## 2 Comparison of BRI with Other Global and Regional Infrastructure Initiatives
### Investment Policy Orientation  
Unlike the BRI, which primarily relies on public bilateral loans from Chinese state-owned banks such as the China Development Bank and engages with multilateral institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the China Development Bank (CDB), and the Export-Import Bank of China (EXIM China) for infrastructure development in low- to middle-income countries, PGII focuses on attracting private sector investment through blended finance approaches, leveraging various development finance tools. These include the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM U.S.), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). Similarly, GG aims to crowd in private sector investments by leveraging EU financial frameworks such as the Instrument for Development and International Cooperation (NDICI) and the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD+). This strategy is complemented by investment programmes like the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) III, Interreg, InvestEU, and Horizon Europe, employing a mix of grants, soft loans, and guarantees. The European Commission uses the public-private partnership (PPP) model to merge public funds designated for development aid with private investments to finance infrastructure projects under the GG strategy, aiming to create a synergy where public investment attracts private capital, thereby expanding the financial base for large-scale infrastructure projects that might otherwise be too costly or risky for private entities to undertake alone ([PERSON], 2023; [PERSON], 2023; [PERSON], 2023; [PERSON], 2025). Although estimates of BRI spending vary widely, conservative figures provided by institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), William & Mary TradeAid, and UNCTAD estimate BRI funding at approximately USD 272 billion between 2014 and 2017, USD 354.4 billion between 2000 and 2014, and USD 448 billion between 2014 and 2018. When compared to GG's funding of around USD 413 billion (EUR 350 billion) between 2014 and 2018, the BRI and GG may seem comparable in terms of funding size. However, since grants tend to provide more long-term social benefits than loans because they do not require repayment, which lessens the financial burden on recipient countries, GG may have a more positive impact on infrastructural development compared to the BRI (USITC, 2021; [PERSON], 2023). In 2015, PQI allocated USD 110 billion worth of \"quality infrastructure investment\" in Asia over the next 5 years, which was increased to USD 200 billion in 2016 ([PERSON] & Sinkkonen, 2023). PQI is similar to the BRI in two ways. First, both initiatives primarily rely on official development assistance (ODA) loans for infrastructure financing in contrast to the blended finance models of PGII and GG and the investment fund-driven approach of 3 SI. Second, a significant portion of the ODA loans under both the BRI and PQI has historically been tied to the procurement of domestic inputs, thereby supporting the exporting of a country's own industries--China's and Japan's, respectively. PQI leverages public funding from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment (JOIN). However, unlike the BRI, PQI also explicitly promotes PPPs, aiming to mobilise private capital alongside public funds by utilising the Japan International Cooperation Agency's (JICA)'s Private Sector Investment Finance (PSIF) tool to enhance project quality and sustainability ([PERSON], 2021; Gaens & Sinkkonen, 2023). Similarly, the Three Seas Investment Fund (3 SIIF), under the 3 SI initiative, seeks to foster a diverse, fiscally responsible, and environmentally sustainable investment portfolio. This portfolio aims to attract private investors and international financial institutions to bridge the infrastructure gap between the Three Seas region and Western Europe.