This article analyses the infrastructure projects in Central Asia, which are being financed by two major international organisations, two multilateral banks: the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The article aims to evaluate the activity of these two institutions in the region and to compare their priorities and the probable efficiency of their projects for the development of Central Asian countries. The choice of the region for the study is conditioned by the fact that Central Asian states are Russia’s close neighbours, and the whole region is characterised by its critical strategic value for Russia’s foreign policy. The methodology of the study is based on the use of discourse analysis of the organisations’ documents, accessible for public: agreements, plans, reports, project-related documentation. In addition, the authors have monitored and analysed the relevant news archives of Russian and foreign mass media. The article consequently analyses the typology of both organisations through the lens of the international integration studies, the institutional structure of the EDB and the AIIB, the specific features of their functioning as international relations actors, and the actual infrastructure projects financed by these institutions in Central Asia. The study demonstrates that the policies and the priorities of the two international banks differ considerably. While the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank prefers to finance the construction of roads and energy infrastructure, the Eurasian Development Bank remarkably credits production more and finances projects aimed at the industrial cooperation of Eurasian countries. Obviously, in the view of the long-term development, all areas of infrastructure expansion are worth financing; however, one can note that projects, approved by the EDB, can be characterised as more significant both at the present stage and in the long-term perspective. In addition, they contribute to the development of regional economic cooperation and Eurasian integration. If we look at the environmental and social safety of the infrastructure projects, the activities of the AIIB, regardless of its declarations on sustainable development, bear certain risks due to the existing cases of violation of environmental rules by the bank’s founder and major operator – the People’s Republic of China – in its infrastructure projects abroad. This circumstance highlights the critical importance of elaboration of national and multilateral mechanisms of control and inspection of major international infrastructure projects, as well as the necessity to fulfill the obligation of demanding their approval by the citizens of the recipient countries.
Thinking about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Can a China-Led Development Bank Improve Sustainability in Asia?