November 2025

EU–Central Asia Economic Forum: Europe’s Renewed Push Into Post-Soviet Heartland?

|

COGGS Content Team║

IN ORDER TO get the Central Asian nations out of the clutch of Russia and China, the European Union has been pulling up its socks and contemplating the best ways to engage with the region. The Third European Union-Central Asia Economic Forum was convened in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on November 26, 2025, followed by the EU-Central Asia Summit in Samarkand. The forum hosted business leaders, investors, and government representatives from over 32 countries, where the EU contingent was led by EU Commissioners Jozef Síkela and Marta Kos.  

EU–Central Asia Economic Forum in Tashkent warmed up EU–Central Asia economic ties, with six cooperation agreements worth nearly €100 million signed across irrigation, ecology, digital geodata, and security, framing 2025 as “The Year of Europe” in the region. The EBRD highlighted its cumulative €21 billion already invested in 1,227 projects in Central Asia, while a new €3 million EU–EBRD agreement targets sustainable mining of critical raw materials to feed Europe’s green transition.

The Forum’s inking of six major €100 million deals , ranging from DATA4CRM (€7.5M) for investor-attracting geodata modernization, SECURE CRM (€3M) and GROW CRM (€3M) for transparent critical raw materials chains, the €48.8M Aral Sea restoration, to BOMCA (€12M) and CADAP (€18M) for border security and anti-drug efforts reflects a commitment of EU. 

Central Asia is comprised of five post-soviet states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, where as EU remains a 27-member European club, after UK’s exit from the bloc. EU–Central Asia Economic Forum was considered a precondition for success for both the EU’s presence in the region and for Central Asia’s desire for increased business with Europe. Central Asian Development projects are subjected to create a sustainable future, generate jobs, establish value chains, and generate wealth in the region. The drives are simultaneously intended to increase the economic security and resilience for Europe.  

The economic partnership is currently at a pivotal juncture, with discussions focusing on strengthening regional connectivity and exploring sustainable investment opportunities. The habitat of 80 million Central Asia is readying herself to accommodate 100 million people by 2050.  The central asian nations have shown great camaraderie on regional and international issues, despite internal tussles back home. 

The economic engagement between the EU and Central Asia is based upon couple of factors ranging from bilateral commerce, particularly with Uzbekistan, and substantial financial allocation from European institutions. 

The EU maintains its position as Uzbekistan’s largest investor. In 2024, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) allocated a total of two billion euros to Central Asia. Of this figure, 85 million euros were allocated specifically to Uzbekistan.

GDP of the Central Asian nations. Data: IMF. Chart: The Times of Central Asia.

EU is one of Central Asia’s primary trading partners, accounting for 24.7% of the region’s combined foreign trade in 2024, with overall trade volume reaching approximately €54 billion ($60 billion ). EU imports from Central Asia surged 68% in 2024, dominated by commodities like crude oil, gas, metals, and cotton fiber, especially from Kazakhstan, where EU trade hit €45 billion and Kazakhstan sends 37% of its exports to the EU—while EU exports to the region, mainly machinery, transport equipment, and manufactured goods, dipped slightly by 5%. Key frameworks include the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (EPCA) with Kazakhstan since 2020, Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP/GSP+) for Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, plus recent €12 billion Global Gateway investments in transport (i.e Middle Corridor), critical raw materials, green energy, and digital connectivity, alongside €100 million in new deals from the 2025 Tashkent Forum.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has emerged as the leading institutional investor in Central Asia. It has provided over €2.26 billion to 121 projects in 2024 alone and mobilizing more than €3 billion for the region’s real economy, with a strong focus on private-sector development, sustainable infrastructure, and green transition. 

 

 

Whereas Brettonwoods institution IMF usually focuses macroeconomic stabilization, balance-of-payments support, and policy advice through instruments and capacity-building platforms (such as CCAMTAC center in Almaty), EBRD is primarily a project-based lender and equity investor designed to boost market-oriented economies and crowd in private capital. World Bank’s Central Asia portfolio, on the other hand, underscores large-scale public-sector investments and policy reforms in areas such as social services, connectivity, and climate resilience, operating one of its largest programs globally in the region, while Asian Development Bank (ADB) positions itself as a regional development financier with a strong focus on infrastructure, regional integration, and knowledge support.

