Skip to main content

‘Build Back Better World’ and the Belt and Road Are Not Necessarily at Odds



Notwithstanding China-U.S. competition, there are a lot of ways in which the two initiatives are complementary.

‘Build Back Better World’ and the Belt and Road Are Not Necessarily at Odds

The view from the Leatop Tower in Guangzhou, China.

Credit: Flickr/trevor.patt

On June 12, the G-7 nations unveiled Build Back Better World (B3W), a values-driven and transparent partnership to provide infrastructure to low- and middle-income countries. In a time of heightened China-U.S. competition and confrontation, many interpret the B3W as a U.S.-led counterproposal to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global engagement plan also focused on infrastructure that China proposed in 2013, now involving partnerships with 140 countries and international organizations.

However, there is no reason to think that the two initiatives are necessarily at odds with one another. Granted, political and security tensions between U.S. and China suggest that the two initiatives may not work closely together anytime soon. But as the B3W evolves from a statement of intent to more concrete plans, there is still plenty of time for Sino-American dynamics to shift and for the two powers to identify realistic common ground. Indeed, the B3W and BRI are in many ways inherently complementary. Chinese leaders will likely welcome the B3W, and the BRI provides a number of instructive lessons for B3W planners. In fact, it is not hard to argue that in order to build back a better world following the COVID-19 pandemic, the B3W and BRI must work together.

To begin with, the BRI and B3W could be complementary in their sectoral focus and financing mechanisms.

China’s BRI is primarily focused on traditional hard infrastructure: ports, roads, dams, railways, electric power plants, and telecommunication facilities. Over the past two decades, China has accumulated rich experience in building infrastructure overseas, either by constructing contracted projects or through foreign aid, and has a comparative advantage in cost and project turnover time.

In comparison, the B3W focuses on “softer” outcomes, namely improvements in climate, health and health security, modernized digital technology, and gender equity and equality. These goals echo U.S. President Joe Biden’s domestic push to bolster social infrastructure such as strengthening care for children and seniors and creating jobs that pay decent wages. The G-7 leaders should also be able to leverage their domestic and international experience to enhance equity and address the needs of vulnerable populations. In addition, the B3W and BRI share the goal of developing green and sustainable infrastructure to minimize ecological impact, reduce pollution, and increase energy efficiency, all in order to confront the global challenge of climate change.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

In terms of financing mechanisms, the BRI mainly relies on bilateral loans (concessionary and commercial) and investment backed by state-owned banks and funds to support project construction in developing countries, and has had limited success in leveraging private capital. While striving to use the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to power multilateral infrastructure financing, China’s limited experience makes it largely reliant on the World Bank and Asian Development Bank for operational models.

The B3W plans to mobilize bilateral and multilateral tools and private-sector capital to catalyze hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. However, the long investment cycle and low return of public infrastructure projects have caused private sector financers, more oriented to short-term returns, to shy away from this type of investment. To the extent that the B3W is able to more effectively mobilize private capital, that would offer tremendous resources for the financing of global infrastructure. The G-7 and their partners also have deep experience with bilateral and multilateral development finance, which could help address the $40+ trillion global infrastructure gap that has been identified by the G-7.

Despite the B3W’s implied challenge to the BRI, the Chinese government will likely welcome the initiative given the BRI’s emphasis on cooperation and its current standing. Beijing has repeatedly emphasized the open and inclusive nature of the BRI. Expressing its willingness to collaborate with the B3W would align with the BRI’s avowed principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. An invite to work with the B3W in order to jointly develop global infrastructure would also be consistent with China’s pursuit of global leadership within a multilateral framework, as manifested in its vaccine diplomacy, carbon emission reduction commitment, and poverty reduction campaign.

From the perspective of the BRI’s current status, the reflection, reassessment, and recalibration of the scheme may give rise to a more restrictive infrastructure financing strategy on the part of China, leaving more space for alternative infrastructure financing options. Eight years into BRI implementation, the initiative has encountered many challenges, including growing China-U.S. tensions, a sweeping global pandemic, and the shifting economic prospects of participating nations. As a result, the BRI needs to be more cautious in the projects and investments that it chooses to support. Data from Boston University’s Global Development Center shows that Chinese overseas development finance peaked in 2016 and has plummeted since. The Chinese government now stresses high-quality BRI development, which seems to imply a more restrictive and focused approach to overseas infrastructure investment. In this context, the B3W, with its aim of filling global infrastructure gaps, offers a timely alternative to the BRI for many low- and middle-income countries.

The BRI also offers a number of instructive lessons for the B3W planners in terms of involving wider stakeholders and confronting local challenges in global infrastructure development.

Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the BRI at a time when the country’s export-oriented economic development model clashed with dwindling demand from developed countries. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Chinese corporations with comparative cost and technical advantages and abundant industrial capacity were actively looking for new markets overseas. Bilateral and multilateral development finance henceforth flowed into support of overseas project development and promoted industrial capacity cooperation between China and recipient countries. The B3W may learn from the BRI’s development trajectory to identify ways of mobilizing the private sector and multilateral agencies in infrastructure development.

Before launching the BRI, China had limited experience investing in and operating projects in developing countries; as a result it encountered tremendous challenges in many of its target countries. Decision makers are still learning to deal with problems like credit risk, macroeconomic risk, legal and regulatory challenges, labor disputes and corruption in partner states, low returns on investment, and security risks. The B3W stands a good chance of learning from the BRI’s experience and hence of improving the prospects for success by ensuring project compliance and transparency, and requiring monitoring and evaluation.

In my opinion, a truly better world means leveraging all parties’ comparative advantages, ensuring sustainability and high environmental standards, promoting development and prosperity at a global scale, and bringing mutual benefits for infrastructure providers and recipients. The B3W and BRI together could build a better world after COVID-19. Whether and how to fulfill this vision is the critical decision which the U.S., China, and their partners now face.


AUTHORS
GUEST AUTHOR

Keren Zhu

Keren Zhu is a Ph.D. candidate at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. Prior to joining RAND, she was the international affairs manager at Research and Development International, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where she promoted international cooperation and produced policy research to advance the Belt and Road Initiative. Her thoughts do not necessarily reflect those of the RAND Corporation, Pardee RAND, or RAND’s research sponsors


https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/build-back-better-world-and-the-belt-and-road-are-not-necessarily-at-odds/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SSG Commando Muddassir Iqbal of Pakistan Army

“ Commando Muddassir Iqbal was part of the team who conducted Army Public School operation on 16 December 2014. In this video he reveals that he along with other commandos was ordered to kill the innocent children inside school, when asked why should they kill children after killing all the terrorist he was told that it would be a chance to defame Taliban and get nation on the side. He and all other commandos killed children and later Taliban was blamed. Muddassir Iqbal has deserted the military and now he is  with mujahedeen somewhere in AF PAK border area” For authenticity of  this tape journalists can easy reach to his home town to interview his family members or   ISPR as he reveals his army service number” Asalam o Alaikum: My name is Muddassir Iqbal. My father’s name is Naimat Ali. I belong to Sialkot divison (Punjab province), my village is Shamsher Poor and district, tehsil and post office  Narowal. Unfortunately I was working in Pakistan army. I feel embarrassed to tell yo

CPEC Jobs in Pakistan, salary details

JOBS...نوکریاں چائنہ کمپنی میں Please help the deserving persons... Salary: Salary package in China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in these 300,000 jobs shall be on daily wages. The details of the daily wages are as follows; Welder: Rs. 1,700 daily Heavy Duty Driver: Rs. 1,700 daily Mason: Rs. 1,500 daily Helper: Rs. 850 daily Electrician: Rs. 1,700 daily Surveyor: Rs. 2,500 daily Security Guard: Rs. 1,600 daily Bulldozer operator: Rs. 2,200 daily Concrete mixer machine operator: Rs. 2,000 daily Roller operator: Rs. 2,000 daily Steel fixer: Rs. 2,200 daily Iron Shuttering fixer: Rs. 1,800 daily Account clerk: Rs. 2,200 daily Carpenter: Rs. 1,700 daily Light duty driver: Rs. 1,700 daily Labour: Rs. 900 daily Para Engine mechanic: Rs. 1,700 daily Pipe fitter: Rs. 1,700 daily Storekeeper: Rs. 1,700 daily Office boy: Rs. 1,200 daily Excavator operator: Rs. 2,200 daily Shovel operator: Rs. 2,200 daily Computer operator: Rs. 2,200 daily Security Supervisor: Rs.

A ‘European Silk Road’

publication_icon Philipp Heimberger ,  Mario Holzner and Artem Kochnev wiiw Research Report No. 430, August 2018  43 pages including 10 Tables and 17 Figures FREE DOWNLOAD The German version can be found  here . In this study we argue for a ‘Big Push’ in infrastructure investments in greater Europe. We propose the building of a European Silk Road, which connects the industrial centres in the west with the populous, but less developed regions in the east of the continent and thereby is meant to generate more growth and employment in the short term as well as in the medium and long term. After its completion, the European Silk Road would extend overland around 11,000 kilometres on a northern route from Lisbon to Uralsk on the Russian-Kazakh border and on a southern route from Milan to Volgograd and Baku. Central parts are the route from Lyon to Moscow in the north and from Milan to Constanţa in the south. The southern route would link Central Europe with the Black Sea area and