Tariq Saeedi
In the quest for economic advancement, developing countries often turn to foreign investments that must eventually be repaid, like loans for critical infrastructure and growth initiatives.
These inflows can spark progress, but they frequently come with terms that subtly influence national policies, potentially eroding economic autonomy and the freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy. The net benefit to the recipient nation can sometimes seem overshadowed by these wider implications, sparking a hunt for more equitable paths forward.
One compelling alternative is micro-investments and mini-investments—those smaller, coordinated funding contributions that could partly or entirely supplant large-scale, centralized deals.
Envision friendly nations, particularly those at comparable development stages, each chipping in manageable amounts toward a common project without imposing unrelated conditions. By syncing these mini-investments, the outcome rivals what a single mega-investment might deliver, yet the recipient keeps full reins on direction and priorities.
This decentralized, non-institutionalized approach shines because it bypasses the stiff structures of traditional lending, letting countries protect their economic liberty and foreign policy sovereignty.
Free from centralized attachments, nations can tailor projects to their unique needs, cultivating resilience and authentic self-determination. It dovetails perfectly with South-South cooperation, where Global South partners trade resources and know-how as peers, producing results that uplift everyone involved.
Of course, there are routes that sidestep any direct foreign investment altogether, even if they require initial sacrifices and a slower tempo. Rallying domestic resources—such as local savings, community funds, or government programs—allows for step-by-step project construction.
This path tests patience and might stretch timelines, but it fosters self-reliance, reduces outside vulnerabilities, and sharpens indigenous capabilities for enduring effects.
Hybrid setups mixing modest public and private inputs can magnify efforts without leaning heavily on external capital. Though tough at the outset, these tactics lay the groundwork for development anchored in local ingenuity and ownership.
To illustrate, think of a cross-border gas pipeline threading through several countries. Instead of one colossal loan blanketing the whole endeavor, slice it into bite-sized parts: one partner supplies pipes via a modest contribution, another handles booster stations, and a third provides excavation gear. Local labor and materials manage the digging and installation, with pooled small funds securing compressor stations. This segmented method not only matches the scale of a big investment but spreads obligations, allowing segments to proceed independently if plans evolve.
Or picture a solar farm in a remote area. Panels might come from a neighbor’s targeted input in manufacturing, batteries from a regional storage tech specialist, and installation supported by community micro-savings. Other collaborators could tackle wiring and grid connections, all syncing for a cohesive result. It capitalizes on diverse strengths, distributes risks, and promotes knowledge exchange among equals.
A highway upgrade presents yet another view: segment it by sections, with one nation funding asphalt and paving for the initial stretch, another delivering bridge engineering and equipment, and a third covering signage and safety features. Local firms handle maintenance via grassroots financing. This arrangement launches viable parts swiftly, lightens repayment loads, and enhances connectivity while respecting each country’s aims.
Such cases demonstrate how micro-investments can unlock funding from varied allies, realizing ambitious visions without compromises. Initiatives supported by entities like the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation have already validated this in fields like digital networks and green projects, flourishing through collective contributions. Smaller financing strategies for infrastructure have likewise filled voids, igniting local economies without excessive foreign entanglements.
Ultimately, adopting coordinated micro-investments alongside self-sufficient alternatives empowers developing countries to steer their growth in line with their values, transcending ideological or geopolitical barriers. It’s a stride toward a more just global economy, where genuine progress and independence flourish side by side.
* * *
But talk is cheap, isn’t it? Theory looks slick on paper, but does this really hold up in practice?
The notion of micro-investments and South-South cooperation—developing nations banding together, pooling humble resources to construct infrastructure without surrendering sovereignty—sounds ideal.
Skeptics are justified in asking: where’s the evidence? Well, it’s plentiful and more compelling than you might think. Let’s explore some tangible stories that prove this isn’t mere rhetoric; it’s unfolding and delivering real change.
