Skip to content Skip to navigation

Eastern and Western Paradigms: A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Infrastructure Development Models through the Jamaica Highway 2000 Case Study

TitleEastern and Western Paradigms: A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Infrastructure Development Models through the Jamaica Highway 2000 Case Study
Publication TypeThesis
Year of Publication2016
AuthorsBernet, MSolsona
Abstract

Multilateral infrastructure investments in developing nations are crucial in spurring economic growth and prosperity. While this responsibility has traditionally been undertaken by Western economies, mainly through the World Bank and its affiliates, the last decades have seen an increasing shift of this capital burden towards advanced developing nations. The differences between these two paradigms, with certain limitations, can be exemplified by studying the West’s World Bank Group (WB) and the East’s China Policy Banks (CPB). When CPB lent more money to other developing economies than the WB in 2011, many scholars deliberated the differences between these paradigms and the ensuing consequences for borrower countries. The current perception, which has kindled the hypotheses for this research paper, is that Eastern paradigm projects are financed and delivered faster, but its social, environmental and quality standards are comparatively lower. This research paper is novel in that it contrasts this hypotheses against secondary data in a two-pronged methodology: (1) archival analysis of WB and CPB policies, and (2) case study of the Highway 2000 project in Jamaica. The subsequent analysis and evaluation of both frameworks validates the paper’s hypotheses. Conclusively, three main learning points drawn from this exploration. First, infrastructure development presents a vast array of challenges, and certain projects would be simply not financeable without multilateral institutions or foreign capital. Second, eastern paradigm proves to be funded and delivered faster, but at the expense of transparency and social, environmental and quality standard. Third, borrower countries would need to recognize the subtle and more explicit differences between these models and factor the holistic consequences into its infrastructure development strategies.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon msthesismsolsonabernet.pdf3.52 MB