ARGENTINA’S TRADE POTENTIAL
WITH BRICS: THE GRAVITY MODEL APPROACH
COMERCIO POTENCIAL DE ARGENTINA CON LOS BRICS:
APLICACIÓN DEL MODELO DE GRAVEDAD
Amer Ma’en Hussein HusseinI I
I Zhongnan
University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China
✉karengomez@stu.zuel.edu.cn; ✉hasilazyan@gmail.com; ✉Amer.Hussein620@outlook.com
* Corresponding author: karengomez@stu.zuel.edu.cn
JEL
Classification: F13; F10; F19
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11396726
Received: 28/02/2024
Accepted: 21/05/2024
Abstract
The study investigates the trade potentiality of Argentina with
BRICS countries applying the gravity model approach. The estimation is
performed on a panel data set containing information on BRICS countries through
the years 2009 to 2022. Empirical findings expose that Argentina’s total
bilateral trade with BRICS countries is positively influenced by GDP,
population, openness index and FDI. On the other hand, distance and real
bilateral exchange rate show a negative influence on Argentina’s total bilateral
trade flow with BRICS. Besides, the effect of Covid-19 is also analysed showing a negative and significant relationship.
Based on these findings, the empirical analysis show that overall exist a trade
potential between Argentina and BRICS countries. This research recommends that
the Argentinian government for enhancing trade and production within the BRICS
countries. Especially with South Africa, China, and Brazil due to their higher
trade potential.
Keywords: gravity
model, trade potential, BRICS, panel data
Resumen
El estudio investiga el
comercio potencial de Argentina con los BRICS aplicando el enfoque del modelo
de gravedad. La estimación se realiza en un conjunto de panel de datos que
contiene información sobre los países BRICS desde 2009 a 2022. Los hallazgos empíricos
revelan que el comercio bilateral total de Argentina con los países BRICS se ve
positivamente influenciado por el PIB, la población, el índice de apertura y la
IED. Por otro lado, la distancia y la tasa de cambio bilateral real muestran
una influencia negativa en el flujo comercial bilateral total de Argentina con
los BRICS. Además, se analiza el efecto del Covid-19, mostrando una relación
negativa y significativa. Basándose en estos hallazgos, el análisis empírico
muestra que en general existe un comercio potencial entre Argentina y los
países BRICS. Esta investigación recomienda al gobierno argentino que fomente
el comercio y la producción dentro de los países BRICS, especialmente con
Sudáfrica, China y Brasil debido a su mayor comercio potencial.
Palabras claves: modelo gravitacional,
comercio potencial, BRICS, datos de panel
Introduction
The
economic literature shows that countries participate in trade mainly for two
reasons. The first holds that countries trade due to they are different and
such dissimilarities generate profits through interaction between them; each
country then produces those goods it produces relatively more efficiently
(competitively), which enables it to achieve economies of scale through trade.
Second, trade relations allow countries to specialize and export products they
make more efficiently (principle of comparative advantage), in turn, this
exchange can be seen as an indirect production method since a country produces
another good and changes it for the desired good, thereby expanding its entree
to an extensive variety of consumer products.1
In
recent decades, the greatest interdependence between the economies of different
nations has led to a steady growth in international commerce. One of the causes
has been the promotion and increase of regional trade agreements (RTA), which
have positioned the place as a dynamic and influential element within the
trading system.
There
are also other reasons besides international agreements that describe the
growth of international trade flows, including the incorporation of
technological improvements that have implicated a significant fall in transport
and communications costs. The change in the internal model and structures of
many companies have led to their internationalization, as well as the efforts
made by many countries to implement unilateral liberalization steps of trade
and rules to attract and facilitate the inflow of investment from abroad.2
In line
with the above, it is of great interest then to analyse Argentina’s
international trade over the past years and determine the importance that the
external sector has gained within the domestic field, especially with new
growing economies such as BRICS countries. There are many reasons behind the
interest of Argentina in trading with BRICS countries such as the particular
characteristics of the group of countries as also the main trade partner of
Argentina are part of this regional trade agreement, Brazil and China. Hence,
the present study aims to assess the actual trade potential between Argentina
and BRICS.3
BRICS
countries started to occupy an important place not just regionally4,
as models, otherwise also in the world, in the worldwide GDP and projecting a
potential perspective of development in the future5,6. For
Argentina, looking for support into BRICS countries can aid to achieve the main
objective of the nation is to industrialize and grow in the national economy as
well as in the international. For this reason, analysing the international
trade between Argentina with those countries can help us to build new policy
suggestions and create a new perspective on Argentinian trade.
