Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 17

COMPARATIVE REGIONAL AND SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL GATEWAY FLAGSHIP PROJECTS

KÜRESEL GEÇİT YOLU PROJELERİNİN BÖLGESEL VE SEKTÖREL ANALİZİ

Müge Akyol(ISKENDERUN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4557-648X
Nazif Çalış(ISKENDERUN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0248-1349
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

ThestudyconcludesthatGlobalGatewayisnotmerelyadevelopmentfinanceinstrumentbutamultilayered external policy tool that connects the European Union’s geoeconomic orientation with its normative and strategic priorities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the regional and sectoral patterns of the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative through a comparative framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis draws on the Global Gateway flagship project list numbered 16415/25 and the European Commission’s official regional classification, combining document analysis, qualitative content analysis, and indicator-based comparison.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:ThestudyconcludesthatGlobalGatewayisnotmerelyadevelopmentfinanceinstrumentbutamultilayered external policy tool that connects the European Union’s geoeconomic orientation with its normative and strategic priorities.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Küresel Geçit Yolu · Avrupa Birliği · bağlantısallık

Abstract

This article examines the regional and sectoral patterns of the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative through a comparative framework. The analysis draws on the Global Gateway flagship project list numbered 16415/25 and the European Commission’s official regional classification, combining document analysis, qualitative content analysis, and indicator-based comparison. The findings show that the initiative does not operate as a uniform infrastructure programme. Instead, energy and sustainability stand out in Sub-Saharan Africa, connectivity and integration in the Western Balkans and Türkiye, sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean, and digital infrastructure and strategic competition in Asia-Pacific. ThestudyconcludesthatGlobalGatewayisnotmerelyadevelopmentfinanceinstrumentbutamultilayered external policy tool that connects the European Union’s geoeconomic orientation with its normative and strategic priorities.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği’nin Küresel Geçit Yolu girişiminin bölgesel ve sektörel örüntülerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, AB Konseyi Genel Sekreterliği tarafından yayımlanan 16415/25 sayılı amiral gemisi proje listesi ile Avrupa Komisyonu’nun resmî proje sınıflandırmasını birlikte kullanmakta; belge incelemesi, nitel içerikçözümlemesivegöstergetemellikarşılaştırmalıanalizyöntemlerinibirleştirmektedir. Bulgular, girişiminhomojenbir altyapı programı olmadığını; Sahra Altı Afrika’da enerji ve sürdürülebilirlik, Batı Balkanlar ve Türkiye’de bağlantısallık ve entegrasyon, Latin Amerika ve Karayipler’de sürdürülebilir kalkınma, Asya-Pasifik’te ise dijital altyapı ve stratejik rekabet eksenlerinin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak Küresel Geçit Yolu, yalnızca kalkınma finansmanı sağlayan bir araç değil, Avrupa Birliği’nin jeoekonomik yönelimi ile normatif ve stratejik önceliklerini birlikte taşıyan çok katmanlı bir dış politika aracıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akyol, M., Çalış, N. (2026). COMPARATIVE REGIONAL AND SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL GATEWAY FLAGSHIP PROJECTS. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Sayı: 17. https://doi.org/10.58627/dpuiibf.1935796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Council of the European Union. (2025, December 5). List of Global Gateway flagship projects – Updates and consolidation (Doc. 16415/25).
  2. European Commission. (2021, December 1). The Global Gateway (Joint communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, JOIN(2021) 30 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021JC0030
  3. European Commission. (n.d.). Global Gateway projects. Directorate-General for International Partnerships. Retrieved April 16, 2026, from https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/
  4. European Commission. (2024, January 29). Global Gateway: €10 billion commitment to invest in Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor connecting Europe and Central Asia announced at Investors Forum.
  5. European Investment Bank. (2023). Global initiatives. In The EIB in Asia and the Pacific. European Investment Bank. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep52972.6
  6. Furness, M., & Keijzer, N. (2022). Europe’s Global Gateway: A new geostrategic framework for development policy? Development Policy Review, 41(5), e12666.
  7. Füredi, A. (2023). A „Global Gateway” kezdeményezés és az Európai Unió digitális ambíciói. Tallózó, 2(1), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.14267/VILPOL2023.01.19
  8. Gehrke, T., & Smekens, F. (2022). Preventing the critical minerals crisis in transatlantic trade relations. Clingendael Policy Brief.
  9. Heldt, E. C. (2023). Europe’s Global Gateway: A new instrument of geopolitics. Politics and Governance, 11(4), 223–234.
  10. Hu, H. (2026). Constructing connectivity and competing orders: Strategic narratives in the EU’s Global Gateway and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Comparative European Politics, 24(1), 1.
  11. Karjalainen, T. P. (2023). European norms trap? EU’s Global Gateway and normative power in a changing world order. KFG Working Paper Series.
  12. Keijzer, N. (2024). The Southernization of the EU’s development policy? A critical review of the EU Global Gateway. In Emerging trends in international development and climate policy: A focus on Korea and Germany (pp. 85–95).
  13. Soler i Lecha, E. (2024). The Global Gateway: Connectivity and competition in the global race for infrastructures. In EU foreign policy in a fragmenting international order (pp. 177–205). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  14. Lundin Ziegler, L. (2022). The development of a global EU connectivity strategy: The creation of the Global Gateway (Master’s thesis). Uppsala University.
  15. Mernyei, Á. P. (2024). A geostratégiától a geoökonómiáig – Az EU Global Gateway stratégiája új valóságban. Szakpolitikai Elemzések, 2024(II. félév), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.36250/01303_24
  16. Mihr, A. (2022). European democracy’s response to the BRI. In Securitization and democracy in Eurasia: Transformation and development in the OSCE region (pp. 375–392). Springer International Publishing.
  17. Rizzi, A., & Varvelli, A. (2023). Opening the Global Gateway in the Southern Neighbourhood. ECFR Policy Brief.
  18. Rogat, M. (2025). ‘Rescuing Europe’ and ‘balancing powers’: A postcolonial critique of European digital sovereignty. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 02637758251356752.
  19. Sauvignon, M., & Benaglia, N. (2023). An EU Global Gateway … to what? CEPS Explainer.
  20. Silva, F. B. D. (2026). Understanding the EU’s Global Gateway through the lens of role theory: Adjusting its role enactment to defend the liberal order. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13691481251411835.
  21. Şenkula, S. Y. (2024). The impact of the Global Gateway on third countries’ alignment with the European Green Deal (Master’s thesis, Türk-Alman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  22. Tagliapietra, S. (2024). The European Union’s Global Gateway: An institutional and economic overview. The World Economy, 47(4), 1326–1335.
  23. Teevan, C., & Bilal, S. (2023). The Global Gateway at two: Implementing EU strategic ambitions. ECDPM Commentary.
  24. Wolf, S., & Poli, S. (2024). Trade potential of Global Gateway infrastructure partnerships for the EU. Intereconomics, 59(6), 356–362.
  25. Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053–1077.