Government-to-Government (G2G) agreements are often seen as the fastest way for a country to secure goods, services, or major infrastructure projects. In times of urgency – whether for fuel, food, or strategic investments – these arrangements appear attractive because they promise speed, political assurance, and direct cooperation between states. But speed must not replace sound judgment. A G2G agreement is generally understood as a deal made directly between two governments, or between a government and a state-backed entity. At first glance, this seems straightforward. There is no private middleman, and the presence of governments on both sides creates a sense of trust. However, the reality is more complex.
In practice, many G2G arrangements are not purely ‘government-to-government’ in the strict sense. They often involve state-owned enterprises, government-linked companies, or even private contractors working under the umbrella of a government agreement. This layered structure can make the process less transparent than it appears.
I recall this distinction becoming much clearer during a professional workshop conducted by the Public-Private Partnership Authority in March 2021. Over several days of discussion, it became evident that G2G is not simply a clean, direct transaction between two governments. Instead, it can involve multiple layers of implementation, where responsibilities and accountability are not always as straightforward as they seem.
This is where one of the biggest misconceptions arises. Many people assume that G2G deals are automatically safe and free from irregularities because they operate under a diplomatic framework. In reality, the absence of open competition can create its own risks. Without multiple bidders, there is no clear benchmark to assess whether pricing, quality, or delivery terms are optimal. As a result, governments may agree to conditions that would not hold up under a competitive tender process. What appears efficient at the beginning may turn out to be less beneficial over time.
Another widely held belief is that G2G agreements are immune to corruption. This assumption is misleading. While governments may enter into these deals with strategic intentions, the lack of transparency and external scrutiny can increase the risk of closed-door decisions. When processes are not openly examined, it becomes difficult to ensure that decisions are based on merit and value.
International experience offers useful lessons. In Malaysia, the 1MDB case showed how state-linked financial arrangements can become vulnerable when oversight is weak. In Brazil, the Operation Car Wash revealed how large public contracts were influenced by political and financial interests.
Closer to South Asia, India has also seen controversies around government-linked procurement and defence arrangements, where questions were raised over pricing transparency and decision-making processes. In Africa, Malawi’s fuel procurement arrangements faced public criticism and investigations over pricing and supply practices, highlighting concerns about accountability in state-led deals. Mozambique’s hidden debt crisis, linked to state-backed maritime projects, further illustrates how limited transparency can create long-term financial risks.
These cases do not mean all G2G agreements are problematic. But they show that when transparency and competition are limited, risks increase. These examples do not suggest that all G2G deals are flawed. But they show that when transparency and competition are limited, risks increase.
Efficiency is another area where perception and reality often differ. G2G agreements may be faster to sign, but they are not always better designed. In some cases, the urgency to conclude agreements leads to unclear contract terms, weak performance benchmarks, and costs that only become visible later. Because these deals involve sovereign governments, they can also be affected by changes in political priorities, which may delay or complicate implementation.
These concerns become even more important when G2G arrangements involve strategic infrastructure such as ports. Ports are not just commercial assets. They are gateways to trade, revenue, and national security. Decisions taken today can shape control and competitiveness for decades.
Around the world, partnerships with global terminal operators have helped improve efficiency and attract investment. But such arrangements also raise important questions about long-term control and national interest – especially when agreements are negotiated without open competition.
The experience of Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka is often cited in this context. The port was leased to a foreign state-backed operator for 99 years, raising concerns about debt, control, and strategic dependence. While Bangladesh’s situation is different, the lesson remains relevant: strategic assets require careful and balanced decisions. This makes the current discussion around terminal operations in Bangladesh particularly important.
If major facilities such as the New Mooring Container Terminal are considered under a G2G framework with a global operator like DP World, the focus should not only be on speed or investment. It should also be on process, transparency, and long-term national interest. The structure of the agreement will matter far more than the identity of the partner.
Clear performance standards, transparent financial terms, and a balanced competitive environment within the port system are essential. Without these safeguards, even well-intended agreements may create long-term challenges.
G2G arrangements can be useful, especially in urgent or highly strategic situations. But they should not become the default approach. Open and competitive processes remain the most reliable way to ensure efficiency, innovation, and value for money.
Where G2G deals are used, strong safeguards are necessary. Governments should ensure clear legal frameworks, proper due diligence, and effective oversight. Independent audits and periodic performance reviews can help maintain accountability. Wherever possible, transparency should be strengthened to build public trust.
For Bangladesh, which is investing heavily in ports and logistics, the challenge is not simply to move fast. It is to move wisely. The decisions being made today – especially in strategic sectors like ports – will shape the country’s trade competitiveness and economic independence for decades.
G2G deals can support national development. But only when they are used with discipline, transparency, and a clear understanding of long-term consequences. Because in public procurement, the true success of a deal is not measured by how quickly it is signed – but by how well it serves the nation over time.
The writer is a Maritime, Logistics and Supply Chain Policy Analyst; Former Head of ICD Kamalapur & Pangaon ICT, CPA; Adjunct Faculty, Bangladesh Maritime University