EBRD’s niche lies in its deep local presence, its role as the largest green lender in Central Asia. About 58 percent of EBRD 2024 financing supported green economy projects and its capacity to work directly with firms and municipalities, often co-financing alongside World Bank and ADB and complementing IMF policy conditionality rather than competing with it. This makes the EBRD a critical bridge between macro-level reform agendas driven by the IMF and World Bank and the micro-level, commercially oriented investments needed to embed market disciplines, support SMEs, and operationalize the region’s shift toward sustainable, diversified growth.

As the European nations are finding alternatives of Russia and China for essential energy supplies, Central Asia appears to be the perfect fit. The forum has positioned Central Asia as a multipolar transit hub via Trans-Caspian routes while  generating local jobs and green reforms. 

EU–Central Asia Economic Forum: Europe’s Renewed Push Into Post-Soviet Heartland? Read Post »

Victor Gao on China’s Perspective on US, Development, and Worldview

|

 

COGGS Content Team

[ The Thinker: Victor Gao is a notable Chinese legal scholar, businessman, and geopolitical commentator known for his extensive work on China’s rise and global strategic affairs.  He is the Vice President of Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing based think tank. He has authored, co-authored, and edited over 25 books in English and Chinese, advocating that China’s modernization and global engagement represent a restoration of historical balance rather than domination, with a focus on sovereignty, mutual development, and non-Western narratives of democracy and human rights.

His ideas emphasize China’s firm stance on national unity concerning Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, criticize Western liberal universalism, and position China as a pragmatic force in a multipolar world fostering cooperation in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Gao was a English interpreter for the Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping.]

Thinker Victor Gao, Irina Sarenko, Professor of Russian Academy of Sciences, Mohammad Saqib, Convenor of COGGS in a TV Panel. [Courtesy: CGTN Screengrab ]
China’s View of America and the Dynamics of Misunderstanding and Decoupling

China, according to Professor Gao views the United States through a lens of economic engagement, policy critique, and strategic caution, particularly regarding Washington’s approach to global trade and re-industrialisation efforts. 

The fundamental Chinese view is that the United States is currently pursuing economic policies, specifically tariffs whichare misleading the citizen of America. In a podcast with Indonesian podcaster Gita Wirjawan, Professor Gao opines that US presidents lack the “courage and the decency and the honesty to tell the American people that the tariffs they are talking about are fundamentally going to be paid by the American people”. He argues that these tariffs “are an additional tax against the American people”. Furthermore, he critiques the idea of “fair trade” without “free trade,” stating plainly: “there will be no fair trade without free trade”.

On re-industrialisation, China presents itself as the definitive expert, highlighting its success since 1978. If the US is “really serious about bringing back manufacturing jobs,” President Trump “needs to talk to China”. China is the world’s “most important industrialized country,” capable of producing over 200 different items recognised by the UN system, with production normally constituting “more than 50% of the global production”. However, for the US to achieve re-industrialisation, Professor Gao advises necessary preconditions, including ensuring US power generation is “minimally doubled if not increased by three times,” and that American container ports become “very very efficient”. The implication is that the US has not done its “solid homework” necessary for success.

 

 

China firmly rejects the concept of ‘decoupling.’ Attempting to decouple the economies is likened to “talking about decoupling the earth from the moon”. Should such an attempt succeed, “mankind will be hit with a greater disaster and peace may disappear and war may be initiated”. Decoupling risks plunging mankind into a crisis, forcing countries into “opposing blocks meant for war rather than peace”. Furthermore, decoupling may severely impact the US’s own ‘national defense strategy,’ especially regarding access to ‘the rare earth that China is providing,’ which is necessary for advanced military technology.

Geopolitically, the US is seen as susceptible to ‘overreach,’ a concept drawn from the historical analysis of great empires. China observes that the US, after attaining primacy post-Cold War, has ‘fought one war after another’, spending trillions in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US overreaches, it risks its “own demise”. China sees the US’s complete support for Israel amid the Gaza crisis as a contemporary example of overreaching ‘to do the wrong thing’, denying the ‘basic rights of the Palestinian people in their own homeland’. Professor Gao urges the US to use its ‘tremendous amount of might’ to be a “noble leader” that champions “philosophy use morality use rule of law to do the right thing”.

