The New Development Bank's Role in the Low-Carbon Transition: An Analysis of Institutional Strategies and Projects Financed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The BRICS countries’ energy transition deserves attention not only for the domestic characteristics of these economies but also for their positioning on the current geopolitical context, marked by global challenges and conflicts. In this sense, it is essential to understand the role of the New Development Bank (NDB) in financing the transition. Since its foundation, the bank has been characterized by its focus on sustainable development. The first operations to each member carried out in 2016 were directed to clean energy sector. In addition, the institution strategy for 2017–2021 highlighted clean energy as one of the core areas for the NDB, and a new guideline for 2022–2026 shows a target of directing 40% of total approvals to projects that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, including energy transition. Thus, the research aims to assess how the NDB contributes to the energy transition process in the BRICS countries toward a low-carbon economy, based on the projects financed and through institutional strategies analysis. From this, it is possible to assume that the NDB contributes to the BRICS transition process to a low-carbon economy, but with differences between countries. On the one hand, the NDB favors more the transition in the energy sector in China, South Africa, and Brazil; on the other hand, the institution collaborates more with the decarbonization process in India, China, and Russia. Despite this, there are still limitations and challenges that hinder the NDB from becoming one of the main sources of incentives for its member countries to reach the climate targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".