The global Citizenship by Investment (CBI) market is entering a decisive new phase. What began as a niche policy tool to attract capital and expand mobility has become entangled in a far broader political shift: the growing sensitivity of governments to populist pressure, both at home and abroad.
The result is not the decline of CBI but its transformation. This next phase can be described as CBI 2.0.
CBI 2.0 reflects a shift from speed and discretion toward legitimacy and political defensibility. In a world where governments are increasingly judged on fairness, sovereignty, and national interest, citizenship programs are being redesigned to withstand scrutiny from voters, supranational institutions, and international partners alike.
What “Populism” Means in the CBI Context
In the context of CBI, populism is less about mass street protests and more about political survival. No Prime Minister in the Caribbean wants to be the one who loses Schengen access.
No leader wants their country blacklisted, whether for visa-free travel or financial services, because of a citizenship program. These are career-ending scenarios, and politicians know it.
Governments, particularly small states, operate in an environment where external actors such as the EU, the US, and the OECD wield enormous leverage. Visa-free access can be revoked.
Correspondent banking relationships can be severed. Reputational narratives can harden overnight, triggering economic consequences that voters will punish at the ballot box.
Even in countries where the public is not overtly mobilized against CBI, leaders are acutely aware of how these programs are perceived abroad and how that perception translates into domestic political vulnerability. One high-profile sanctions evasion case, one corruption scandal, one geopolitical misstep can undo decades of diplomatic work and cripple entire sectors dependent on international access.
Political leaders now place a premium on appearing fair, controlled, and nationally beneficial. This is the populist constraint shaping CBI 2.0: not necessarily popular revolt but the political imperative to avoid being the official who destroyed their country’s international standing.
From Transactional to Strategic
CBI 1.0 was largely transactional. Applicants sought mobility and optionality; governments sought revenue.
Investment categories were often broad, fungible, and weakly tied to long-term development outcomes.
Programs under CBI 2.0 are being redesigned to demonstrate clear national value and policy alignment. A visible example is the shift toward earmarked or themed investments that governments can defend publicly and internationally.
Vanuatu’s Capital Investment Immigration Plan (CIIP), for instance, has increasingly emphasized allocations tied to climate resilience, infrastructure development, and domestic financial stability: sectors that align with both national priorities and ESG-style narratives. St Kitts and Nevis’ Public Benefit Option (PBO) has been explicitly framed as a mechanism to fund public infrastructure, social development, and sustainability projects, moving away from the perception of purely passive contributions.
How funds are used now matters as much as how much is raised. The changes are not cosmetic but reflect a recognition that, in a politically charged environment, demonstrated public benefit is essential.
Higher Standards, Tighter Controls
External pressure has accelerated regulatory tightening across the market. Enhanced due diligence has moved from an optional best practice to a mandatory requirement, with programs implementing multi-layered background checks, enhanced cybersecurity protocols, and real-time information sharing with international law enforcement.
The risk calculus has changed. A single applicant with undisclosed sanctions exposure or criminal ties can trigger diplomatic incidents that threaten entire programs.
Price floors, stricter eligibility criteria, and coordinated policy responses are now standard. The Caribbean’s recent agreement on minimum investment thresholds exemplifies how jurisdictions are responding collectively to international scrutiny, recognizing that a race to the bottom threatens all participants.
While this raises costs and reduces volume, it also reshapes the market fundamentally. CBI 2.0 is not built for scale at any price; it is built for control.
The market is becoming smaller, slower, and more selective, but also more defensible.
For credible operators and jurisdictions, this represents an opportunity. As weaker or poorly governed programs struggle to survive under enhanced scrutiny, trust becomes the defining competitive advantage.
Reframing Citizenship as Public Policy
The most important shift under CBI 2.0 is narrative discipline. In an environment shaped by external scrutiny and domestic political risk, silence is interpreted as guilt.
Governments can no longer rely on technical legality alone; they must articulate why these programs exist and how they serve the national interest.
Citizenship by investment is increasingly framed not as a private transaction but as a public policy tool, one that supports fiscal resilience, climate adaptation, infrastructure delivery, and long-term development.
When communicated clearly, this framing does not undermine sovereignty; it reinforces it by demonstrating deliberate, accountable governance.
A New CBI Dawn
CBI, in the wake of populist pressur,e is more constrained, more political, and more demanding. But it is also more coherent and more sustainable.
CBI 2.0 will not be defined by speed or secrecy but by credibility, contribution, and alignment with national priorities.
The political pressures reshaping the market, whether labeled populist or not, have forced citizenship by investment to mature. Programs that endure will be those that can clearly answer a simple but unavoidable question: who does this serve, and why?
