This article is part one of a three-part series. You can find the second part here.

Part 1: the Western approach vs. the Asian model: a path to inclusive development

The transition to global sustainability is one of the most urgent issues of our day. Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are in a unique position to play a crucial role as the globe struggles with the dual demands of environmental stewardship and development. They are essential in promoting the global sustainability agenda and assisting the Global South in continuing its development trajectory because of their capacity to raise money, offer technical assistance, and promote international cooperation. Unfortunately, a one-size-fits-all strategy frequently undermines the efficacy of MDBs, especially when it is controlled by Western-centric policies that ignore the particular opportunities and problems faced by the Global South.

The Western approach: a critique

The largely Western approach to development finance has traditionally been defined by a top-down, condition-laden structure. While well-intentioned, this method often imposes strict conditions—such as governance reforms, austerity measures, and market liberalization—that may not correspond with the local realities and goals of developing nations. It has been said that this paternalistic approach discourages creativity, weakens local agency, and prolongs dependency.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, for instance, forced recipient nations to enact extensive economic reforms during the 1980s and 1990s through the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). Although the goal of these programs was to stabilise economies and spur growth, they frequently caused social unrest, increased poverty, and weakened public services. According to a 2019 study by the Centre for Global Development, 60% of SAPs fell short of their targeted economic growth targets, and in many cases, they made inequality worse.

The limitations of the Western approach are further demonstrated by the "loss and damage fund" that was formed at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2022. The fund's implementation has been sluggish and difficult, despite the fact that it is a major step towards mitigating climate-induced losses in vulnerable nations. Only 20 billion of the 100 billion yearly climate funding pledges made by wealthy nations in 2009 had been delivered, according to the Climate Policy Initiative. The need for a more practical and inclusive approach to development finance is highlighted by this disparity.

The Asian approach: a complementary model

The Asian approach to development finance, on the other hand, provides a more cooperative and context-sensitive methodology, as demonstrated by organisations such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Mutual benefit, respect for sovereignty, and an emphasis on infrastructure that fits local needs and capabilities are all stressed by these organisations. This strategy has been successful in producing observable outcomes, especially in the fields of digital connection, transportation, and renewable energy.

Since its creation in 2016 with 57 members, the AIIB has grown to become a major force in international development funding. In contrast to conventional MDBs, the AIIB gives priority to infrastructure initiatives that support regional connectivity and sustainable growth. For example, the 250 MW Benban Solar Park in Egypt, one of the biggest solar installations globally, was funded by the AIIB. With over 1 million households receiving clean energy and hundreds of jobs created, the project, which was finished in 2019, shows how an Asian approach can have positive effects on the environment and development.

In a similar vein, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) founded the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2015 with the goal of funding sustainable development and infrastructure projects in emerging markets. With the help of the NDB's $1 billion loan for renewable energy projects in India, solar and wind farms have been built, helping the country reach its ambitious goal of 500 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030.

The role of regional context in development finance

The Asian model's emphasis on regional context is one of its main advantages. The Asian model acknowledges that every region has distinct opportunities and challenges, in contrast to the Western approach, which frequently imposes universal answers. For instance, Southeast Asia has a lot of infrastructure gaps. According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the area needs to invest $2.8 trillion in infrastructure between 2016 and 2030 in order to combat climate change, maintain growth, and end poverty. The Asian approach can provide more focused and efficient solutions by concentrating on regional concerns such as cross-border transportation networks, regional energy grids, and transboundary water management.

The importance of mutual benefit and sovereignty

The Asian approach's emphasis on respect for sovereignty and mutual benefit is another characteristic that sets it apart. The AIIB and NDB function on the tenet of equal partnership, in contrast to traditional MDBs, which frequently set conditions that put donor countries' interests first. This strategy encourages cooperation and trust, empowering recipient nations to take charge of their development plans.

For instance, the $600 million loan from the AIIB for Myanmar's Myingyan Power Plant was intended to satisfy the nation's urgent energy requirements while upholding stringent social and environmental regulations. With the project's completion in 2018, millions of people now have access to affordable and dependable power, boosting the economy and raising living standards. The AIIB has proven how development funding can be inclusive and sustainable by giving local needs and capacities priority.

The potential for South-South cooperation

The potential for South-South collaboration, which promotes mutual learning and solidarity among emerging nations, is another aspect of the Asian model. For example, since its inception in 2013, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has provided funding for infrastructure projects in more than 140 nations, many of which are in the Global South. The BRI has drawn criticism for its effects on the environment and society, but it has also shown that developing nations can work together to complete major infrastructure projects.

According to a 2021 World Bank analysis, since 2000, South-South commerce has expanded at an average annual pace of 9.5%, whereas global trade has increased at an average annual rate of 5.5%. Growing economic linkages between Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been the main driver of this expansion, underscoring the potential for South-South collaboration to promote sustainable development.

Setting the stage for part 2

Although the Western model of development financing offers advantages, its drawbacks highlight the need for a more inclusive and contextually aware approach. With its focus on reciprocal advantages, regional context, and South-South collaboration, the Asian method provides the Global South with important insights. Nevertheless, there are still several obstacles in the way of financing infrastructure, especially in the areas of green energy and grid reform. We shall go deeper into these issues in Part 2 of this article and offer practical ways that governments in the Global South and MDBs might overcome them.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.