Consider Morocco, which a few years ago honed expertise in massive solar farms and shared it as a model for renewable projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Unlike typical “development aid,” Morocco wasn’t acting as a superior donor dispensing advice. They collaborated as equals—nations grappling with similar constraints like scarce resources and political strains. This approach took root in Mali, Senegal, and Burkina Faso not through conditional funding, but because it simply succeeded. Those countries didn’t need to revamp their economies or adjust foreign policies to participate. They required solar power, and Morocco’s framework allowed adaptations to local conditions. This embodies distributed development: expertise flowing laterally among peers, not downward from patron to dependent. That mindset shift is as vital as the tangible gains, forging trust sans power disparities.
Energy infrastructure offers some of the starkest successes, illustrating how these aligned small investments can eclipse centralized mega-deals.
Examine cross-border power networks like the ASEAN grid in Southeast Asia, the Central Asia Power Systems, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s links, or the evolving connections among Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal. These aren’t cases of one nation bankrolling and dominating. Rather, each contributes what it can—transmission lines from one, substations from another, regulatory adjustments from a third. No external dictates, no lone dominator.
The ASEAN grid, for instance, emerged from years of steady collaboration among Southeast Asian states, each committing manageable pieces that coalesced into something monumental. Thailand exports surplus hydro to Malaysia, Vietnam shares with Cambodia—it’s a setup where modest investments yield broad benefits, remaining adaptable amid political flux. Contrast that with conventional lending, where the financier often insists on their contractors, tech, and rules. This spread-out method keeps control diffused, enhancing toughness and resilience.
And momentum builds.
In 2025, Tajikistan unveiled ambitions for a fully renewable economy by 2037, driven by South-South investments in infrastructure and clean tech, spotlighted at a ministerial gathering on landlocked developing countries. That’s palpable drive, with nations like Mongolia advancing digital services and Lesotho pursuing clean-energy ventures via akin partnerships.
In the Middle East, South-South bonds are yielding dividends in renewables, digital shifts, and climate adaptation—envision joint solar tech or collaborative resilient grids against harsh weather.
While energy steals the show, subtler triumphs lie in the digital realm, bridging divides without accruing debt. South-South trust funds have fueled pro-poor climate insurance, health e-learning, and micro-utility payment systems. Imagine fintech tailored for the vulnerable, guarding against climate hits with resources from developing peers who’ve endured the same.
During COVID-19, nations with these e-learning tools rapidly upskilled medics without seeking distant emergency funds.
Those payment platforms? They’re extending banking to sidelined communities long overlooked by major banks. No hefty loans, no outsiders misunderstanding the challenges—just comrades identifying shared issues and resolving them collectively.
Fast-forward to initiatives like the India-UN Global Capacity-Building Initiative from August 2025, already yielding digital skills and infrastructure sharing across the Global South. Or UNIDO’s 2025 proposal call for South-South mechanisms in Latin America and the Caribbean, emphasizing tech and infrastructure uplifts minus debt snares.
Then there are the under-the-radar tales in UN Office for South-South Cooperation reports, chronicling over 100 Global South successes. Most evade headlines—they’re not sensational—but they’ve transformed lives. Cuba’s medical brigades during West Africa’s Ebola crisis, or Mexico sharing corn diversification techniques to enhance Kenyan nutrition. It’s not charity or agenda-laden loans; it’s nations exchanging insights from parallel battles. Mexico didn’t demand consultants or reforms—they’d solved a like puzzle and simply relayed the guide. Kenya adapted it to their terrain and crops, no debt, no dominance, finished.
Building on that, recent years feature more: Costa Rica’s “Pura Vida” diplomacy bolstering sustainable energy and tech ties with Gulf states, expanding Latin America-Middle East trade and investments. In agriculture, the FAO’s 2022 South-South push continues influencing anti-hunger projects via shared farming tech.
South Asia’s energy blend underscores regional integration’s power. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh bring gas and coal, while Bhutan and Nepal brim with hydropower. It’s an innate match, and they’re increasingly capitalizing. Bhutan’s surplus hydro flows to Bangladesh in peaks, generating revenue for Bhutan while sparing Bangladesh expensive new facilities or imports. The setup? Manageable cross-border lines and substations, financed piecemeal through regional teamwork. It rests on trust—such neighborly alliances ease frictions and offer security perks beyond big loans’ reach. This mirrors wider trends, like the 2025 spike in South-South trade, tech transfers, and infrastructure, redefining development sans outside agendas.
