Today on China's Hainan Island, the leaders of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – met for their latest summit, which this time included South Africa (hey, how did they get an invite?). These now regular blabber-fests have arisen (in theory) to better promote the views of the emerging world on key global issues like economic reform, security and climate change. The idea seems to be to create sort of a developing nation G-7. But generally, these summits have been real snoozers, producing statements of such vague blandness that they make G-20 resolutions read like Harry Potter page-turners. But should we expect anything more? Though all developing economies, the original BRICs in fact have little in common beyond being bunched together in Goldman Sachs research reports. Unlike the old G-7, which were uniformly liberal democracies and advanced economies, the BRICS have vastly divergent political systems, levels of development, economic interests and foreign policy priorities. They also have some serious disputes among themselves. Brazil has been an open critic of China's distorted currency regime, while China and India spar over border disputes. Is it any wonder that these countries have trouble agreeing on anything of any importance?
Yet out of this recent summit, something has emerged on which they all can agree – a preference for controlling markets when it suits them. As the BRICS gain in influence, that thinking could drastically reshape global economic policy. Here's what I mean:
Buried within the usual platitudes about promoting peace and cooperation, the communiqué issued during the summit contains some clues into the BRICS' thinking on one of the most contentious issues facing the world economy today – mitigating the perceived ill-effects of free markets. For example, the BRICS made it clear that they are not necessarily in favor of free financial flows in all circumstances:

BRIC,BRICS,free markets