Development finance has become a geopolitical instrument. The states that deploy it most effectively are shaping the infrastructure and institutional alignments of the next generation.
From Development to Statecraft
Development finance — the provision of concessional loans, grants, and technical assistance to lower-income countries for infrastructure and institutional development — was designed as a welfare instrument: a transfer from richer to poorer countries to accelerate economic development. It has become, in parallel with its welfare function, a statecraft instrument: a mechanism through which major powers build influence, secure resource access, establish strategic presence, and shape the institutional alignments of developing economies.
The transformation is not new — development finance has always had strategic dimensions — but its visibility and the intensity of the competition have increased dramatically as China's Belt and Road Initiative demonstrated the strategic returns available from large-scale infrastructure finance and motivated a competitive response from the Western multilateral institutions and bilateral lenders. The competition between the US-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, the EU's Global Gateway, and China's BRI is explicitly a competition for influence and alignment, with development finance as the instrument.
What Recipients Want
What the recipients of this competition want is frequently different from what either side of the competition offers. Infrastructure finance without conditionality, transparency requirements, or procurement restrictions — which is broadly what China's BRI initially offered — appeals to governments that want to build quickly and without the governance requirements that Western multilateral finance imposes. Infrastructure finance at lower cost with better terms — which Western multilateral institutions can provide but have historically taken longer to deploy and have attached more conditions to — appeals to governments that are able to accept those conditions and value the governance improvements that compliance can produce.
Development finance recipients are not passive beneficiaries of great power competition. They are strategic actors extracting the best terms available from a competition that gives them leverage they would not otherwise have. The major powers that understand this will design their development finance offerings for what recipients actually want. The ones that do not will wonder why their infrastructure investments generate less political alignment than they expected.
Discussion