Governance is defined as the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs (Røen 2011). Good governance includes aspects of participation, rule of law, transparency, equality, responsiveness, vision, accountability, oversight; efficiency and effectiveness and professionalism (Vyas-Doorgapersad & Ababio 2010).

According to Komatsu (2015; also refer Vyas-Doorgapersad 2021), good governance starts with good global governance. Global governance ‘encompasses activity at the international, transnational and regional levels and refers to activities in the public and private sectors that transcend national boundaries’ (Benedict 2001). The Rio +20 Conference on Sustainable Development mandated countries to negotiate a universal development agenda based on three pillars of economic, social and environmental development (Merlo 2014). This article focuses on the economic pillar of the development goals linking to global governance. According to Vyas-Doorgapersad and Aktan (2017), globalisation, regionalisation, privatisation, deregulation are major economic change trends and these movements have resulted in significant changes in the role of the state throughout the world. It needs to be considered that even in an environment of economic interdependence, ‘global economic governance may still be imperfect and, in contrast to the global economy, underdeveloped’ (in Grant & Wilson 2012).

The article employs the qualitative research approach, which is considered significant as it ‘seeks to develop an in-depth understanding [and] views social phenomena holistically’ (in Nyikadzino & Vyas-Doorgapersad 2020:33).

The qualitative research approach utilises the triangulation of data (conceptual analysis, document analysis and unobtrusive research) with an aim to strengthen validity and reliability of the study. Conceptual analysis, as adapted by Nhlapo (2020), referred to the process of developing the empirical study’s conceptual framework. Document analysis, as cited by Bangani and Vyas-Doorgapersad (2020), is an invaluable part of most schemes of triangulation. Mutenga (2021) stated that, unobtrusive research is non-reactive, that is, there is no direct interaction between the researcher and participants. It is a method of studying social behaviour without affecting it.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) need ‘an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership’ (United Nations [UN] 2018:1). They recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality and spur economic growth –whilst tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests (UN 2018). These 17 SDGs define global sustainable development priorities and aspirations for 2030 and seek to mobilise global efforts around a common set of goals and targets. The SDGs call for worldwide action amongst governments, business and civil society to end poverty and create a life of dignity and opportunity for all, within the boundaries of the planet (SDG Compass 2015). This article focuses on SDG 1 linking to global (economic) reforms as poverty reduction is the number one priority in the UN list of SDGs that needs to be achieved by governments globally. The UN has defined 7 targets and 14 indicators for SDG 1 that are available on SDG Tracker website (2018), which also highlights the situation of SDG 1 stating that, one-in-five people in developing regions still live on less than $1.90 a day. Millions more make little more than this daily amount. It needs to be considered that in terms of global governance, as highlighted by World Vision (2020), by 2030, as part of the UN SDGs, global leaders aim to eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere.

Sustainable Development Goal One is linked to poverty reduction. This ‘concept of poverty is only applied to humans in everyday language and is an evaluative concept used by human societies to set minimum standards for those aspects of human lifestyles acquirable through economic capacities’ (Lotter 2007:1201–1202). The economic capabilities are not enough for human beings to live a life with acceptable standards of services. This is reflected in the report of the UN SDG Knowledge Platform (2020), which emphasised that the world is not on track to achieve the target of less than 3% of the world living in extreme poverty by 2030. The statement can be substantiated with the global statistics of poverty compiled by World Vision (2020) highlighting that:

Economic development is not possible in regions experiencing extreme poverty, hence global leaders come together to offer financial aid. In order to achieve SDG 1, Ugoani (2015) suggested that the international community needs to grapple with much more than financial governance issues. There is need for transformational public policy strategies that seek to determine whose welfare, which right and what goals matter most (Ugoani 2015). This makes global governance – whether it pertains to finance, trade, the environment, education, transportation or health etc. – one of the most vital and difficult challenges of the modern world (Ugoani 2015). The article stresses that poverty is a global issue that needs to be supported with global governance in the form of international cooperation and multilateral institutions, which need to work with governments, private sector, non-profit organisations, etc. to achieve the SDG 1.

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are considered as a case under study. Since its inception in 2009, the BRIC(S) grouping has grown in stature internationally. South Africa joined BRIC in 2010, becoming the fifth member of this bloc, hence the acronym BRICS. The BRICS countries have met annually to enhance cooperation amongst themselves and discuss issues of common concern, including global governance reforms (Pelchem 2021) and socio-economic development challenges.

