IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lus/reveco/v73y2022i3p223-252n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China’s Official Finance in the Global South: Whatʼs the Literature Telling Us?

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Salma

    (VISES, Victoria University, 300 Flinders Street, Level 13, Melbourne, 3000, VIC, Australia)

Abstract

In the last two decades, there have been exponential increases in Chinese loans and grants, particularly flowing to the Global South. The subsequent growth effects in the South have led to speculation about China’s development models that govern its official finance and the overall macroeconomic effects. Consequently, a considerable body of research has investigated how different Chinese development policies affect the allocation patterns and outcomes in the Global South. This paper critically reviews related scholarly works, emphasising empirical literature. It identifies that the One China Policy is unanimously the most important strategy in explaining Chinese funding, although this policy tool may not be linked to trade with China and its humanitarian assistance. Chinese finance undermines efforts to promote good governance and contributes to political extortion and environmental degradation in recipient countries by not imposing governance reform conditionality on official financing. However, this argument must be carefully weighed against the positive impact of Chinese finance on health and economic growth, among other benefits. Despite intense research efforts, further research is still needed to understand vulnerabilities associated with China’s development models. The information conveyed by the review will be of interest to foreign aid spectators seeking to learn from China’s experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Salma, 2022. "China’s Official Finance in the Global South: Whatʼs the Literature Telling Us?," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 73(3), pages 223-252, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:lus:reveco:v:73:y:2022:i:3:p:223-252:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/roe-2021-0030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/roe-2021-0030
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/roe-2021-0030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lus:reveco:v:73:y:2022:i:3:p:223-252:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.