Sustainable Development Outcomes in today’s context of multiple interests and geo-economics competition
I want to start… by gently questioning the assumption behind this framing.
The idea that development can be driven through “mutual benefit” and investment-oriented goals—
especially in a context of competing global interests.
In theory, it sounds compelling.
Align profit with development… and everyone wins.
But in practice… that alignment is not automatic.
And in many cases… it simply doesn’t hold.
Investment, by its nature, seeks returns.
It flows toward what is profitable… predictable… and low-risk.
But poverty reduction is none of those things.
It is long-term.
It is complex.
And it often requires reaching populations… that are not commercially viable in the short term.
So what we see in reality…
is that investment tends to serve those who can already participate in the market.
Those who can pay.
Those who can consume.
Those who can produce within existing systems.
And that means… the poorest are often left out—
or included in ways that still extract value from them.
[Example – grounded]
Take something as widely celebrated as mobile money.
Yes—it improves access.
Yes—it makes transactions easier.
But it also introduces costs…
that disproportionately affect low-income users.
And in many contexts, it reinforces social pressure—
where income earners are constantly expected to send money to support others.
So instead of increasing wealth…
it often just redistributes scarcity—
while taking a small cut each time.
So we have to ask—
is that poverty reduction…
or a more efficient system for circulating—and extracting from—limited resources?
[Challenge framing]
This is where the idea of “mutual benefit” becomes difficult.
Because it assumes a level playing field.
[Pause]
It assumes equal power…
to shape outcomes…
and to share in the benefits.
But that’s rarely the case.
In unequal contexts…
mutual benefit can easily become asymmetrical benefit.
Where investors capture most of the value—
and communities absorb the risks… the costs… and the long-term consequences.
________________________________________
[Geoeconomic competition]
And this becomes even more complex
in today’s context of geoeconomic competition.
Because development investments are no longer just about development.
They are also about influence.
About access.
About strategic positioning.
So projects may be framed as developmental — but primarily serve trade routes… resource access… or geopolitical interests.
Financing may come with conditions…
that create long-term dependency or fiscal pressure.
In that sense, development is not neutral.
It is shaped by competing interests— and those interests do not always align with equitable outcomes.
________________________________________
[Risks]
So when we talk about the opportunities of investment-led development…
we also need to be honest about the risks.
There is a risk of impact being overstated— what we might call impact washing.
A risk of exclusion — where the most vulnerable remain underserved.
A risk of cost burdens — where people pay for access to essential services.
And a risk of power imbalance— where priorities are driven externally… rather than locally.
________________________________________
So if we come back to the question—
how can development actors support sustainable outcomes in this context?
I would argue—
they can only do so by actively managing the tension
between investment goals and development goals…
not assuming they naturally align.
________________________________________
[Actionable points]
First—by setting clear public interest boundaries.
Not everything should be left to the market.
Essential services—finance, health, infrastructure—
must be governed in ways that protect affordability and access…
especially for low-income populations.
________________________________________
Second—by redefining what success looks like.
If success is measured primarily by financial return or scale,
then development outcomes will always be secondary.
We need metrics that prioritise
income growth… resilience… and reduction in vulnerability.
________________________________________
Third—by using ODA strategically.
Not simply to de-risk investments for private actors—
but to ensure that investments reach populations and sectors
that would otherwise be excluded.
In other words—
to correct market failure… not just enable markets.
________________________________________
Fourth—by strengthening accountability and local agency.
Communities and governments need real influence
over how investments are designed and implemented.
Otherwise, “mutual benefit” remains defined externally.
________________________________________
[Optional emphasis—keep if tone allows]
And we should be willing to say—
that some development outcomes
cannot—and should not—be driven by profit at all.
________________________________________
[Closing – slow, firm]
So to conclude— Investment can contribute to development.
[Pause]
But only under the right conditions.
Without deliberate safeguards… accountability… and a clear focus on equity—
it risks reinforcing the very inequalities it aims to address.
And in a world of competing interests… we need to be careful not to confuse strategic investment… with genuine development impact.