Jeffrey Sachs’s Historical Narrative: From 1750 to the Rise of BRICS
A summary of Sachs’s historical account in his interview with Glenn Diesen
In his interview with Glenn Diesen, economist Jeffrey Sachs offers a broad historical narrative extending from approximately 1750 to the present. His central argument is of dominance by Western Europe and, subsequently, the United States over the last two and a half centuries. Sachs says that dominance is now coming to an end, as economic and political power shifts towards a world centred on China, India, Russia, and the other BRICS countries.
The world around 1750
Sachs begins his historical account from the period around 1750, when the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and economic activity was outside Western Europe. Western Europe was a relatively small part of the world in demographic and economic terms.
The subsequent rise of the West, in his account, was associated with the Industrial Revolution and increase in productive capacity that began in Britain and subsequently spread through Western Europe and North America.
The Industrial Revolution and Western ascendancy
Britain’s industrialisation transformed the balance of economic power. Mechanised production, technological innovation, expanding trade and access to energy allowed Britain to achieve an economic and military power that was increasingly disproportionate to its population.
Other European powers followed, while the United States eventually became the world’s largest industrial economy.
For Sachs, this period marks the beginning of several centuries in which the West acquired an extraordinary degree of economic, technological, financial and military power over the rest of the world.
Industrialisation, empire and colonialism
Sachs connects the rise of Western economic power with the expansion of European empires. European powers acquired colonies and established political and economic systems that extended their influence across Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The resulting international system was not simply an economic system. It was backed by military power and increasingly by global financial institutions and trade networks controlled or heavily influenced by the Western powers.
In Sachs’s historical interpretation, this produced a prolonged period of Western predominance that lasted roughly two and a half centuries.
The rise of the United States
The United States emerged from this period as the leading industrial and financial power. By the twentieth century, American economic and military strength had become central to the international system.
The two world wars further transformed the balance of power. Europe was devastated by the Second World War, while the United States emerged with an exceptionally powerful industrial economy, the world’s dominant financial position and enormous military capabilities.
The post-1945 American-centred order
After 1945, the United States became the principal power within a Western-centred international system. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were established, while the dollar became the central currency of the international financial system.
The Cold War divided the world into competing blocs, with the United States and its allies on one side and the Soviet Union and its allies on the other.
Sachs’s narrative, however, places the Cold War within the much longer history of Western ascendancy. The United States was not simply one of two superpowers: it represented the continuation of a broader Western-centred system that had emerged from the Industrial Revolution and the expansion of European power.
The collapse of the Soviet Union
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 produced what Sachs regards as a crucial turning point.
Rather than creating a genuinely cooperative international system, Sachs argues that the United States interpreted the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to consolidate American global primacy.
In his interpretation, NATO expansion, American military interventions and the attempt to preserve US geopolitical dominance became features of the post-Cold War period.
The extraordinary rise of China
The most important change in the global balance of economic power, in Sachs’s account, has been the rise of China.
China’s economic transformation following the reforms initiated under Deng Xiaoping from 1978 onwards allowed hundreds of millions of people to move out of poverty and created an enormous industrial and technological economy.
China’s rise is therefore not presented by Sachs simply as the emergence of another great power. It represents the return of a major civilisation and economic centre that had been outside the Western-centred system of power.
China’s economic growth, together with the development of India and other emerging economies, has progressively reduced the West’s share of global economic activity.
The return of a multipolar world
This brings Sachs to his principal argument about the present.
The world is no longer economically or demographically dominated by the United States and Europe. China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and other emerging economies now possess enormous economic and political weight.
The BRICS grouping is, in Sachs’s interpretation, an institutional expression of this transformation. Rather than representing simply an anti-Western alliance, BRICS reflects the emergence of countries that want greater autonomy in international affairs and greater representation in global institutions.
Sachs argues that these countries are primarily interested in economic development, technological progress, infrastructure and improved living standards rather than in reproducing the geopolitical behaviour of the great powers of the past.
Why Sachs believes Western dominance is ending
Sachs’s central historical thesis is therefore that the Western-dominated international system was a relatively recent phase of world history.
It emerged from the Industrial Revolution and the extraordinary economic and military expansion of Western Europe, followed by the rise of the United States. It lasted for roughly 250 to 300 years.
But the underlying demographic and economic conditions that sustained that dominance have changed.
The great majority of the world’s population now lives outside the traditional Western centres of power. China and India alone contain a very large proportion of humanity, while Asia as a whole has become the principal centre of global economic growth.
For Sachs, the rise of BRICS is consequently not an aberration or a temporary challenge to the existing system. It is evidence of a deeper historical transformation: the world is returning to a genuinely multipolar distribution of economic and political power.
What is distinctive about Sachs’s historical explanation
One striking feature of Sachs’s account is the emphasis he places on economic development, technology, geography, demography, institutions and geopolitical power.
He explains the rise of the West largely through the Industrial Revolution and the resulting accumulation of economic and technological power, followed by imperial expansion and the construction of a Western-centred international system.
He then explains the contemporary transformation through the rapid economic development of China, India and other emerging economies and the consequent decline in the West’s relative share of global economic activity.
