Since 2013, China has been pursuing its “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to develop physical infrastructure and policy linkages connecting more than 60 countries across Asia, Europe and Africa.
Critics worry that China might be so focused on expanding its geopolitical influence to compete with the likes of the US and Japan that it could pursue projects that make little economic sense. However, if a few conditions are met, the economic case for the initiative is strong.
As a recent Asian Development Bank report confirms, many Belt and Road countries are in urgent need of large-scale infrastructure investment — precisely the type of investment that China has pledged.
Some, such as Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, lack reliable electricity supplies, which is impeding the development of their manufacturing sectors and stifling their ability to export. Others, like Indonesia, do not have enough ports for internal economic integration or international trade.
The initiative promises to help countries overcome these constraints, by providing external funding for ports, roads, schools, hospitals, and power plants and grids. In this sense, the initiative could function much like the US’ post-1945 Marshall Plan, which is universally lauded for its contribution to the reconstruction and economic recovery of war-ravaged Europe.
Of course, external funding alone is not sufficient for success. Recipient countries must also undertake key reforms that increase policy transparency and predictability, thereby reducing investment risk. Indeed, implementation of complementary reforms will be a key determinant of the economic returns on Belt and Road investments.
For China, the investments are economically appealing, particularly when private Chinese firms take the lead in carrying them out.
In 2013, when China first proposed the initiative, the country was sitting on US$4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, which were earning a very low dollar return of less than 1 percent per year. In terms of China’s own currency, the returns were negative, given the expected appreciation of the yuan against the US dollar at the time.
In this sense, the initiative’s investments are not particularly costly for China, particularly when their far-reaching potential benefits are taken into account. China’s trade-to-GDP ratio exceeds 40 percent — substantially higher than that of the US — owing partly to underdeveloped infrastructure and inadequate economic diversification among China’s trading partners.
By addressing these weaknesses, China’s investments can lead to a substantial increase in participant countries’ and China’s own trade volumes, benefiting firms and workers substantially.
This is not to suggest that such investments are risk-free for China. The economic returns will depend on the quality of firms’ business decisions. In particular, because efficiency is not the primary consideration, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) might pursue low-return projects. That is why China’s SOE-reform process must be watched carefully.
Nonetheless, while the initiative is clearly driven partly by strategic objectives, a cost-benefit analysis shows that the economic case is also very strong — so strong, in fact, that one might ask why China did not undertake it sooner.
Even the US and other countries could reap significant economic returns. A decade after the global financial crisis erupted, recovery remains weak and tentative in much of the world. Bold, large-scale infrastructure investments can provide much-needed short run stimulus to global aggregate demand.
The US, for one, is likely to see a surge in demand for its own exports, including cars, locomotives, planes and high-end construction equipment, and financial, accounting, educational and legal services.
In the longer term, the new infrastructure will ease logistical bottlenecks, reducing the costs of production inputs. The result will be higher productivity and faster global growth.
If Belt and Road projects are held to high environmental and social standards, significant progress can also be made on global challenges such as climate change and inequality. The more countries choose to participate in these projects, the better the chance of achieving these standards and the greater the global social returns will be.
In an era when some of the world’s most influential countries are turning inward, talking about erecting trade barriers and constructing border walls, the world needs initiatives focused on building bridges and roads, both literal and figurative — initiatives like the Belt and Road strategy.
Shang-jin Wei is a former chief economist of the Asian Development Bank and a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US