Standing shoulder to shoulder with fellow G7 leaders in 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden insisted, “This isn’t aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone,” as he unveiled the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, or PGII, a plan that seeks to rally $600 billion for critical assets around the world, according to Axios.

His promise set up a head-to-head contest with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. AidData, a research lab at William & Mary, catalogues 13,427 Belt and Road projects worth about $843 billion and notes that roughly one third face implementation snags ranging from corruption to labor disputes.

For American architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) firms, the clash is not only about money. It is about whose rules—Beijing’s speed-first approach or the G7’s emphasis on disclosure and accountability—will dictate how ports, rail lines and power grids are financed and built.

Competing Visions for Global Infrastructure

  • AidData counts 13,427 Belt and Road projects across 165 nations, paired with roughly $385 billion in opaque debt.
  • G7 leaders launched PGII in 2022, aiming to mobilize $600 billion by 2027, including $200 billion from the United States.
  • The EU’s Global Gateway, originally targeting €300 billion, now aims to mobilize around €400 billion in sustainable-infrastructure financing by 2027.
  • Western initiatives condition funding on transparency, environmental and social safeguards, and rule-of-law procurement to attract private investors.
  • Many tenders now give significant weight to governance and social impact alongside price, reshaping bid strategy for U.S. AEC firms.
  • Early projects in Angola, Mauritania and the Lobito Corridor preview how rival visions could redirect global supply chains.

BRI’s Reach and Risk Profile


Since its 2013 debut, the Belt and Road Initiative has spread to 165 countries, luring governments that need roads and power plants quickly. AidData’s 2021 dataset puts headline spending near $843 billion and counts about $385 billion in what researchers call “hidden” debt—liabilities tucked into state-owned company balance sheets and special-purpose vehicles.

New signatories keep joining despite pandemic disruptions. Colombia became the latest entrant in May 2025, underscoring how fast-tracked financing still outweighs fiscal caution for many leaders, Reuters reported.

AidData warns that roughly thirty-five percent of evaluated projects suffer major setbacks such as cost overruns, environmental hazards or political blowback. Yet demand persists because Chinese state lenders often offer turnkey packages: funding, engineers, equipment and labor in one bundle, sometimes secured by long-term mineral or land concessions.

Borrowers also find comfort in limited conditionality. Unlike multilateral banks, Chinese policy lenders rarely tie disbursements to broad governance reforms, allowing leaders to break ground quickly and claim visible victories before election cycles close.

Western Megafunds Pitch Values Over Volume


The PGII blueprint attempts to shift the debate from scale to standards. White House briefing papers outline a goal of mobilizing $600 billion by 2027, with $200 billion catalyzed by the United States through grants, export-credit guarantees and equity injections, according to White House archives.

Brussels followed a similar path with Global Gateway in late 2021. By October 2025 Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said projected mobilization could reach about €400 billion by 2027, giving the bloc firepower to back ports, fiber-optic cables and green-hydrogen corridors, Reuters noted.

Both initiatives link payouts to what officials call "high-standard" criteria: transparent procurement, safeguards on labor and the environment, and attention to debt sustainability. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation frames the approach as a way to "crowd in" private capital such as pension funds and insurers that are wary of opaque debt burdens.

In other words, Western governments want private money to shoulder a large share of future projects. Many PGII deals are structured with co-investment from multilateral banks or commercial lenders, aligning sovereign risk guarantees with private diligence processes rather than replacing them.

More Foreign Policy Articles

Infrastructure Alignments, Part IV: The Toolmakers Between Two Systems
Infrastructure Alignments, Part III: China’s Push to Pair Big Capital with Better Governance
Pipelines, Partners, and Power: Kazakhstan Rebuilds Its Oil Strategy
Rockefeller’s Pacific Pivot: How the Trilateral Commission Raised Japan to Western Equal

Dueling Business Models


Belt and Road deals typically flow from Chinese state policy banks to sovereign borrowers and are executed by state-owned enterprises. Loans are often collateralized with mineral offtake agreements or long land leases, insulating lenders if borrowers fall behind on payments.

PGII and Global Gateway invert that logic. They deploy blended finance: multilateral institutions absorb early-stage risk so private equity groups can scale projects. A $25 billion Indo-Pacific platform formed in 2024 by KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners illustrates how the model leans on institutional capital, as first detailed by Reuters.

Chinese consortiums still under-price rivals on daily labor and steel, but Western sponsors argue that transparent procurement and stronger safeguards cut lifecycle costs by reducing lawsuits, delays and stranded assets.

