Why Zimbabwe’s BRICS Bank Membership Changes Everything

By Lovemore Chikova

Zimbabwe’s admission into the New Development Bank (NDB), widely known as the BRICS Bank, marks one of the most significant economic and diplomatic milestones in the country’s post-independence history.

Beyond simply joining another international financial institution, the development opens a new pathway for long-term infrastructure financing, industrialisation and sustainable economic transformation at a time when the country is pursuing Vision 2030.

The vision envisages Zimbabwe becoming an upper-middle income economy by 2030. For more than two decades, Zimbabwe has operated under severe financing constraints after access to concessional funding from traditional Bretton Woods institutions, principally the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, became extremely limited.

Although the official reasons have centred on arrears, governance concerns and lending policies, Zimbabwe has consistently argued that the country’s isolation has also reflected political considerations and the impact of Western sanctions, which have complicated efforts to normalise relations with international financial institutions.

Against this background, membership of the BRICS Bank represents far more than access to new credit lines.

It signals Zimbabwe’s integration into an emerging global financial architecture that seeks to provide developing countries with alternative sources of development finance based on greater equality, mutual respect and national ownership of development priorities.

A breakthrough for Zimbabwe

Announcing Zimbabwe’s admission during the Zimbabwe Industrialisation Conference and Expo 2026 last week, Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion Minister, Professor Mthuli Ncube, described the development as a major achievement.

“Yesterday we were admitted… we are now a member of the BRICS Bank. So, you can now access capital from the BRICS Bank. We will make a formal announcement properly later,” he said.

His announcement immediately positioned Zimbabwe among a growing list of developing nations seeking alternative development financing outside the traditional Western-dominated financial system.

Professor Ncube said the new membership would significantly expand financing options for industrial development.

“These credit facilities are going to grow, and they are also a source of financing for industry,” he said.

The timing could not be more appropriate.

Zimbabwe is aggressively pursuing industrialisation through value addition, infrastructure rehabilitation, energy expansion, mining beneficiation, agricultural modernisation and manufacturing revival.

All these sectors require billions of dollars in long-term financing that commercial banks are generally unable or unwilling to provide because of the lengthy repayment periods involved. Zimbabwe’s National Development Strategy and Vision 2030 both place industrialisation at the centre of economic transformation.

Achieving these ambitions requires substantial investment in areas such as energy generation and transmission, road and railway rehabilitation, water infrastructure and manufacturing.

The other areas that need investment are mining value addition and beneficiation, digital infrastructure, agriculture and irrigation, pharmaceutical production and Special Economic Zones.

Membership of the BRICS Bank significantly improves Zimbabwe’s ability to mobilise financing towards these priority sectors.

Professor Ncube highlighted that the Government is already implementing complementary financing initiatives through the Industrial Development Fund, the National Venture Fund and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe concessionary facilities.

The BRICS Bank now provides an additional layer of financing capable of supporting larger strategic investments.

Long-standing concerns over global financial system

The establishment of BRICS Bank reflects broader dissatisfaction among developing countries with the structure of the post-Second World War international financial architecture.

For decades, governments across Africa, Asia and Latin America have argued that institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have not adequately reflected the interests of developing nations despite them accounting for the majority of the world’s population.

One of the principal criticisms concerns governance.

Voting power within both the IMF and the World Bank is largely determined by members’ financial contributions, giving advanced economies, particularly the United States and Western European countries, significant influence over major decisions.

As a result, many emerging economies have argued that these institutions no longer reflect the realities of a multipolar global economy.

Another criticism relates to lending conditions.

IMF-supported programmes have frequently required governments facing financial crises to implement fiscal austerity measures, reduce public spending, liberalise markets and undertake structural reforms as conditions for financial assistance.

While the IMF argues that such measures are necessary to restore macroeconomic stability, critics contend that, in most cases, these programmes have reduced governments’ ability to invest in healthcare, education, infrastructure and industrial development during periods when such investments were most needed.

These criticisms have contributed to growing support for alternative development finance institutions such as the BRICS Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which seek to expand financing options for emerging economies.

A different philosophy of development

The significance of the BRICS Bank extends beyond the money it lends. Since its establishment, the institution has sought to demonstrate that development financing can be conducted differently.

Speaking at various international forums, BRICS Bank president, Ms Dilma Rousseff, has consistently emphasised that the institution was created to respond to the aspirations of developing countries.

She has described the bank as “a bank by the Global South for the Global South”, stressing that its objective is to support member countries’ own development priorities rather than prescribe uniform policy solutions.

Ms Rousseff has emphasised that the bank respects national sovereignty and seeks to provide financing without imposing the extensive policy conditionalities that have historically accompanied some international lending programmes.

This philosophy has resonated strongly with many developing countries that have argued for reforms in global financial governance.

The BRICS Bank seeks to complement, rather than replace, existing institutions while giving emerging economies greater influence in determining development priorities.

Lovemore Chikova is the Deputy Editor of The Sunday Mail with qualifications in media studies, strategic communication and development studies.

The Sunday Mail