ONE BELT, ONE ROAD, BUT DIFFERENT
APPROACHES TO INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING PERSIST IN FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS

Of course, the transition of the Former Soviet Republics from Communism to Market Economy witnessed a dramatic fall in infrastructure spending. Consequently, different republics progressed at different speeds, though with an increasing realization that such spending is necessary to develop their economies. Ironically, it is their western counterparts who are arguably underinvesting in their own infrastructure in the last decade.

Among the 15 former Soviet republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan), comparable, standardized data on infrastructure-specific investment (roads, railways, energy, water, telecom, etc.) as a % of GDP over the full 2015–2025 period is limited and not uniformly reported across a single source. Infrastructure investment is typically a subset of gross fixed capital formation and often tracked via public capital outlays, private participation in infrastructure (PPI), or project-based data from bodies like the World Bank, EBRD, ADB, or Oxford Economics/PwC.

No comprehensive ranking exists for the exact 10-year average infrastructure % of GDP across all countries. Available data (primarily 2021 snapshot from Oxford Economics/PwC research and recent ADB/WB reports) point to the Caucasus countries (especially Armenia and Georgia) and select Central Asian economies having experienced the highest relative infrastructure investment as % of GDP. This reflects major national programs, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, oil/gas revenues funding reconstruction/energy, and development needs in lower/middle-income transition economies. Russia has the highest absolute spending on infrastructure, and its Arctic infrastructure is notable. Baltics (EU members) and more mature economies like Russia show lower % due to higher GDP bases and different funding (e.g., EU structural funds). War in Ukraine has disrupted data and shifted priorities toward reconstruction on nationalistic grounds.
RANKED BY AVAILABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT % OF GDP
(LATEST/COMPARABLE DATA)

Data is not a perfect 10-year average (sparse historical breakdowns); figures are the most recent/reliable snapshots or noted periods. “Infrastructure” here generally includes transport, energy, utilities, and related public/private projects. Rankings prioritize direct infrastructure metrics where available.
KEY INSIGHTS AND CAVEATS
Highest relative investment: Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) and Uzbekistan stand out in comparable data. Armenia’s recent spike is notable. Central Asia overall shows strong momentum via public investment and external financing (EBRD, ADB, China).
Why these countries? Lower baseline GDP per capita + strategic projects (energy corridors, BRI roads/rail, post-Soviet modernization). Total gross fixed capital formation (broader proxy including infra) is often 20–35% of GDP in high-investment CIS countries like Uzbekistan.
Baltics/Russia lower %: More advanced infrastructure stock and higher GDP reduce the relative share, even with absolute spending (e.g., EU co-financing). Smaller geography means less spending on transport related infrastructure.
Data limitations: Private participation (World Bank PPI) is only part of the picture; most infrastructure is publicly funded or balance-sheet financed. No single 10-year average exists publicly for all 15. Trends (construction growth, EBRD/ADB lending) support higher activity in Central Asia/Caucasus.
Overall context: Global infrastructure needs are high (~4.5% of GDP recommended in developing countries); post-Soviet states in ECA/CIS face gaps but have accelerated via multilateral/national programs.
The Belt & Road (BRI) initiative has brought increased spending to several Former Soviet Republics. Programs such as the Middle Corridor have helped several republics as well, though to a lesser extent than BRI. Kazakhstan has been a notable beneficiary.

The Former Soviet Republics in fact inherited considerable historical infrastructure from the Soviet Union, as made famous with their 5 year plans. In fact, the Former Soviet Republics inherited considerable infrastructure from Soviet times, even more so than their western counterparts in many cases. Many republics are now seeing this investment resume on more nationalistic grounds. This is particularly true of the Central Asian economies which are benefit so much from logistics related infrastructure projects. Arguably the biggest international spender on infrastructure has been China and Central Asia has been a big beneficiary of BRI and Chinese related infrastructure related investment.

Recent events in Iran have put the spotlight on China as the driver of global economic development, much of this in infrastructure. The BRI initiative in many ways was born out of an overcapacity in infrastructure which was then exported. Most of this export in Chinese infrastructure capacity is likely to continue for some time yet and underpins several Former Soviet economies.

by Bruce H. Gaston, MSc Econ(Lond), ACSI