The result is a stark choice for host governments: accept cheaper upfront bids with fewer safeguards or pay more initially for lower legal and environmental risk over the asset’s 30-year lifespan.

Governance Becomes the Competitive Frontier


In many PGII- and Global Gateway-backed tenders, evaluation criteria now explicitly weight disclosure of supply chains, carbon footprints and worker-safety plans alongside price. Similar language is appearing in procurement rules for multilateral lenders, forcing bidders to document grievance mechanisms and long-term maintenance budgets.

That shift elevates compliance officers from back-office advisers to deal architects. U.S. AEC firms that already track emissions and audit subcontractors can showcase those systems as value adds rather than cost centers.

Chinese contractors are responding by hiring international law firms and seeking third-party ESG verifications, but observers note a credibility gap in jurisdictions where media scrutiny and public data access remain limited.

For asset owners such as sovereign-wealth funds, the governance premium is becoming more tangible. Insurance underwriters say they are increasingly weighing environmental and social disclosures when assessing political-risk coverage, tilting bid evaluations toward firms with verifiable track records.

Early Project Snapshots


In Angola, a more than $2 billion solar program announced in 2022 pairs U.S. companies Sun Africa and AfricaGlobal Schaffer with local utilities under the PGII umbrella, according to White House fact sheets and company statements. The project aims to expand grid access while reducing diesel dependence in underserved provinces.

In Mauritania, the EU signed a €269 million package in October 2025 to extend a 225 kV high-voltage line from Nouakchott to Kiffa, modernize the country’s main iron-ore railway and support green-energy budget programs. The deal, structured under Global Gateway, is led in part by the European Investment Bank and is meant to integrate renewable capacity and connect Mauritania more tightly to regional power markets.

Meanwhile, the Africa Finance Corporation is leading development of the Lobito Corridor, a rail link from northwest Zambia through the Democratic Republic of Congo to Angola’s Atlantic port, backed by U.S. development agencies. The consortium aims to blend commercial debt with concessional loans to underwrite long-haul mineral shipments, positioning the route as an alternative to eastward flows through the Indian Ocean.

Each pilot project tests whether high-standard contracts can withstand on-the-ground realities—customs delays, land-acquisition disputes and fluctuating commodity prices—without sacrificing speed.

Opportunity and Threat Matrix for U.S. AEC Firms


Opportunities arise wherever procurement scores governance on par with price. Firms that maintain ISO-certified supply-chain audits or deploy digital-twin models to forecast emissions can turn those tools into bid differentiators rather than overhead costs.

Threats persist at the commodity end of the market. Chinese state-owned enterprises still combine financing, construction and political outreach in one package, enabling rapid mobilization that American firms rarely match without multilateral support.

Strategic responses include teaming with local contractors to meet localization mandates and using modular designs that shorten build times. Several U.S. engineering groups now partner with African universities to train technicians, a move that satisfies social-impact clauses while easing labor bottlenecks.

Success ultimately hinges on demonstrating that rigorous governance trims long-term costs. As carbon pricing spreads and lenders stress-test climate risk, the calculus favors builders who can prove durability, not just low upfront bids.

Metrics and Milestones to Watch


By 2027 analysts will compare the ratio of private dollars mobilized to public dollars committed for each megafund. PGII’s architects have emphasized mobilizing multiples of private capital for every public dollar, while Global Gateway highlights how much institutional capital it can "crowd in" alongside EU budget resources.

Implementation data offer another scoreboard. Tracking disputes, cost overruns and environmental fines will reveal whether governance clauses translate into smoother delivery or merely add paperwork.

Regulatory shifts also matter. Discussions under the G20 on common debt-restructuring frameworks could raise the bar for disclosure, reducing the appeal of opaque funding even for cash-strapped governments.

Finally, carbon-border measures in the European Union and proposed climate-risk rules at U.S. agencies could penalize assets that lack robust emissions data, reinforcing the competitive edge for transparent builders.

Governance, not cash alone, is becoming a core currency of geostrategic infrastructure. Whether that proposition proves durable will determine contract flows through the decade and will set the stage for Part II of this series, which explores how data transparency itself becomes a competitive weapon.

Until then, U.S. AEC firms must play a double game: keep pace on cost while mastering the paperwork of credibility. The winners will be those who can speak fluently in both languages—steel and concrete on one hand, audit trails and ESG metrics on the other.

Sources