Towards a New Understanding of Structural Power: “Structure Is What States Make of It”

The structural power of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in multilateral development finance: A case study of the New Development Bank

“…The first assumption is that there is a difference between resources and goods. Resources (broadly understood as anything an actor can theoretically access given their capacity to do so) turn into goods only when another actor articulates a corresponding need, and the exchange for another good becomes possible (Pustovitovskij and Kremer, 2012). For the purpose of this article, the term ‘resources’ refers to financial means.…”

“…They do not exist separately from needs (as is the case with material and positional goods, which exist as physical resources until they are related to a need). They materialise only when they are met by a specific need (Pustovitovskij and Kremer, 2012: 63). Ideational goods (such as representation or legitimisation) are associated with social power, which is a way of understanding continuity and change in global (economic) governance and can be defined as ‘the ability to set standards, and create norms and values that are deemed legitimate and desirable, without resorting to coercion or payment’ (van Ham, 2010: 8).…”

“…The third and final assumption is that a need can be defined as ‘the aim an actor is not able to achieve on his own, but rather by means of foreign policies, and which an actor articulates in a way that is noticeable by other actors’ (Pustovitovskij and Kremer, 2012: 64). This framework, under these assumptions, should be applied to areas where two concepts are vying for dominance, as the norms and values that allow for collective action within a given system.…”