BRICS, global governance and sustainable development goal one: A nexus

The concept global governance reform, initially referred to as a radical restructuring of the global economic order, is nowadays used as a reformist concept that seeks to accommodate the interests of neo-liberal globalisation with relatively marginal reforms that are seen as necessary to keep the system running (Overbeek et al. 2010). Moreover, the concept is analytically misleading given the rise of traditional forms of interstate bargaining that followed both the global financial crisis and the rise of the BRICS states (Overbeek et al. 2010). The following sections discuss a nexus between SDG 1, global governance and BRICS.

Merlo (2014) highlighted in his study that in addition to a well-established commitment by the G77 + China to national sovereignty and to poverty eradication, the BRICS placed a particular emphasis on two new principles for global development that are universal and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) (Merlo 2014). These aims may be achieved through joint declarations and multi-national partnerships with other countries.

In terms of economic status, ‘fragile-five’ was a term coined by Morgan Stanley in its report in a 2013 to describe the status of economy in five of the emerging markets. They were Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey (Dutta 2020). With Indian economy facing another downturn and apparently more serious than the previous one, there are talks about India slipping back in the club of so-called fragile five (Dutta 2020). A common lesson that BRICS can learn from each other is the adoption of strategies that are showing success. For example, in Brazil:

Rapid growth, as stated in the UN document (2017) is the key weapon in any country’s arsenal to combat poverty. On the one hand, it creates well-paid jobs, which place necessary purchasing power in the hands of households to access food, clothing, housing, education and health. On the other, it brings ever-rising revenues to the government to finance social spending (UN 2017). In addition, ‘a relatively egalitarian growth path; increases in agricultural productivity that help raise wages and keep food prices under control; expansion of non-agricultural employment, including in rural areas; and direct public action in the form of poverty eradication programmes’ (Ghosh 2010:22) are also contributing towards achieving SDG 1.

In case of Russia, welfare improvement including poverty reduction are the priority directions of the social policy and they are defined in the ‘Concept of Long-term Socio-economic Development of the Russian Federation 2020’ and the ‘National Security Concept of the Russian Federation’. The main measures for reducing the poverty rate are also determined in the government programme ‘Social Support of Citizens’ aimed at ensuring accessibility, high quality and security of social services (Massarova & Potapenko 2018).

China has been driving international development with its practical approach to poverty reduction and development and pushing for the establishment of a new type of international exchanges and cooperation for poverty reduction with win-win cooperation as the core (Weiping 2018). In South Africa, the Government introduced Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP); Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR); Accelerated and shared Growth Initiative (AcSGI); and Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP), with an aim of reducing poverty in the country. India has adopted the rapid growth strategy as part of economic reforms and hence is showing a decline in poverty. The BRICS need to learn from each other and apply strategies for achieving good economic governance required for the realisation of SDG 1.

A hope lies in the fact that at the 2016 G20 Hangzhou Summit, an action plan was developed, for the first time ever, to implement the 2030 Agenda. At the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in May 2017, heads of state and government of 29 countries and over 1600 representatives from more than 140 countries and 80 international organisations put forward the initiative to jointly build the Belt and Road, so as to establish a new platform for win-win cooperation and create new opportunities for implementing the Agenda (Weiping 2018), hence enhancing global governance. According to the World Bank (2016), the Global Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth (GPIG) Portal was officially launched in Beijing on 8 May 2016, dedicated to sharing best practices and tools for poverty reduction in China, Asia and the world. As the first online platform in China focusing on poverty reduction worldwide, it offers information on the latest research in poverty reduction and inclusive growth, including experts’ opinions, events, trends and opportunities.

Another emerging challenge is the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The influence of BRICS countries in the international arena has risen enormously in recent decades. However, little attention has been paid to the comparison of COVID-19 pandemic responses and related factors in BRICS countries, despite their increasing global significance as individual countries and as an economic grouping (Zhu et al. 2021). The economic and social impact of COVID-19 is severe for the BRICS countries. In this scenario, these countries need to concentrate on steering their domestic economies out of this pandemic crisis (Dash, Sethi & Dash 2020).

From the literature review stated here, it can be deduced that BRICS is not in a position to achieve SDG 1 in absolute terms. It can be deduced further that not all BRICS Summits discussed the need to eradicate poverty as much of the focus was on other SDGs.