 

China on Southeast Asia / ASEAN and Regional Development Strategy 

From the Chinese perspective, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its 11 member states are “very very important” partners and neighbours with historical ties spanning thousands of years.

China views its relationship with ASEAN highly, noting that the “Azan China trade is the largest trade volume as far as China’s concerned”. Despite the success of ASEAN as a regional organisation, China perceives it as “one of the most highly fragmented regional grouping in the world”. This fragmentation is attributed to differing historical colonial imprints (British, French, Dutch, Spanish, US), diverse languages, religious beliefs, and natural endowments.

China’s primary recommendation for ASEAN’s improved development, especially in light of China’s superior GDP per capita growth over the last 30 years – is to improve integration and connectivity. Professor Gao emphasises that “internal integration improvement of connectivity” is crucial. Quoting a Chinese saying, he stresses: “if you really want to make riches build a road”. He highlights the need for improved highways, railways, and other connectivity links throughout the region, including extending infrastructure from the Chinese border southward and linking archipelagic nations like Indonesia and the Philippines internally.

Regional Stability

China places a “premium on peace and stability” in Southeast Asia. The existence of frictions and conflicts (such as those involving Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Cambodia) is considered “very traumatic from the Chinese perspective”.

Regarding bilateral tensions, such as territorial disputes with the Philippines, China insists on using “diplomacy and negotiation”. China strongly advises against the Philippines becoming “a proxy of another major power which may actually destroy our part of the vote”. While China does not wish to “impose our views or our values” on ASEAN, it offers its post-1978 transformation as a “textbook” example for ASEAN member states seeking to accelerate development. China believes it possesses a “better recipe” for rapid economic growth, evidenced by the fact that China’s economic size is now about five times as big as India’s, though they were “more or less comparable with each other” in 1978. China also maintains a willingness to learn from smaller nations, citing Singapore’s effective governance and anti-corruption measures as a specific example.

 

Economics, Development, and Statecraft: The China Model

China’s current approach to economics, development, and statecraft is fundamentally rooted in the legacy and vision of Deng Xiaoping, whom Professor Gao served as an interpreter.

The Vision of Deng Xiaoping

Premier Deng Xiaoping is described as the “transformer of China” who ‘not only changed the China he also changed the world’. Deng’s vision was based on strategic foresight, projecting China’s path decades into the future, up to the middle of the 21st century. His core principle was integrating China with the rest of the world ‘on equal terms,’ believing China could achieve what developed countries did through “peace through peaceful coexistence” rather than ‘wars and conquests and colonizations’.

The Priority of Development For China, “development should always be the hard truth”. The path to modernization requires that China “constantly improve yourself constantly innovate and recreate yourself”. China’s vast industrial capabilities—including its industrial output being ‘more than the combined amount of the United States Japan Germany and quite a few other leading manufacturing countries’—were achieved by ‘following the principle of free trade’ and ‘working very hard in very disciplined way’. This success was attained without “firing any single shot at any country in the world,” or “engaging in slavery or exploitation”.

Core Principles of Statecraft China commits to three major principles in its statecraft: global integration, non-hegemony, and mutual respect.

Globalization is an ‘irreversibility’ and the ‘mega trend’. China views the world as a ‘highly interconnected world and very much integrated into one small global village’. Policies promoting ‘reverse globalization’ or trying to ‘create walls’ are against the fundamental interests of the world.

China seeks a ‘multipolar world a multilateral world’ where all civilizations have ‘an equal chance to perform and no one should be allowed to dominate the world’. China pledges to “always view other countries now we have about 200 countries in the world big or small as an equal”. 

 

China seeks to be a force for good, promoting stability and ensuring that the global community defends “free trade”. China also uses its position in the world to advocate for human rights and justice, such as its continued leadership in calling for the “two-state solution” and defending the “legitimate interests of the Palestinian people” in the UN Security Council. This stance is presented as adhering to the principle of respecting the dignity and rights of all people, viewing them “as much human beings as you and me and rest of mankind”.

