China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to contribute to global economic growth and help countries pursue their sustainable development goals. BRI creates economic opportunities and builds infrastructure through win-win cooperation. More importantly, China is not imposing projects or its model of development; investments under the BRI are tailored to each country’s needs. Despite its purely developmental focus, the BRI has been subjected to malicious propaganda and allegations. It has been dubbed a predatory financing scheme, a debt trap, and a form of colonization. However, after a few years, opponents realized that propaganda alone did not serve their purpose; thus, they launched competing programs, including Build Back Better World (B3W) and Better Utilization of Investment Leading Development (BUILD). These programs were presented as alternatives to BRI. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the achievements of these programs, especially B3W, with those of BRI.
The BRI is grounded in the philosophy of shared prosperity and built on five pillars: inclusivity, consultation and discussion, people-centricity, cohesion, and common prosperity. The data show that during the first decade of BRI, China has invested more than US$1 trillion under BRI. This investment helped mobilize US$2.49 trillion from partner countries. Trade between China and BRI countries has increased from US$1.03 trillion to US$2.07 trillion.
Moreover, in 2019, the World Bank published a series of reports analyzing the potential impacts of the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). The reports indicate that not only BRI countries but also non-BRI countries will benefit from BRI investment. The reports estimated that BRI will reduce travel time by 12% in BRI economies and by 3% in non-BRI economies. Trade will increase by 2.7-9.7% and 1.7-6.2% in BRI and non-BRI countries, respectively. Real income will increase by 1.2-3.4% and 0.7-2.9% in BRI and non-BRI countries, respectively. GDP is expected to increase by 3.4% and 2.6% in BRI and non-BRI economies, respectively, through 2030. The BRI investment will also lift 7.6 million and 32 million people out of extreme and moderate poverty, respectively.
It is worth noting that these projections were based on US$585 billion investment across 71 countries. Now, the investment spans 153 countries and exceeds US$1.399 trillion. Thus, the benefits are expected to multiply. After a decade of successful implementation of BRI, China is further refining and expanding it and launched a small yet beautiful program in 2023. Two leading Chinese banks have already pledged US$48 billion to it, with more stakeholders joining the initiative. The BRI is also focusing on green development and has now become the largest green development program.
Contrary to BRI, the Western-led initiatives, such as B3W (later became PGII), BUILD, IMEC, etc., were launched to achieve foreign policy objectives and to undermine the BRI. The focus of all these initiatives was to mobilize private investment, with support from public investment and policy incentives. First, the USA launched BUILD and established the Development Finance Cooperation (DFC). DFC focuses on mobilizing private investment to achieve the USA’s foreign policy objectives. According to the latest data, over the past 8 years, DFC has mobilized around US$50 billion across 114 countries. Second, B3W was launched by the G-7, which did not deliver as expected and was later rebranded as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). The PGII committed to mobilizing US$600 billion by 2027, with US$317 billion from the EU (mainly through Global Gateway), US$200 billion from the USA (mainly through DFC), and US$65 billion from Japan. Italy has also aligned its Africa program with PGII. As of the end of 2025, PGII has mobilized US$410 billion, with a major contribution from the private sector and other initiatives, including Global Gateway and DFC. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero is also helping mobilize money. Thus, PGII largely depends on other initiatives.
The major investments or loans pledged under PGII, or aligned with PGII by the G-7 or other partners, are in the energy sector under the Just Energy Transition Program (JETP). The major packages under JETP are in South Africa (US$9.3 billion), Vietnam (US$15.8 billion), Indonesia (US$21.6 billion), and Senegal (US$2.5 billion). However, these are pledges, and I could not find organized data on the actual use of funds under JETP. Based on scattered sources, only a few billion have been pumped into projects.
In terms of connectivity, critical minerals, digital connectivity, and economic development, the Lobito Corridor, the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor, the Luzon Economic Corridor, the African Virtual Investment Platform, the Kenya Country Coordination Platform, AI Capacity development, Kazakhstan, and the Renewable Hydrogen Cooperation in Namibia are major interventions.
However, President Trump, through his trade war, has threatened the Western-led global economic order and is undermining its partners, including the G-7 members. He is more focused on making America great again than on investing in other countries; therefore, he is pushing partners to invest in the USA. He has forced many partners, such as Japan and the EU, to invest in the US market and buy US products. He has also secured lucrative deals from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. Therefore, commitments under PGII, rather than PGII’s future, are in doubt.
In conclusion, the analysis above indicates that the BRI, led by China, and PGII, BUILD, IMEC, etc., led by the G-7 and partners, have entirely different goals. The BRI aims to promote infrastructure development, enhance connectivity, create economic opportunities, and ensure common prosperity through win-win cooperation. By contrast, PGII and BUILD focus on achieving strategic and foreign policy goals, undermining the BRI, and ensuring dominance over critical minerals and the economic order. This is a counterproductive approach. Therefore, the West should revisit its policy, forge linkages with the BRI, and work toward human prosperity rather than hegemonic goals.
Note: the article is based on publicly available information, any correction is welcomed
