https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/1 ... k-00090588China operates like any commercial bank: requires collateral, and calls in loans.
But G-7 through the U.S. and the IMF-WB did something else, i.e., structural adjustment: it provided aid and loans with strings attached, i.e., the borrower had to raise taxes, decrease government spending, focus on agricultural subsistence and light industry in order to make money quickly, and pay back the loan plus show off a budget surplus (thanks to raising taxes and decreasing government spending) in order to borrow more money, and rely on import liberalization to make up for any lack in goods and services.
The intent was to make borrows practice fiscal responsibility, but the results were disastrous: lower government spending led to increasing poverty, and a focus on subsistence and light industry led to poor economic growth and de-industrialization.
Worse, that made the borrowers even more dependent on the IMF-WB, which turns out is what G-7 wanted in the first place: make the borrower weak and dependent on them so that they could find ways to take advantage of any cheap labor and natural resources.
That's what happened to countries like the Philippines. In contrast, Asian countries got very good deals with no strings attached, and because of that industrialized. More unusual is China, where the Communist Party became an active partner in foreign-local partnerships. This led to one of the highest and sustained economic growth rates in the world.
It was only decades later that G-7 began to forgive loans, just as the credit that they were providing to the world economy decreased. Now, they want China to do what they could not immediately.