Victor Gao on China’s Perspective on US, Development, and Worldview Read Post »

South Africa’s G20 Presidency, Global South Concerns and the Outcomes

|

[  The 2025 G20 Summit, held from 22 to 23 November 2025 in Johannesburg, marked the first-ever G20 summit hosted on the African continent. Under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability,” the nation known for its social prestige and political merit, used this historic presidency to highlight Africa’s development priorities and the broader Global South agenda, stressing climate adaptation, debt relief, inclusive industrialization, and global governance reform. The summit faced the absence of key leaders, including US President Donald Trump, who boycotted the event while criticizing the South African presidency for its perceived divergence from the G20’s consensus principle. Amid chaos and wars, the summit secured a landmark Leaders’ Declaration addressing global inequalities.]

 

COGGS Content Team

SOUTH AFRICA’s PRESIDENCY of the G20, marking the first African G20 presidency, represented a significant moment for Global South to assert its collective aspirations for systemic reform and economic justice. The summit in the heart of Africa utilized diplomatic stature and coalition-building to illuminate the aspirations, contributions, and critical frustrations of Global South. The core of South Africa’s mandate was the resolute rejection of outdated and non-functional paradigms and a forceful demand for a “global reset”. South Africa recognized that current economic concepts and theories often prove inapplicable to the challenges faced by Global South and appealed for the renegotiation and review of existing global structures.

In its presidency, South Africa highlighted how the status quo is detrimental to low-income global south economies, especially concerning debt management. The focus was on mobilizing finance for essential transitions, such as a just energy transition, and harnessing critical minerals for inclusive growth. This push for new international architecture moves beyond the G20’s original finance-centric origins and it further demands systems that are fundamentally more inclusive as well as equitable.

South Africa championed the need to give WTO (World Trade Organization) more impetus to effectively deal with disputes and unilateral trade decisions. Such act reflects a collective desire among Global South members to defend themselves against larger economies whose actions might harm developing nations.

A major institutional success and reflection of sustained South-South advocacy was the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent G20 member. Bringing African voice within global governance forums is immensely significant.

During the G20, perhaps the most potent and humanely critical issue tables by South Africa was the crisis of debt sustainability for low-income countries. Approximately 74 countries of the Global South are either defaulting or on the verge of defaulting, urgently requiring debt renegotiation. The current debt arrangement is widely considered not favorable to these low-income Global South economies as highly increased interest rates hit and hurt them fiercely.

There’s a serious need to revise and reform Common Framework for Debt Treatment, initiated by G20 and Paris Club. The difficulty of this negotiation lies in bringing together disparate creditors—ranging from large banks to private lenders—who hold varying interests, making the negotiation process “agonizingly complex and slow”. The setting up of the Africa Expert Panel signalled an active attempt to design debt frameworks attuned to the developing countries’ interests and ensure fair as well as transparent practices.

South Africa, as the continent’s sole G20 member, successfully pushed the African agenda to the top of the global stage, demonstrating its role as an important global player and a “moral authority” on certain issues.

To ensure relevance and focus, the presidency commissioned an Africa report specifically related to the finance track stream to analyze continental challenges, alongside a report on inequality. Furthermore, the presidency, alongside Brazil, prioritized the Social Summit. This initiative was vital for ensuring that global economic policies address grassroots concerns and capture the views of ordinary people, specifically addressing endemic issues such as youth unemployment, gender-based violence (GBV), and housing shortages, which were raised by South African citizens.

G20 Leaders’s at Johannesburg Summit. Credit: The Presidency Secretariat, South Africa

 

Despite the advancements made, South Africa’s presidency confronted the realpolitik of global governance. The sources reveal a pronounced global fragmentation and resistance from powerful economies. The challenge of achieving consensus often stalled ambitious reforms; resistance came from the G7 and wealthier western economies, which displayed a limited appetite for the agenda items tabled by South Africa, particularly around debt relief and climate finance. This difficulty was evidenced by the fact that only one out of four finance ministerial summits resulted in an official communiqué.

South Africa’s diplomatic approach, however, was to maintain focus on key issues and avoid a “shouting match,” thereby safeguarding the stature of the first African G20 presidency.