What is much less prominent in this narrative is the language of Marxism, class struggle, the social relations of production or historical materialism. Capitalism appears primarily as an economic system associated with industrialisation, markets, technological development and accumulation rather than as a system of class relations.
Likewise, imperialism appears principally as an instrument and consequence of Western geopolitical and economic power rather than being analysed in the specifically Marxist sense of a stage or structural characteristic of capitalist development.
From Western hegemony to BRICS
Sachs’s historical journey from 1750 to the present therefore has a clear trajectory:
Industrial Revolution → Western economic expansion → European imperialism → rise of the United States → post-1945 American predominance → post-Cold War unipolarity → rise of China and other emerging economies → emergence of BRICS → multipolar world.
His conclusion is that the Western-centred period of world history is drawing to a close. The rise of BRICS represents, in his interpretation, not simply a challenge to the existing order but the institutional expression of a much deeper shift in the distribution of global economic and political power.
This is the historical framework through which Sachs interprets the present confrontation between the United States and the emerging multipolar world.
Ian Curr, 17 September 2026
I find much to criticise in Jeffrey Sachs’s interpretation of history. What strikes me most, however, is the school of thought represented by the self-proclaimed “realists”. This group includes John Mearsheimer, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson, Professor Glenn Diesen and, to some extent, Jeffrey Sachs, although Sachs tends towards a more idealistic position.
Some of these figures recently met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian military representatives over dinner. Mearsheimer and his colleagues reportedly put some very direct questions to Lavrov. According to Larry johnson’s account, one Russian general stated bluntly: “We expect to be at war with Europe.”
Diesen argues that Europe has effectively been at war with Russia since 2014, when Ukraine’s Moscow-aligned president, Viktor Yanukovych, was removed following the Euromaidan uprising, with the political backing of the United States and NATO countries.
That, in broad terms, is my impression of the ‘realist ‘ school led by Mearsheimer. I do not regard its leading figures as left-wing or socialist. Some might be described as liberals, but many are essentially “America First” thinkers. Mearsheimer, in particular, is quite open about viewing world affairs primarily through the interests of the United States. Mearsheimer argues that the US/Israel war is lost and that the US should pivot to Asia because that is where the real threat lies. Hardly ‘left-wing’.
I am sympathetic to this ‘realist’ group insofar as they are attempting to steer the United States, in particular, and Europe away from wars with Russia and Iran. Therein lies disaster for Ukraine and Iran. And possibly for all humanity.
Mearsheimer argues that Western attempts to weaken Russia through Ukraine have failed. Russia has become more determined, Ukraine is being progressively destroyed, and every missed diplomatic opportunity has produced a worse prospective settlement. This strikes a cord with me,
Mearsheimer assigns the principal responsibility to the United States for pursuing Ukraine’s NATO membership and using the country to weaken Russia, although he also attributes responsibility to European governments and Ukraine’s leadership (Zelenzky). He contends that, had neutrality been accepted earlier, Ukraine might still possess its pre-2014 borders including Crimea. But now, Mearsheimer says, it is likely to become a landlocked country.
Watch the interview at
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MJVoEtM-h8s&si=zxq-LmjNR3XfPuNb
I find it curious that prominent Americans claiming expertise on Russia and China have often failed to learn the languages of those countries. Mearsheimer does not speak a word of Russian, Sachs does not speak Mandarin yet claims to have intimate knowledge of China having visited there over 100 times. This raises the question of how deeply they can understand the social and political outlook of people in those societies. Perhaps they feel superior? I don’t know.
It is like trying to learn medicine or anatomy without any basic understanding of Latin; trying to understand the Italian Communist Party without studying Italian; trying to understand the Spanish Civil War or the revolution in Cuba without at least a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish; or trying to understand the French Pacific without learning French.
How, then, can these people claim to understand the subject—let alone tell us what should be done.
Their analysis is largely focused on governments, political leaders and ruling elites. It pays far less attention to class divisions, the productive power of working people and the degree of exploitation within Russia, India. South Africa, Brazil and China. Yet these are essential considerations in any serious analysis of the economic and political future of those countries and of the emerging BRICS bloc.
The end of the beginning
According to Yuliia Mendel, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s former press secretary, Ukraine’s remaining population in 2026 may be only half what it was when the country gained independence in 1991. She also claims that approximately half of those who remain are of retirement age.
Ukraine faces a profound demographic and military crisis. Desertion and draft avoidance are reportedly widespread, while many young Ukrainians have left for other European countries rather than risk being drawn into the war. More than 70,000 women now serve in Ukraine’s armed forces, including thousands in frontline positions. However, it would be inaccurate to say that Ukraine has introduced general conscription for women: their military service remains largely voluntary, although women in certain professions are required to register for possible service.
Ian Curr
18 September 2026
Pretty standard approach from a left perspective although I don’t see the dichotomy in the Sachs analysis of Imperialism and the Marxist approach.
A move to multilateralism would be the preferred transition. I see China would be sympathetic to this approach but not Russia.
Diesen is a prominent Putin agent of influence.
I notice that Sachs along with others such as Mearsheimer have consistently supported Putin’s Russia against Ukraine and both have signalled the collapse of Ukraine before the end of 2025 . Well it still stands today.
Of course Sachs never referred to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as such.