Op/Ed Commentary: Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Jul. 2 – The use of acronyms when describing organizations, geographical or geopolitical areas has long been part of the English vernacular. When it comes to the global emerging markets, much of what has been offered up appears to be inaccurate or sounds, to my ears to least, awful.

The term “BRIC” to describe the primary emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China was coined by Jim O’Neill, head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs in 2001. Although useful, it still doesn’t include other comparable economies such as Mexico and Indonesia. Some would (although not I) dispute the sense of having Russia in there, mainly as the population is far smaller. However, BRIC as a term has been with us now for nearly a decade, and it has stuck.

The other issue I have with it is that of the four, the B of Brazil is on an entirely different continent, while the RIC nations at least share the same landmass and common historical aspects together. Brazil seems the odd man out. I use instead “RICs” (my firm is in all these markets) and have discontinued with the Brazilians. They may at least, take some comfort from that in their World Cup soccer performances this year. Should they win in Africa, I may have to reinstate them.

I do however have a pet dislike for the term “Chindia” when describing China and India together. I find it lazy (why not just say both countries names, they’re both only five letters long) and the combination appears clumsy. An alternative, introduced to me by Manjeet Kripalani of Gateway House is “Inch” which combines an element of humor into the combination but in terms of its other usage as a unit of measurement hardly does either of these countries of 1.3 billion people justice. I refuse though to use “Chindia” and have yet to find an acceptable alternative.

It’s also amusing to see the muddling of international groupings. The G4, the G8, and G20 all seem to be more or less the same thing, give or take a few countries, and anyway, isn’t it just a lazier way of trying to segment the United Nations? Or maybe we should rename the UN the G223, based upon the numbers of countries that currently exist. There’s even an ISO (another acronym) standard (ISO 3166-1) to determine who qualifies. But even that seems flawed when it includes the Pitcairn Islands, the inhabitants of which are descendants of the Royal Naval kidnapped ship The Bounty and are actually a British Overseas Territory of just 50 souls. Maybe they should rebel, recognize China and get a vote on the Security Council. The PRC pay muchos wonga for such activities, just ask the Taiwanese.

Acronyms therefore tend to break down and fall out of favor as time passes and economies and countries wax and wane – gatherings of random letters passing together briefly as ships in the night. But as texting provides us with yet more acronyms (C U L8R) as a means to constantly whittle away words to just letters, I’ll stick with China, India and Russia until anyone can give me a better alternative.

Any suggestions?

Chris Devonshire-Ellis is the principal and founding partner of Dezan Shira & Associates. He established the firm’s China operations in 1992 and its India practice in 2006. He regularly commutes between China and India. Contact: chinaindia@dezshira.com.

Chris also contributes to Asia Briefing’s other titles, India Briefing, China Briefing and Vietnam Briefing.