Economic Research Forum (ERF)

The India-Middle East-Europe economic corridor: an early assessment

7957
The India-Middle East-Europe economic corridor represents an important shift in US and EU efforts to promote trade in the Middle East. Unlike past trade initiatives, the IMEC encompasses a broader coalition of regional and non-regional participants. It also makes a priority of infrastructure over trade policy as a means to expand inter- and intra-regional trade. While the IMEC has the potential to transform commerce on the Arabian Peninsula, international and domestic politics risk derailing its success. Western policy-makers have a strong incentive to invest their economic, political and diplomatic capital in helping to build an enduring and transformative IMEC.

In a nutshell

The European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States have pledged to work together to upgrade and harmonise trade infrastructure between India, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe.

The IMEC departs from previous Western trade initiatives in the region in two ways: one is the actors involved, with India a key proponent and a focus on both North-South and South-South trade, the second is a focus on infrastructure, akin to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Following the announcement, the participating countries now face the hard task of turning ambition into reality: a successful IMEC will help to advance decades of US and EU efforts to deepen trade in the MENA region.

The G20 summit in New Delhi in September 2023 kicked off with the announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). The European Union (EU), France, Germany, India, Italy, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United States pledged to work together to upgrade and harmonise trade infrastructure between India, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe.

Two ship-to-rail transit corridors linking India to Europe through the Arabian Gulf sit at the heart of the initiative. These corridors, spanning 4,800km, will cross the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel – giving these states’ consumers and producers easier access to European and Indian markets. Electrical cables and pipes for clean hydrogen exports will shoulder the IMEC’s rail routes as well.

The White House hopes that the IMEC will ‘usher in a new era of connectivity from Europe to Asia.’ Proponents of the initiative estimate that the IMEC could cut the time to send goods from India to Europe by 40% and slash transit costs by 30%. The IMEC will also expand digital connectivity on the Arabian Peninsula, and give Europe and India new sources for clean gas. IMEC participants are planning to meet within the next 60 days to deliberate, coordinate and specify the details and costs underpinning this bold initiative.

The IMEC heralds important continuities and differences in long-standing US and EU efforts to promote trade in the Middle East. Those efforts began in the late 1980s and accelerated after the Oslo Accords. US and European policy-makers believed that greater trade would foster peace between Israel and its neighbours (al Khouri, 2007).

After 9/11, officials in the Bush administration viewed trade as a remedy for extremism. The Europeans saw trade as a lever for prosperity that would slow migration to their shores (al Khouri, 2008). Civil conflict in Syria and Libya a decade later hardened this perception. Meanwhile, at least before recent events in Israel and Gaza, US policy-makers were once again hopeful that greater trade between Israel, Palestine and other Arab states – especially the Gulf – will bring peace to the region.

The US and EU motivations behind the IMEC remain the same. US and EU policy-makers, and some of their regional counterparts like Jordan’s King Abdullah II, still view trade as an engine for regional growth and peace. That the IMEC might allow goods to transit between Saudi Arabia and Israel has some hoping that the initiative is a first step to normalisation between the two countries.

But the IMEC departs from previous US and EU regional trade initiatives in two fundamental ways. The first difference is the actors involved. India is a key proponent and beneficiary of the IMEC. Unlike previous initiatives, the IMEC promotes North-South and South-South trade. The economic success of the IMEC hinges on India becoming a major trading partner with Europe and the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also major proponents of the IMEC. This is partly geographical. Saudi Arabia and the UAE form a natural territorial bridge between India and Europe. It is also financial. The Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman pledged to invest $20 billion in the initiative. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have the territory and capital to make the IMEC work.

What are some of the implications of Indian, Saudi Arabian and UAE participation in the IMEC? The first is that the IMEC has local stakeholders with direct incentives for the agreement’s success. Second, these countries’ participation dilutes US and EU influence on the agreement. States governing current or aspiring transit points on the IMEC will need to accommodate Gulf and Indian interests and conditions as well.

This points to a second implication of the IMEC’s broader partnership. Unlike past EU and US trade initiatives, the IMEC is unlikely to steer far beyond matters of trade and infrastructure. Gone are the days where trade agreements carried clauses about democracy and human rights.

This bundling of economic and political reform was a hallmark of the EU’s Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (al Khouri, 2007). The US tied human rights to its trade initiatives as well. The Bush administration reportedly ended its free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with Egypt’s Mubarak regime after the latter’s refusal to release the defeated opposition candidate Ayman Nour from prison (Zimmermann, 2017).