Applied
research on the gravity model in Latin American countries is limited7,8,9,10.
These studies, for the most part, have been based on analysing the impact of
trade policy on trade and regarding the trade potentiality analysis. Therefore,
this study will uniquely apply the gravity model approach to explore the
potential trade and based on those results we will provide economic
recommendations to enhance Argentina’s trade with BRICS shortly.
Argentina and BRICS: Overview
Argentina
is the second largest economy in South America. It has always been an important
part of international trade relations, together with Brazil; they are the great
economies and powers of the region. Argentina has been a WTO’s founder member
from the Uruguay Round and a member of the commercial G-20. It is important to
highlight that currently, Argentina's average Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff
rate stands as one of the highest in the region, as estimated by the WTO at
13.7%.
Regarding
the participation in the WTO, Argentina has an important participation in
dispute resolution. Until May 2019, Argentina participated in 62 commercial
disputes, where the country appeared as a claimant 21 times and as claimed 22
times. According to these data, the country stands as the sixth developing
country that most often reserved its rights as a third party interested in
disputes in the WTO. Argentina focuses on negotiations at the multilateral
level, and has one of the highest average tariffs in the region, maintaining a
protectionist stance despite greater economic integration11.
BRICS
nations played varying roles, to some degree, in the revival of the Argentine
economy. During the 20th century, Argentina sought different ways to reduce the
historical rivalry with Brazil and to establish constructive and mutually
beneficial bilateral relations. In 1988, the two countries began a process of
deepening the liberalization of bilateral trade, through the signing of the
Buenos Aires Act. The deepening of economic integration between the countries
guided the signing of the Asunción Agreement for the constitution of MERCOSUR
in 1991 (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay).12
Brazil
is the main trade partner of Argentina. During the last 25 years, the total
bilateral trade increased 421%. The main characteristic related to the
industries traded is specialization, both countries specialize in transport
sectors, whereas Argentina and Brazil have an agreement on different production
related this industry. Besides, we would like to mention that Argentina has a
few participation percentage in the Global Chain Value
(GVC) but this participation corresponds to the bilateral trade with Brazil
related to the transport sector.
Russia
is a market with a lot of fluctuation related to the bilateral trade. Both have
a strong political relationship. However, their trade relationship is still not
defined by a patron. From 1993 to 2022, the total bilateral trade increased
824%. The balance of payment in this relationship is with the surplus in favour
of Argentina. However, this surplus had decreased during the last years due to
the barriers to trade imposed by the Russian government related to animal and
vegetable sector regulations, implying a decrease in Argentinian exports to
this country.
India is
a new market for Argentina. During the last time, Argentina have taken
advantage of the increase in the agricultural products of India. For this
reason, the increase in total bilateral trade during the last 25 years was
3392% where Argentina duplicated the exports against the imports coming from
this country. In this relationship with Russia, the balance of payments is in
favour of Argentina with a surplus.
China is
the second main trade partner of Argentina. From 1993 to 2022, the bilateral
total trade increased by 4307%. It represents the industrialization of China,
due to Argentina’s exports to China the third part that is receiving from
China. Balance of payment has a negative balance for Argentina. The trade,
between these countries, is characterized by exporting raw materials from
Argentina to China and receiving industrial products as imports. Besides, China
is the main investor in Argentina related to the oil, infrastructure, iron, and
other sectors as well.
Regarding
South Africa is also a new market for Argentina. The main characteristic of
those countries is the disinterest from each other in trading. However, the
total bilateral trade increased by 417% during the last 25 years. Argentina’s
exports are twice the imports received from them.