The enduring challenge to realizing the tangible benefits outlined in the declaration remains the lack of a force of law to compel implementation. Systemic reform hinges heavily on sustained “political will,” raising concerns that the momentum built by the developing South might “regress” when the presidency transitions back to the developed North (e.g., the United States), potentially narrowing the focus solely back to the finance track and neglecting the broader social and equity agenda.

 

Global South spoke her mind at Johannesburg, loud and clear. Ensuring peace and stability were central to the G20 summit declaration, which prioritized a comprehensive and lasting peace in conflict zones including Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Palestinian territory, and Ukraine. Guided by the principles of the UN Charter, the G20 leaders committed to renewed diplomatic efforts to achieve sustainable peace and condemned terrorism in all its forms. The declaration also tabled pointed emphasis on the seriousness of climate change, marking a clear rebuke to US President Donald Trump, who boycotted the summit and has expressed skepticism about human-induced global warming. The summit’s enduring legacy rests on its demonstration that determined leadership, coalitional strategy, and an insistence on equity can steer global governance closer to the interests of global south, even while acknowledging that systemic global reform remains incremental, not transformative. In the dawn of multipolarity, South Africa embarked on its 2025 G20 presidency with a resolute vision to realign the global economic architecture toward greater equity, inclusivity, and sustainable development, firmly asserting the interests of the Global South amid rising geopolitical fragmentation.

South Africa’s G20 Presidency, Global South Concerns and the Outcomes Read Post »

COP30: Geo-Climate Politics, Climate Finance and Global South

|

COGGS Contents Team

The thirtieth Conference of the Parties (COP30),  convened in Belém, Brazil, placed the financial and ethical demands of the Global South (Emerging Markets and Developing Countries, or EMDEs) at the core of the global climate agenda. The necessity of new financial mechanisms, and the crucial role of equity were among the top take aways from COP30. 

With the theme, “Building the Financial and Ethical Foundations for a Just Transition”, COP30 become a defining moment for the Global South to assert leadership amid rising climate and political heat. With the U.S. under President Trump turning inward and the EU distracted by internal strains, Global South actors like Brazil, India, South Africa and China are filling the vacuum with a more equitable climate agenda. More from the south are joining the league for a greater cause. COP30 has focused on climate finance, adaptation and a just transition, with Global South nations pressing Western economies to honour commitments on funding and loss-and-damage. Initiatives such as the Tropical Forests Forever Facility and proposed exclusion zones for sensitive ecosystems underscore their push to protect biodiversity while advancing clean energy.

Strengthened South–South cooperation, new plurilateral coalitions and calls for coordinated fossil-fuel phase-out plans all signal a big shift in climate politics. COP30 marks a turning point where the Global South is not just demanding climate justice but demonstrating its capacity to lead—if promised financial and technological support is finally delivered.

I. The Critical Finance Gap: A Question of Survival

The fundamental perspective driving COP30’s outcomes is the recognition that without massive financial mobilization, the climate goals of the Paris Agreement will not be met, and for many vulnerable nations, access to funds is “a matter of survival”.

Extreme Financial Disparity While global climate finance flows reached USD 1 trillion in 2023, the vast majority bypasses the Global South. The core finding of the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers’ report is highly indicative of this crisis: “Global climate finance flows for all countries hit an all-time high of USD 1 trillion in 2023, more than doubling in three years, but only around 10% goes to Emerging Markets and Developing Countries (EMDCs), while less than 5% goes to adaptation. The lower bound of global estimated climate finance needs – USD 6 trillion – is still 3 times more than current flows” (source: page 9/ COP30 Circle of Finance Minister’s report )

Scale of EMDE Needs The developed world must massively scale up financial flows to EMDEs. EMDEs require investment of at least USD 2.4 trillion per year by 2030 and USD 3.3 trillion per year by 2035 to meet their needs for clean energy, adaptation, loss and damage response, natural capital, and a just transition.

Concrete Need: Adaptation The adaptation finance gap is stark: global adaptation needs are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually by 2030, yet international public flows reached only USD 28 billion in 2022.

COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers Report_Final

II. New Financial Architecture for Implementation

COP30 focused on creating concrete mechanisms to ensure finance flows are directed “quickly, transparently and fairly” to those most in need.

 Baku-to-Belém Roadmap The Roadmap is positioned as a collective pathway for scaling climate finance for developing countries from all sources through 2035. The goal is to unlock the $1.3 trillion annually required. The COP30 Presidency stressed that delivering this ambition hinges on coordinated reforms across five priority action areas, including MDB mandates and domestic investment frameworks.

Concrete Mechanism: Country Platforms Brazil and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) strengthened investment architecture through new Country Platforms and a Country Platform Hub. These platforms are a major step towards aligning global support and investments with national climate priorities.

[Context: These platforms help countries integrate proposed climate plans into broader economic frameworks, and 13 countries released plans to develop them through the GCF readiness program. GCF Executive Director Mafalda Duarte noted that national platforms represent a strategic opportunity to bring together government, the private sector, and development partners to “identify priority policies and investments, as well as align public and private, international, and domestic financing”.]

A solitary tree stands against a cracked, arid landscape under a cloudy sky, illustrating drought and desertification.

III. Equity and Justice through Solidarity Levies and Local Recognition

The Global South nations emphasized that finance must be fair and debt-avoiding, reflecting the “polluter-pays principle”.

Concrete Mechanism: Solidarity Levies Leaders reaffirmed the growing global momentum behind solidarity levies as an essential tool for generating fair, more predictable, and debt-averting climate finance.

[Context: These levies target high-emitting, undertaxed sectors such as aviation, shipping, financial transactions, and cryptocurrencies, mobilizing concessional resources for adaptation, resilience, and loss-and-damage. The Premium Flyers Solidarity Coalition expanded to include countries like Benin, Nigeria, Fiji, and Vanuatu.]

 Laurence Tubiana, COP30 Special Envoy to Europe, stated: “The launch of the Premium Flyers Solidarity Coalition proves that solidarity levies can move from ideas to reality. This is only the first step. Now I call on more countries to join us at COP30 and turn this momentum into lasting global change”.

 

Inseparability of Justice and Action UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock stressed that “Climate action and social justice are inseparable,” noting how climate instability drives social crises: “Climate insecurity fuels hunger and poverty, poverty drives migration and conflict; and conflict, in turn, deepens poverty and deters investment”.

Local Demands: Indigenous Leadership Indigenous leaders attending the COP, including Chief Raoni, called for protection of standing forests and recognition of Indigenous leadership. They stressed that commitments on climate finance “hold meaning only when they translate into the protection of standing forests and the recognition of Indigenous leadership”.

IV . Climate Action as an Engine for Global South Growth

COP30 framed investment in the climate transition not as a cost, but as an opportunity for sustainable growth, offering tangible benefits for the Global South economy and population.

Economic Opportunity: Studies suggest that boosting green investment rates by 3–5% in EMDCs can “spur global growth, strengthen energy security dependence, and unlock millions of decent jobs”. Accelerated climate action is viewed as the foundation for a new era of sustainable, inclusive growth.

 UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell underscored this economic perspective: “When finance flows, ambition grows,” enabling implementation that creates jobs, lowers the cost of living, improves health outcomes, protects communities and secures a more resilient, prosperous planet for all.

The Cost of Inaction: The cost of delaying action is enormous, disproportionately affecting developing objectives. Long-term scenarios suggest that under current climate policies, global GDP could be up to 15% lower by 2050 compared to a world without climate change. Climate-related disasters are already causing severe economic losses, reaching USD 320 billion globally in 2024.

COP30: Geo-Climate Politics, Climate Finance and Global South Read Post »

Unite & Rise, Follow China’s Light, Jeffrey Sachs tells Africa

|

COGGS Content Team

IN A PODCAST INTERVIEW with Fidias Panayiotou, a Cypriot politician, and YouTuber-turned-independent Member of European Parliament, Economist Jeffrey Sachs stressed Africa’s unification and adopting China’s model for future prospects. Sachs, acclaimed for his bold strategies in poverty reduction, economic reform, and addressing global challenges such as climate change and disease control, argued that unity is essential for Africa’s success: When asked if this division will change, he stated, “they will unite it they have to.“.

