@article{Cooper2019,
title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries},
author = {Andrew F Cooper },
url = {https://globalsummitryproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/“Rising”-States-and-Global-Reach-Measuring-“Globality”-among-BRICSMIKTA-Countries.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-18},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {4},
number = {2},
pages = {64–80},
abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of an interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection, underscore the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics.},
keywords = {BRICS, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Rising States, Trade Profile},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Cooper2018,
title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries },
author = {Andrew F Cooper},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.5.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
pages = {64-80},
abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {BRICS, G20, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Regional Entrapment, Rising States, Trade Profile, Trajectory, Turkey},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}