Rulers of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the Biden, Modi, Netanyahu and Meloni administrations, are unlikely to countenance much discussion of democracy, labour or human rights in the IMEC framework – to the detriment to the mostly foreign labour that will build the agreement’s rail corridors.

Nevertheless, the architects of the IMEC would be remiss if they ignored questions of clean governance completely. Infrastructure and public-private partnerships can be magnets of cronyism.

Meanwhile, half of the IMEC’s participating countries have not signed the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement, an accord intended to promote the more transparent allocation of government contracts. Incorporating clauses within the IMEC that safeguard transparent procurement practices is not simply a matter of ethics. It is also a matter of effectiveness. Transparency and accountability in the disbursement of contracts to build and run the IMEC will lower construction and maintenance costs on the ship-to-rail transit corridors.

The IMEC’s focus on infrastructure is the second major difference with past EU and US trade initiatives in the region. Analysts view the IMEC as a Western response to China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) in the region (Inamdar, 2023; Saaman, 2023). In emulating the BRI’s emphasis on infrastructure, the IMEC moves the United States and the EU away from pushing for greater economic integration through more liberal trade policies like FTAs, special economic zones and regional trade agreements (Moore and Schrank, 2003).

Instead, the United States and the EU are betting that better and more integrated infrastructure will expand inter- and intra-regional trade. Both higher quality infrastructure and more liberal trade policies lower the costs of international trade. They are means to greater trade.

Infrastructure might be an easier fix than trade policy. Despite decades of European and US pressure to liberalise MENA states’ trade policies, the region retains some of the highest levels of protectionism in the world (Hertog, 2022, 2023).

Perhaps infrastructure could help EU and US policy-makers avoid the obstacles that have stymied trade policy reform in the region. Infrastructure is a mostly domestic affair. Infrastructure projects need engineers, not diplomats. Better infrastructure in the Middle East will not agitate protectionist special interest groups in Europe or India. Furthermore, two of the Middle Eastern states participating in the IMEC – the UAE and Saudi Arabia – already have some of the region’s and the world’s best trade infrastructure (World Bank, 2023).

Nevertheless, the IMEC will still face political obstacles. The corridor’s success requires the harmonisation of international regulations and trade policies. This means standardising policies on paper and in practice – neither of which is assured. There may also be domestic opposition from industries (trucking) and cities (ports not on the corridors) threatened by the corridors.

Local producers and consumers who are opposed to Israel and its policies in Palestine could be unwilling to use the IMEC – especially if Israeli ports become hubs on the ship-to-rail transit corridors. The recent eruption of violence between Hamas and Israel is sombre reminder of the lingering political challenges of including Israel in trade initiatives.

The IMEC is an ambitious proposal. Now the IMEC’s participating countries face the hard task of turning ambition into reality. They must determine who governs the trans-regional corridors and how. There will be many devils in those details. Regulatory and trade policy compromises will have to be made. But the benefits of a successful IMEC will offset the short-term costs of these accommodations.

A successful IMEC will also help to advance decades of US and EU efforts to deepen trade in the MENA region. At this critical moment where the foundations of this initiative are still being laid, US and EU policy-makers should invest the economic, political and diplomatic capital to help build an enduring and transformative IMEC.

Further reading

al Khouri, Riad (2007) ‘National Security Aspects of Western-Middle East Free Trade Agreement’, Aussenwirtschaft 62(2): 175-92.

al Khouri, Riad (2008) ‘EU and U.S Free Trade Agreements in the Middle East,’ Carnegie Middle East Center 8: 1-24.

Hertog, Steffen (2022) ‘Segmented market economic in the Arab World: The Political Economy of Insider-Outsider Divisions’, Socio-Economic Review 20(3): 1211-47.

Hertog, Steffen (2023) Locked Out of Development: Insiders and Outsiders in Arab Capitalism, Cambridge University Press.

Inamdar, Nikhil (2023) ‘Can India-Europe corridor rival China’s Belt and Road?’, BBC News.

Moore, Pete, and Andrew Schrank (2003) ‘Commerce and Conflict: US effort to counter terrorism with trade may backfire’, Middle East Policy 10(3): 112-20.

Samaan, Jean-Loup (2023) ‘The India-Middle East Corridor: a Biden Road Initiative?’ Atlantic Council.