Technology transfer thrives in South-South too, addressing aid’s old pitfalls of imported gadgets sans local upkeep knowledge.
From peers at parallel levels, it aligns better—Brazilian biofuels in Africa for hot climates and unstable grids, or Indian solar outfits teaming in Southeast Asia for tropical installs.
Gulf countries contribute: Saudi Arabia disseminating desalination know-how to arid nations, the UAE’s Masdar City not only researching but transferring clean tech to the Global South. It’s authentic empowerment from those who’ve navigated the limits.
Even smaller nations excel here. Old aid pegged them as perpetual recipients, but now relevance outweighs scale. Bhutan’s hydro advice or Uruguay’s wind integration become invaluable for similars—no imperial overtones, just pragmatic sharing.
The binding element is the funding: no massive debts, no extraneous stipulations, no entanglements.
Expenses are shared, expertise circulated, gains localized. It’s liberating, not ensnaring—modest projects sans fanfare, but effective. Looking forward, the proof is firm: this delivers in energy, digital, knowledge trades, and beyond, preserving independence. It’s not rejecting all external aid, but recognizing viable, proven options.
With more countries engaging—regional banks answerable to members, evading legacy lenders—the model’s expanding. As a 2025 Global Issues article noted, South-South drives transformative change, charting novel prosperity routes.
In the end, these instances connect theory to reality: solar farms illuminating, grids linking, digital tools aiding, medical expertise saving, agro innovations nourishing—all without bartering sovereignty.
When doubters claim developing nations must accept conditional paths, cite the ASEAN grid, Morocco’s solar wave, Tajikistan’s renewables drive, or those 100-plus UN wins. The shift isn’t televised—it’s subtle—but it’s reshaping development, one savvy, small step at a time. The strongest evidence? Nations opt for it freely because it outshines alternatives.
* * *
And nowhere is this potential more vivid than in the heart of Eurasia, where ancient trade routes once linked empires, and Central Asia now stands at a crucial juncture.
Encompassing Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, this isn’t merely a expanse of vast steppes and soaring peaks but a rising center of economic promise. What positions Central Asia as especially primed for total self-reliance goes beyond location—it’s the blend of mutual cooperation, established institutions, and abundant complementary resources that could drive it to unmatched independence.
Picture an alliance where countries pool their assets to curb external reliances, nurturing internal growth via mini and micro investments, plus wider tools like infrastructure and resource pooling.
This isn’t fantasy; it’s a tangible course already emerging, potentially making Central Asia a blueprint for regional sovereignty in a multipolar era.
What distinguishes Central Asia as perhaps the ideal region for this self-reliance?
Its economies rank among the fastest-expanding in the post-Soviet arena, with average GDP growth at 5-7% yearly lately, fueled by resource exports and budding industries. These states aren’t disconnected; they display deep economic synergies.
Kazakhstan’s oil and uranium wealth pairs with Uzbekistan’s farming strength and gold, while Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s hydropower could electrify the whole area. Turkmenistan’s gas adds depth, weaving interdependencies that favor teamwork over rivalry. This is practical—research indicates bolstering these complementary goods could magnify reciprocal trade, converting possible competitors into vital allies.
The institutional backbone for cooperation is sturdy, offering a solid base for self-reliance. The Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State, or Council of Heads of State, act as a top-tier venue for leaders to sync on security, economy, and environment.
Formats like C5+1 unite the five with partners like the US for resilience in security, economy, and energy. Bodies such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Eurasian Economic Union solidify links, enabling trade pacts to joint security. These evolve for contemporary issues like digital fusion and sustainability, rendering Central Asia’s self-reliance journey more organized than in institutionally sparse areas.
Recent updates, like the 2024 sixth the Sixth Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia (in Astana, Kazakhstan, in August 2024) . adopting a 2025-2027 regional cooperation roadmap and action plan, underscore this gradual institutionalization, layering efforts for deeper ties.