When the first BRICS Summit was held in China (2011), the international community was already aware that the UN Millennium Campaign (2000–2015) was about to reach limited achievements. Whilst being the most successful anti-poverty effort in the history of humankind, the 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the 21 Targets were not fully reached, and the agenda was left unfinished for millions of people in the most disadvantageous countries. In the UN Summit in New York (2015), it was established that this partial success was to be addressed by means of the 2030 Agenda, which included the SDGs: a new set of 17 Goals and 169 Targets to be reached in 15 years to enhance the transition to sustainable development and to end poverty in all forms, everywhere and forever (Nkibrics.ru. 2019). However, BRICS is also not achieving all SDGs as the priorities are different. For example, a study conducted by Ali et al. (2018) highlighted country-wise the most adopted UN SDGs goals as follows:

The empirical data confirms that there is more focus on three SDGs that are ‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’, ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’ and ‘Industry Innovation and Infrastructure’ and there is a lack of consideration to work on SDG 1.

The declarations of BRICS summit also lack the SDG 1 targets to achieve with inadequate focus on what, how and when poverty reduction measures will be implemented. This is substantiated by the documentary analysis of BRICS summits. The third BRICS Summit held in 2011 in Sanya, China stated:

The declaration of the fourth BRICS Summit, held in New Delhi, India, in 2012, highlighted the group’s concern about the unstable situation of the world market and the stability policies adopted by central countries that adversely affect emerging countries. Concerning the social issue, the group reiterated the aspects of sustainable growth and development associated with food safety, eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and the urgent need to create jobs to improve the standard of living in the world (De Vasconcelos Costa Lobato 2018). The fifth BRICS Summit was held in Durban, South Africa in March 2013. The summit resulted in the eThekwini Declaration.

The economic crisis takes on much of the points in the declaration, where the group again criticised the measures taken by the central countries to protect their economies, with negative impacts in other countries, especially the increasing internal debts and rising unemployment, maintaining world instability. In the declaration, BRICS announced its most daring initiative, which was the decision to create the New Development Bank (NDB), the BRICS bank (De Vasconcelos Costa Lobato 2018).

The sixth BRICS summit was held in Fortaleza, Brazil, in 2014. The central theme being ‘Inclusive growth: sustainable solutions’ with the objective of maintaining inclusive macroeconomic and social policies … and facing the challenges posed by the need to simultaneously achieve growth, inclusion, protection and preservation (De Vasconcelos Costa Lobato 2018). The review of discussions during these summits confirmed that the eradication of poverty remains a central theme, but without specific intra-BRICS proposals. It is instead the core of an intergovernmental process of building an integrated universal development agenda (De Vasconcelos Costa Lobato 2018), hence it lacks the essence of good global governance seeking inter-regional cooperation amongst member states.

In order to meet with the SDG 1, the leaders of BRICS have taken strategic decisions to eradicate poverty, such as, the Former Brazilian President Michel Termer who aimed to secure more foreign investment; Russia and India boosted investment in an integrated manner; China pledged $76.4 million for a BRICS economic and technology cooperation agenda. President Xi Jinping also pledged $4 million to the NDB; and South African Former President, Jacob Zuma, focused on the implementation of the UN’s SDGs 2030 to eradicate poverty (The Borgen Project 2020). However, the implementation strategies are not discussed in detail as when the measures will be adopted and how the measures will be evaluated.

The lack of monitoring and evaluation of SDG 1 and related targets may be a stumbling block for BRICS to realise its aim of poverty eradication.

In 2020, the world globally started experiencing the dilemma of COVID-19. The difference between opinions is already witnessed amongst EU; the US, being a highly resourceful nation is struggling internally to strategies and operationalise health system and the emerging economies are facing economic shut down. The situation is dire for people living in poverty and unemployment rate has drastically increased because of the pandemic. In this scenario, the questions that emerge include: Do BRICS have economic resources to bring financial stability and fiscal strengthening to its own member states? and Can BRICS also assist member states to bring economic viability despite financial struggle within their own countries in a post-COVID-19 era?

This aspect of global governance will only be observed in the coming years.

The article is an effort to discuss these aspects conceptually explaining the meaning of global governance and contextually its applicability in BRICS emphasising its relevance to global development goals. The suggestions can be applicable globally, based on the economic development and resource advancement in country-specific contexts.