Additionally,
Table 1 outlines Argentina's overall
exports to BRICS nations. In 2022, Argentina's exports to BRICS countries
constituted 30% of its total exports. Brazil emerged as the primary export
destination, accounting for 14% of the total exports, followed by China and
India at 9% and 5%, respectively. Notably, Argentina's exports to Russia and
South Africa represented only 1% of its total exports.
Similarly,
Argentina's overall imports from BRICS nations constituted 44% of its total
imports in 2022. Among the BRICS members, China emerged as the primary import
partner, representing 21%, followed closely by Brazil at 20%, with India
accounting for 2%. Hence, the data demonstrates significant trade potential for
Argentina with BRICS countries, particularly with emerging markets like South
Africa, Russia, and India.
Table 1. Argentina exports and imports to
BRICS, 2022
|
Details |
Exports (MM US$) |
Total Exports (%) |
Imports (MM US$) |
Total Imports (%) |
|
Brazil |
12.637,34 |
0,14 |
15.978,63 |
0,20 |
|
Russia |
498,41 |
0,01 |
277,83 |
0,00 |
|
India |
4.542,50 |
0,05 |
1.849,37 |
0,02 |
|
China |
8.014,63 |
0,09 |
17.516,21 |
0,21 |
|
South Africa |
460,71 |
0,01 |
195,35 |
0,00 |
|
Worldwide |
88.445,72 |
1,00 |
81.522,68 |
1,00 |
Source: Reported by Argentina UN Comtrade
Database
Materials
and methods
The
investigation focuses on Argentina's trade potential with BRICS countries,
employing the gravity model methodology. This model considers various variables
including GDP, distance, population, total trade, and other relevant trade
variables. The trade value shows a positive correlation with the economic size
(GDP) of nations and a negative correlation with the distance between them. In
essence, trade volume increases with the product of the GDPs of involved
economies while decreasing with greater distances between them.
Gravity
Model: Overview
A
gravity model is an empirical tool that predicts the potential of bilateral
trade as we review in the
literature
review. Its theoretical basis is based on Newton’s law of universal gravitation
(1687), which states that the force of attraction between two objects is
directly proportional to the magnitude of their masses and inversely
proportional to the distance separating them.
Tinbergern and Pöyhönen were the pioneers in employing this principle to elucidate
international trade patterns using the gravity trade model. This model explains
that the force of commercial attraction between countries i and j is directly relative to their economic size, expressed through
their GDP; and the opposite is equivalent to their distance.
Although
the successful of the gravity model of trade, the main criticism of this, at
first, was its lack of theoretical basis, as evidenced by the attempts of
Linneman, Learmer and Stern who did not have
successful in justifying it theoretically13. Subsequently, however,
several investigations legitimized the theoretical validity of the model14,15,16,17,18.
Given
the theoretical robustness of the gravity model, the emphasis has been placed
on the study of the theoretical basis of the model in its empirical uses. In
addition, according to recent methodological contributions, the importance and
validity of the increased gravity model and the study of the terms of
resistance to trade in it have been highlighted13. Thus, Anderson
and Wincoop found that the bilateral flow of trade is
affected by barriers to trade, by the existence of bilateral resistances, and
by multilateral resistances, the latter represents the relative importance of
such barriers to trade concerning other countries.19 From this,
multilateral resistances have been considered a source of bias, and therefore a
topic of importance to all researchers who empirically use the gravity model11.
Empirical
Analysis
Hence,
this model offers a broader scope compared to the fundamental gravity model.
The equation below outlines the dependent and independent variables considered
in this study.
The
variables are described as Ln (Yijt) represents the
natural logarithm of total trade, encompassing both net exports and imports
from country i to country j, denoted in US$. Where “i” represents Argentina and “j” is the BRICS countries. The
independent variables are GDP, population, distance, bilateral real exchange
rate, openness index, and foreign domestic investment (FDI). Finally, COVID-19
as dummy variable.
Therefore,
"δ" represents the time-fixed effect, "ε" stands for the
error term, "t" indicates the time duration, while β's represent the
parameters. Likewise, detailed descriptions of the aforementioned variables can
be found in Table 2.