Sachs, a staunch critic of the Western powers, explained the size and structure of the African continent, contrasting it with unified nations like India and China.

“Africa if you add up the 55 countries of the African Union that’s about 1.5 billion people same size as India same size as China,” he elucidated. He further told that a crucial difference lies in the history of imperial domination: “the big difference is that the imperial powers divided Africa into 55 little countries not one of which can thrive on its own“. In contrast, “India and China because of the history remained unified countries after,” he said in the podcast.  He emphasized this need for continental cohesion: “I tell them every single time I have the opportunity that the African Union is the key as 55 you can’t make it but as one African continental economy you can make it. “

In the two-hour long podcast, published on 31 Oct 2025, speaking widely on Africa, China, World Economy, and his current business, Jeffrey Sachs mentioned three points he prescribe the African leaders.

I. “first be Africawide” (meaning unity).

II. “second get on quickly with mass education because that is the key to the economic development”.

III. “third look at what China did follow that model“.

 

Africa : The Future of the Century

Speaking on Africa’s demography and future, he said “what’s happening now is Africa’s population is continuing to rise it’s the only place in the world with rapid population growth”. Regarding the rest of the world, he noted that “everyone else has peaked or just about to peak or actually beginning a decline”.

Sachs provided significant figures, presenting future demographic shifts: “Africa’s population today is 1.5 billion by 2050 it’ll be 2.5 billion that’s a lot adding a billion people in the next quarter century“. “if you go even farther and just try to extrapolate based on current trends Africa’s population reaches about 3.5 billion and according to the UN most recent forecast 3.7 billion by the end of the 21st century“.

This growth will radically transform the global balance: “Africa goes from being 9% of the world population to being more than 30% of the world population it’s going to be completely different world,” he said in the interview. 

 

 

Rise Africa, follow China’s Light

Jeffrey Sachs prescribed China model as the significant and applicable blueprint for Africa’s rapid development. He highlighted that around 1980, China was impoverished with a poverty rate even higher than Africa today, yet through opening up its economy and implementing strong policy measures, China transformed into a high-income economy and became the world’s largest economy by purchasing-power parity over 40 years.

Sachs further identified key growth pillars for Africa, inspired by China’s success: massive investments in education to build skills, infrastructure development including power, digital access, and transport, and fostering a vibrant private sector supported by enabling policies . He stresses the necessity for a mix of domestic resource mobilization and international financing at low costs to fund this development. Sachs contrasts the China model with the traditional IMF approach, favouring the former’s focus on state-led strategic investment and policy reform.

Jeffrey Sachs’ academic paper “Economic Reforms and Constitutional Transition” (2000) co-authored with Wing Thye Woo and Xiaokai Yang, insightfully highlights the risks of state opportunism during transitions and the high costs of gradual dual-track reforms. The widely cited paper presents a nuanced perspective on economic reform by linking it to political constitutional transition. Using China and Russia as contrasting case studies, Sachs went on to argue that economic reforms cannot be fully understood outside the broader political context. China’s success, according to this paper, is due to economic reforms occurring within a stable political monopoly, whereas Russia’s problematic transition was marked by political competition and constitutional struggles.

His 1997 paper, that appeared in the dawn of globalisation, “Economic Reforms in China and India: Selected Issues in Industrial Policy,” co-authored with Nirupam Bajpai and Tianlun Jian, provides a comparative analysis of the reform experiences in these two populous nations. Sachs highlights China’s far-reaching deregulation, especially in labor and price reforms, and the superior performance of China’s township and village enterprises and special economic zones. The paper underscores how China’s market-oriented reforms have outstripped India’s more cautious approach, attributing China’s rapid economic growth to the strategic policy environment that fosters private sector dynamism, foreign investment, and export-led development.

As demographic shifts are taking place, Jeffrey Sachs has emphasized that Africa should replicate China’s comprehensive economic opening, infrastructure investment, regional integration, and skill development to achieve rapid and sustained growth. To implement these goals, Africa needs to be united, as no single country could sustain itself alone according to the acclaimed economist.

Unite & Rise, Follow China’s Light, Jeffrey Sachs tells Africa Read Post »

Scroll to Top