World Bank (2023) Logistics Performance Index (LPI).

Zimmermann, Anne Mariel (2017) US Assistance, Development, and Hierarchy in the Middle East, Palgrave Macmillan.

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • Steve L. Monroe
    Steve L. Monroe
    Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale-NUS College

Most read

Trust in Lebanon’s public institutions: a challenge for the new leadership

Lebanon’s new leadership confronts daunting economic challenges amid geopolitical tensions across the wider region. As this column explains, understanding what has happened over the past decade to citizens’ trust in key public institutions – parliament, the government and the armed forces – will be a crucial part of the policy response.

Qatarisation: playing the long game on workforce nationalisation

As national populations across the Gulf have grown and hydrocarbon reserves declined, most Gulf countries have sought to move to a more sustainable economic model underpinned by raising the share of citizens in the productive private sector. But, as this column explains, Qatar differs from its neighbours in several important ways that could render aggressive workforce nationalization policies counterproductive. In terms of such policies, the country should chart its own path.

Small businesses in the Great Lockdown: lessons for crisis management

Understanding big economic shocks like Covid-19 and how firms respond to them is crucial for mitigating their negative effects and accelerating the post-crisis recovery. This column reports evidence on how small and medium-sized enterprises in Tunisia’s formal business sector adapted to the pandemic and the lockdown – and draws policy lessons for when the next crisis hits.

Economic consequences of the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran

Over the decades, Iran has faced numerous devastating natural disasters, including the deadly 2003 Bam earthquake. This column reports evidence on the unexpected economic boost in Bam County and its neighbours after the disaster – the result of a variety of factors, including national and international aid, political mobilisation and the region’s cultural significance. Using data on the intensity of night-time lights in a geographical area, the research reveals how disaster recovery may lead to a surprising economic rebound.

Qatar’s pursuit of government excellence: promises and pitfalls

As Qatar seeks to make the transition from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a diversified, knowledge-based economy, ‘government excellence’ has been identified as a key strategic objective. This column reports what government effectiveness means in terms of delivery of public services, digitalisation of services, and control of corruption – and outlines the progress made to date on these development priorities and what the country needs to do to meet its targets.

The impact of climate change and resource scarcity on conflict in MENA

The interrelationships between climate change, food production, economic instability and violent conflict have become increasingly relevant in recent decades, with climate-induced economic shocks intensifying social and political tensions, particularly in resource-constrained regions like MENA. This column reports new evidence on the impact of climate change on economic and food production outcomes – and how economic stability, agricultural productivity and shared water resources affect conflict. While international aid, economic growth and food security reduce the likelihood of conflict, resource scarcity and shared water basins contribute to high risks of conflict.

A Macroeconomic Accounting of Unemployment in Jordan:  Unemployment is mainly an issue for adults and men

Since unemployment rates in Jordan are higher among young people and women than other groups, unemployment is commonly characterised as a youth and gender issue. However, the majority of the country’s unemployed are adults and men. This suggests that unemployment is primarily a macroeconomic issue challenge for the entire labour market. The appropriate response therefore is coordinated fiscal, monetary, structural and institutional policies, while more targeted measures can still benefit specific groups.

The green energy transition: employment pathways for MENA

The potential employment impacts of green and renewable energy in the Middle East and North Africa are multifaceted and promising. As this column explains, embracing renewable energy technologies presents an opportunity for the region to diversify its economy, mitigate the possible negative impacts of digitalisation on existing jobs, reduce its carbon footprint and create significant levels of employment across a variety of sectors. Green energy is not just an environmental imperative but an economic necessity.

Global value chains, wages and skills in MENA countries

The involvement of firms in production across different countries or regions via global value chains (GVCs) can make a significant contribution to economic development, including improved labour market outcomes. This column highlights the gains from GVC participation in terms of employment quality in Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia. Given the high unemployment, sticky wages and wide skill divides that are common in the MENA region, encouraging firms to participate in GVCs is a valuable channel for raising living standards.

Tunisia’s energy transition: the key role of small businesses

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) play a critical role in Tunisia’s economy, contributing significantly to GDP and employment. As this column explains, they are also essential for advancing the country’s ambitions to make a successful transition from reliance on fossil fuels to more widespread use of renewable energy sources. A fair distribution of the transition’s benefits across all regions and communities will secure a future where MSMEs thrive as leaders in a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable Tunisia.