Thus,
“δ” is the time-fixed effect, “ε” stands for the error term, “t” indicates the
time duration, while
Table 2. Explanation of variables
|
Variables |
Description |
Source |
|
Ln(Yijt) |
Natural log Total Trade
US$ |
UN COMTRADE |
|
Ln(GDPit*GDPjt) |
Natural log GDP (current
GDP) US$ |
World Development Indicators |
|
Ln(POPit*POPjt) |
Natural log Population |
World Development Indicators |
|
Ln(DISTij) |
Natural log Distance |
Centre D’Etudes Prospectives
et D’Informations Internationales |
|
Ln(BRERijt) |
Natural log Bilateral
Real Exchange Rate |
International Financial Statistics |
|
Ln(Openjt) |
Natural log Openness
index |
World Development Indicators |
|
Ln(FDIjt) |
Natural log FDI |
World Development Indicators |
Source: Made by the authors
Results and discussion
Table 3 presents the findings of regression analysis,
indicating the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable. It
indicates that all independent variables are statistically significant. The
results also show a higher R-squared 0,98 which explains that the variables
selected in this model explain clearly the bilateral trade between Argentina
and the BRICS countries.
The
findings indicate that a 1% increase in the GDP of partner countries
significantly boosts Argentina's total trade by 0.83%. Similarly, a 1% rise in
the population of partner countries corresponds to a 0.32% increase in
Argentina's total trade. This relationship stems from the fact that as incomes
rise in partner nations, the demand for imported goods tends to increase.
Concerning distance, the results reveal that a 1% increase in the distance
between partner countries results in a 1.46% decrease in Argentina's total
trade. This implies that countries sharing close borders with Argentina exhibit
greater trade potential compared to those with greater distances. Regarding the
bilateral real exchange rate, the result shows that if it rises by 1% then the
impact on Argentina’s total trade decreases by 0,08%. Any appreciation or
depreciation of currency concludes with a negative influence on bilateral
trade. Moreover, the openness rate indicates that a 1% increase corresponds to
a 0.50% rise in Argentina's total trade. Similarly, a 1% increase in partner
countries' FDI leads to a 0.20% increase in Argentina's total trade. This is
because the openness index determinates how important is international trade
for a country and the FDI impacts the growth economy consequently it influences
bilateral trade. Additionally, we explored the effect of COVID-19 on the
bilateral trade. It shows a negative effect on Argentina’s total trade
decreasing it by 0,83% during the pandemic.
The
standard error represents the spread of data points around the fitted line,
which is known as the Standard Error. Thus, Table 3 demonstrates the gap between the fitted line and data
points for the variables. Conversely, to evaluate the significance of
coefficients, the p-value indicates the importance of GDP, population,
distance, bilateral real exchange rate, FDI, and COVID-19 variables are
significant at a 1% significant level while the openness index is significant
at a 5% significant level.
Table 3. Regression results
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. error |
z |
p-value |
|
Ln(GDPit*GDPjt) |
0,833 |
0,078 |
10,63 |
0,000*** |
|
Ln(POPit*POPjt) |
0,326 |
0,036 |
8,98 |
0,000*** |
|
Ln(DISTij) |
-1,465 |
0,093 |
-15,77 |
0,000*** |
|
Ln(BRERijt) |
-0,084 |
0,012 |
-7,23 |
0,000*** |
|
Ln(Openjt) |
0,501 |
0,250 |
2,00 |
0,045** |
|
Ln(FDIjt) |
0,205 |
0,053 |
3,87 |
0,000*** |
|
COVID-19 |
-0,845 |
0,182 |
-4,63 |
0,000*** |
Source: Author's simulation
Potential
Trade between Argentina and BRICS countries
This
section presents the estimation of bilateral trade potential. We applied the
coefficients obtained from the gravity equations. This estimation is
characterized as the variance between anticipated trade and existing trade
(Martinez & Nowak, 2003). This is expressed as:
Where
The ratio of trade potential (
Table 4. Estimates of the potential bilateral trade between Argentina and the
BRICS countries
|
Description |
Brazil |
Russia |
India |
China |
South
Africa |
|
|
24.057 |
21.453 |
21.642 |
23.442 |
20.410 |
|
|
24.196 |
21.374 |
21.585 |
23.503 |
20.432 |
|
|
1.006 |
0.996 |
0.997 |
1.003 |
1.001 |
Source: Author’s calculation.
