM debates articulate with other foci for activism and the complex and often fragile nature of alliances that make up activist networks. The paper shows how the debate about GM crops has become a much wider one: about the future of agriculture and small-scale farmers, about corporate control and property rights and about the rules of global trade. In sum, a debate not just about the pros and cons of a particular set of technologies, but about politics and values and the future of agrarian society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]