Experts emphasize that economic cooperation is Central Asia’s prime route to integration, driven by trust, security, and sustainable growth.
Upcoming events like the third EU-Central Asia Economic Forum in November 2025 in Tashkent highlight ongoing momentum in partnerships.
A vivid showcase of this collaborative ethos is the region’s swift infrastructure surge.
In the last decade, Central Asia has boomed in roads, rails, bridges, and airports, initially via China’s Belt and Road but increasingly through internal pushes. Ventures like the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway and border highways transcend connectivity—they’re self-reliance tools, cutting external transit needs and lifting intra-regional trade by over 40% in recent mutual investments.
This boom speeds goods, people, and ideas, crafting a self-contained system where Kazakh minerals power Uzbek factories sans middlemen. At the June 2025 China-Central Asia Summit, a landmark treaty deepened economic and political bonds, with calls to boost infrastructure investment for a multifaceted connectivity network.
On minerals, Central Asia’s underground bounty is a catalyst for self-reliant progress. It’s rich in key raw materials—lithium, copper, aluminum, uranium, rare earths—vital for renewables to EVs.
Kazakhstan boasts huge uranium, Uzbekistan advances 28 rare minerals valued in billions. This enables rapid strides, from extraction to processing, retaining more value regionally.
True strength, though, is in joint mining that shares tech and markets, curbing risks like ecological harm and ensuring fair gains. As green transition demand soars, Central Asia could channel these to diversify beyond extraction, dodging the resource trap bedeviling others.
Yet self-reliance extends beyond big ventures or macro agreements; it’s grounded in grassroots like mini and micro investments.
These modest injections—often below $1 million—aim at local entrepreneurs, SMEs, and community efforts, spurring bottom-up expansion in mutual aid.
Crucially, Central Asia should forge its own internal mechanisms for these, rather than depending on outsiders, to truly own the process and amplify regional bonds. For example, the region is seeing a venture capital boom, with reports like KPMG’s 2025 Venture Capital in Central Asia highlighting investments from pre-seed to Series A, often in co-investment formats among local funds.
Accelerators like the Central Asia+ program support tech founders and digital SMEs to scale and draw growth capital internally.
The ITFC and ESCAP’s Central Asia Accelerator under TCCA+ offers bootcamps, mentorship, and market access, fostering intra-regional ties.
Entities like MOST Ventures, Central Asia’s first private IT hub, unite ecosystems of investors and startups, while Kazakhstan provides incentives like tax breaks and the IT Park Venture Fund for market entry.
Startups are drawing growing VC interest, with ecosystems supporting over 500 innovation-driven companies through government and private backing.
The EBRD aids SMEs in sustainability, investing in green transformations.
While external bodies like the IFC have invested over $1 billion, focusing on microfinance for women-led and sustainable businesses, and funds like the Central Asia Small Enterprise Fund back hundreds of SMEs for jobs and skills, the push should be toward regional platforms under existing councils.
Investors from one nation funding another’s startups would build trust and reciprocity. The microfinance sector’s growth to billion-dollar portfolios shows modest inputs can escalate resilience.
To bolster this, weave in renewables cooperation and digital economies.
Central Asia’s plentiful solar, wind, and hydro could sustain a joint green grid, slashing imports and opening exports. Youth programs like EBRD’s Youth in Business equip young entrepreneurs with finance and training for longevity. Cultural swaps, drawing on shared pasts, could strengthen soft power, while Silk Road tourism corridors generate income sans heavy foreign funds.
Essentially, Central Asia’s self-reliance odyssey via mutual cooperation is not only viable—it’s advancing.
By leveraging mini and micro investments with infrastructure, minerals, and institutional might—especially through homegrown mechanisms—the region can craft a future less tied to global caprices.
The essence is ongoing dedication: policies spurring cross-border flows, shielding investors, and emphasizing fairness. Nurtured, this could elevate Central Asia as a symbol of regional strength, showing true independence sprouts from inside, via unified vision and joint effort. /// nCa, 6 October 2025