Based on the findings presented in Table 4, the study
assessed Argentina's trade potential with BRICS countries. This analysis allows
for a comparison between actual trade values and predicted trade values,
thereby enabling the estimation of the actual trade ratio. The outcomes are
depicted in Table 4, where
Conclusion and recommendations
This study
explores Argentina's trade prospects with BRICS nations through a gravity model
methodology. It delves into globalization and political economy concepts,
providing detailed examples of how trade influences Argentina's international
relations. The model analyses Argentina's trade dynamics with BRICS countries,
offering insights into trade volumes, economic growth, and GDP trends for each
nation involved. Key parameters of the gravity model include country size, GDP,
and distance. It highlights Argentina's economic position within the BRICS bloc
and its growth potential. Results indicate significant trade potential between
Argentina and BRICS nations, with Brazil (1.006%), China (1.003%), and South
Africa (1.001%) showing notable potential. Brazil emerges as a primary trading
partner due to shared borders and participation in MERCOSUR. Moreover, the
alignment of economic structures contributes to higher trade potential between
Argentina and Brazil, China, and South Africa.
Based on the
findings, we strongly recommend for enhancing trade and production within the
BRICS countries. Specifically, we urge relevant authorities to initiate
bilateral trade discussions with South Africa. There are several compelling
reasons for fostering trade within BRICS. Firstly, it represents one of the
fastest-growing bloc economies globally. Secondly, beyond trade, BRICS serves
as a significant hub for investment and technology transfer. Recognizing
Argentina's potential with South Africa, India, and Brazil, we propose
promoting private sector involvement through establishing new business missions
or participating in international trade fairs. These initiatives would
facilitate gathering updated market data and insights, aiding in the process of
industrialization.
Furthermore, we
recommend the implementation of new policies aimed at mitigating the impact of
exchange rate volatility, which should significantly enhance total bilateral
trade. The government ought to incentivize exporters and importers by providing
effective solutions for dealing with foreign currency issues prevalent in
Argentina. Moreover, Argentina must broaden its range of commodity and
semi-finished exports to augment value creation, with BRICS countries offering
promising opportunities in this regard. Argentina should explore deeper
engagement in the regional trade agreement known as Mercosur, which includes
Brazil, to leverage its trade potential. A thorough examination of this
regional trade pact would yield numerous benefits for Argentina and the wider
Latin American region, bolstering their international standing.
It is worth
mentioning that Argentina was invited to join the BRICS countries starting in
202420, but the new government has opted against participation21.
Consequently, we believe that decisions should be guided by empirical analysis,
prioritizing the country's interests over political considerations.
In conclusion,
this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of Argentina's economic
connections with BRICS nations, drawing from existing literature along with
factual data and statistics.
Bibliographic
references
1. Caliendo L, Parro F. Trade
policy. In: Handbook of International Economics: International Trade, Volume 5. Elsevier;
2022. p. 219–95. [consulted 2024 Feb 27]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesint.2022.02.004
2. Lalanne A, Sánchez G.
Evaluación del impacto de acuerdos comerciales: metodologías, experiencias
internacionales y aplicaciones para el caso uruguayo. 2020 Jan 9. Available from: https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/45070-evaluacion-impacto-acuerdos-comerciales-metodologias-experiencias
3.
Urien P. Qué relación comercial tiene la Argentina con los
países del bloque [Internet]. LA NACION. 2023 [consulted 2024 Feb 28]. Available
from: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/comercio-exterior/que-relacion-comercial-tiene-la-argentina-con-los-paises-del-bloque-nid31082023/
4. Shameem CC, Jayaprasad K. The evolution of BRICS in international
political economy. Am Rev Polit Econ [Internet]. 2020;15(1). Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.38024/arpe.sj.6.28.20
5. Tian X, Sarkis J, Geng
Y, Bleischwitz R, Qian Y, Xu L, et al. Examining the role of BRICS countries at the global economic and
environmental resources nexus. J Environ Manage [Internet].
