Discursive Polarization of Brazil, China, India and South Africa Think Tanks Regarding G20 and BRICS

The article explores the discursive differences among think tanks from Brazil, China, India, and South Africa regarding two key informal forums of global governance – BRICS and the Group of Twenty (G20). The decision to look into think tanks from these countries is justified by their participation in both forums, which enables to assess how their expert evaluations, academic discourse, and discursive coalitions are formed. This topic is especially relevant in light of the growing criticism of the exclusively Western-centric approach to the development of global governance institutions. The methodological basis of the study is discourse network analysis, developed by a political scientist Philip Leifeld. The empirical dataset includes 225 English-language publications released between 2010 and 2025 by 16 leading think tanks from Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, addressing the activities of the G20 and BRICS. Discourse network analysis involves a thematic content analysis; therefore, the author independently coded the selected publications according to a set of concepts reflecting expert opinions of the selected think tanks on BRICS, the G20, and global governance institutions in general. The data was visualized as network graphs illustrating the degree of discursive proximity between the think tanks. Descriptive analysis of these graphs revealed a high level of discursive similarity among organizations regarding both forums, though the graph related to the G20 showed greater polarization. The study found that positive concepts prevail in the think tanks’ discourse. BRICS is portrayed as the voice of the Global South and a platform for political dialogue among member states. At the same time, experts express concern that some BRICS members may use the forum as a political tool to serve their own interests, which is seen as a barrier to a full forum cohesion. The G20, in turn, is viewed as an important platform for financial and economic cooperation but is criticized for its inefficiency and politicization. Concerning the overall state of the global governance system, experts show a unified rejection of Western and U.S. dominance. They also promote a discourse on the need to reform the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions, citing their inconsistency in the realities of a changing world.