With all the discussions about BRICS institutionalization taking on greater momentum - the group's institutionalization was singled out as a key priority in the past several BRICS summit declarations - one of the more exciting questions in these debates may be the expediency of the establishment of permanent headquarters for the bloc
Friday, November 21, 2025
By Yaroslav Lissovolik
With all the discussions about BRICS institutionalization taking on greater momentum - the group's institutionalization was singled out as a key priority in the past several BRICS summit declarations - one of the more exciting questions in these debates may be the expediency of the establishment of permanent headquarters for the bloc. Even more fascinating and far-reaching may be the choice of the location of the BRICS Headquarters and Secretariat. After all, this choice may reveal the bloc's key priorities in terms of its future regional development and expansion. While we explored at length the case for and against BRICS institutionalization, we now focus on the issue of the location of a possible BRICS headquarters/institutions.
Thus far discussions on the headquarters of the bloc have not featured in public discussions and it is far from clear as to whether the choice in favor of establishing a permanent headquarters is going to be made at all. Yet, if BRICS institutionalization is to advance in the coming years, such a scenario of the creation of a permanent Secretariat may become an increasingly likely prospect. Indeed, at the recent summit of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), one of the key messages was the bloc's prioritization of institutionalization, including "through the establishment of an effective RCEP Secretariat". So what are the options?
Within the grand scheme of things, the choice may revolve around the three main regions of the Global South - Africa, Latin America and Eurasia. Each of the three options has its economic rationale, well beyond the many political and/or short-term considerations that may also be thrown into the boiling pot of this BRICS+ debate:
- Africa: the future generations argument. The future of the global economy will be increasingly tied to Africa as a growing share of the young population will come from that continent. According to the IMF, "by 2030, half of all new entrants into the global labor force will come from sub-Saharan Africa". Africa as a whole will deliver the largest contribution to global population growth in the coming decades, with its share in global population expected to reach a quarter by 2050 and 40% by 2100. Furthermore, 13 out of 20 largest cities in the world by 2100 are to be concentrated in Africa, including all of the top-3 positions in this ranking. A rising share of the global youth, global population and global human capital - this is the case for Africa in its simplest form.
- Eurasia: the center of gravity argument. Most of the bloc's heavyweights such as India, China, Russia, Indonesia are based in Eurasia. Furthermore, a significant majority of BRICS core members as well as the members of the expanded BRICS+ together with the partnership belt come from Eurasia. The bulk of trade and investment flows in the BRICS+ domain are concentrated in Eurasia.
- Latin America: the new frontiers argument. Latin America has the lowest representation in the BRICS core and in the expanded BRICS+ with the partnership circle. At the same time, Latin America is witnessing heated debates on the merits of joining BRICS, with Argentina being the only invited country to reject the invitation so far. Latin America also has significant scope to expand regional integration as well as boost South-South trade (intra-continental and inter-continental) from rather subdued levels currently. If BRICS is to build bridges of economic cooperation with Latin America and become more inclusive as a bloc of the Global South, this region of the world economy merits greater prioritization in BRICS institutionalization efforts.
There may be still other arguments and rationales such as symbolism and Global South history, which would argue in favor of cities such as Bandung (Indonesia) that held the historic conference 70 years ago marking earlier initiatives of the Global South to change the course of global development.
Another possible perspective would be to designate next-generation inland locations for BRICS Headquarters that could serve as drivers of national economic development and greater connectivity across the Global South. Whichever of the above arguments is made, however, I would not venture as to make a definitive and exclusive choice between the three regions/centers of the Global South - Africa, Latin America and Eurasia - as it is crucial that no part of the developing world is left out from the institutional development of the BRICS bloc.
But, perhaps, there is a way for the BRICS to innovate in the sphere of institutionalization and position the various branches of BRICS emerging institutions in all the three regions of the Global South. For example (and this is a very tentative and hypothetical scenario), the BRICS Secretariat could be located in Eurasia, the BRICS Parliament/Parliamentary Assembly (if ever created) in Africa and the legal mechanism for resolving trade/investment disputes in Latin America. Instead of divisions, the BRICS institutionalization (spanning the executive, legislative/parliamentary and judicial spheres) could thus advance inclusivity and equal participation of all of the main regions of the developing world.
In the end, I have to emphasize yet again that it is still very much an open question whether the BRICS bloc will in fact opt to create its own Headquarters and Secretariat. After all, the BRICS have not yet exhausted the scope for exploiting the myriads of economic cooperation formats (such as platforms and alliances between regional integration blocs) that do not require the operation of a Secretariat. Nonetheless, the winds of change in the Global South do point towards greater coordination, and the greater the challenges posed to BRICS as a bloc, the greater the likelihood of an accelerated pace in the group's institutionalization.
Yaroslav Lissovolik worked in the International Monetary Fund, in Washington, where he was Advisor to the Executive Director for the Russian Federation (2001-2004). In 2004 he joined Deutsche Bank as Chief Economist and became Head of Company Research in Russia in 2009, and then a member of the Management Board of Deutsche Bank in Russia in 2011. In 2015-2018 Yaroslav Lissovolik was Chief Economist and subsequently Managing Director of Research and Member of the Management Board at the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB). From 2018 to 2022 he has been Senior Managing Director - Head of Research at Sberbank Investment Research (CIB). In 2023 he founded BRICS+ Analytics to conduct in-depth research on the future trajectories of BRICS+ development.
Yaroslav Lissovolik graduated from Harvard University (magna cum laude) with a BA degree in Economics, and received an MSc in Economics degree from the London School of Economics (LSE). He also received his PhD degree in Economics from the Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO, red diploma) and a Doctorate in Economics from the Diplomatic Academy.
BRICS+ Analytics