2020;262(110330):110330. [consulted 2024 Feb 26] Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110330
6. Stuenkel O. The BRICS and the future of global order. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books;
2020. [consulted 2024 Feb 25] Available from: https://editorialexpedition.com/The%20BRICS%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Global%20Order.pdf
7. López Giral D., Muñoz
Navia, A. Los modelos de gravedad en América Latina: el caso de Chile y México.
Comercio
exterior. 2008 Jan 1;58(11):803–13. [consulted 2024 Feb 27] Available from: http://revistas.bancomext.gob.mx/rce/magazines/120/6/803_LopezG-MunozN.pdf
8. Martinez-Zarzoso I, Nowak-Lehmann F. Augmented
Gravity Model: An Empirical Application to Mercosur-European Union Trade Flows.
Journal of Applied Economics [Internet]. 2003 Nov [consulted 2019 Apr
10];6(2):291–316. Available from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/43996/2/martinez.pdf
9. Flores
A, Cristina A. Aplicación del Modelo de Gravedad entre Ecuador y la Unión
Europea para el periodo 2001 – 2017. UDA AKADEM. 2020 Oct 5;(6):10–45. [consulted 2024 Feb
27] Available from: https://dspace.uazuay.edu.ec/handle/datos/8849
10. Manting L. El comercio entre china y américa latina-una revisión
de la literatura. Ibero-América Studies. 2021 Apr 6;2(1):35–47. [consulted 2024 Feb 21] Available from: https://doi.org/10.55704/ias.v2i1.03
11. Gómez
KG. El impacto de la OMC en el desempeño exportador de Argentina. Divulgatio Perfiles académicos de posgrado. 2020 Aug 20;4(12):45. [consulted 2024
Feb 20] Available from: https://doi.org/10.48160/25913530di12.134
12. Simonoff A. Mercosur como política exterior argentina y sus desafíos
actuales. Lua
Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política. 2021 Apr
1;(112):123–46. [consulted 2024 Feb 20] Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/ln/a/vgJHCrWMwbN9hVTFhZHNQcg/
13. De Benedictis L, Taglioni D. The Gravity Model in International Trade.
In: The Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies. Berlin: Springer;
2011. p. 55–89. [consulted 2024 Feb 21] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16564-1_4
14. Bergstrand JH. The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some
Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence. The Review of Economics and
Statistics. 1985;67(3):474–81. [consulted 2024 Feb 20] Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1925976
15. Bergstrand JH. The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic
Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade. The
Review of Economics and Statistics. 1989 Feb;71(1):143. [consulted 2024 Feb 22] Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1928061
16. Bergstrand JH. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, The Linder
Hypothesis and the Determinants of Bilateral Intra-Industry Trade. The Economic
Journal. 1990 Dec;100(403):1216. [consulted 2024 Feb 28] Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2233969
17. Anderson J. A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The
American economic review. 1979 Mar;69(1):106–16. [consulted 2024 Feb 11] Available
from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1802501
18. Pomfret R. “Regionalism” and the Global Trade System. The World Economy
[Internet]. 2021 Jun 3 [consulted 2021 Jun 6]; Available from: https://iit.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/1194/2020-05-richard-pomfret.pdf
19. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E. Gravity with
Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review. 2003
Feb;93(1):170–92. [consulted 2024 Feb 11] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214
20. Reuters.com. [cited 2024 Feb 28]. China reaffirms support for new
nations joining BRICS as Argentina signals rejection. 2024. [consulted 2024 Feb
27] Available from: https://www.reuters.com/world/china-reaffirms-support-new-nations-joining-brics-argentina-signals-rejection-2023-11-20/
21. Le Monde with AFP. Argentina formally rejects invitation to join BRICS.
Le Monde [Internet]. 2023 Dec 29 [consulted 2024 Feb 27]; Available from: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/12/29/argentina-formally-rejects-invitation-to-join-brics_6386345_4.html
The authors report no conflicts of
interest.
Authors' contribution
•
Karen Giselle Gomez:
Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Research, Methodology, Project
administration, Resources, Software, Monitoring, Validation, Visualization, Writing,
Original Draft, Writing: review and editing.
•
Hasmik Lazyan: Research, Validation,
Visualization.
•
Amer Ma’en
Hussein Hussein: Research, Validation, Visualization.