About this Research Topic
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is about to reach the 10th year of its formation. Existing research has been able to discern its domestic underpinnings, geopolitical ramifications, potential for global development, and how host country actors use the initiative to forward their specific ends. However, BRI has encountered three hurdles in the last few years. First, the drive towards BRI slowed down in 2019. Some of these can be explained by the decision of policy banks to reassess lending parameters, the "pushback” of host country actors, the controversies that have embroiled BRI projects, and the concentration of a huge chunk of projects during the initial years. Second, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 halted the global economy. And third, US-China competition has intensified in the last few years. Disagreements over Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Sea, Ukraine, and Afghanistan have resulted in tense relations between the two.
BRI's 10th year anniversary presents an opportunity for social scientists to address two issues. First, it analyzes the degree to which BRI’s difficulties has contributed to changing China’s investment and lending practices, which have been seen as unique by many analysts and scholars. This issue goes back to whether or not policy banks and major firms will eventually converge with multilateral lending and commercial practices. On the one hand, some argue that China’s divergent practices can be explained by its lack of experience in the Global South. On the other, some argue that China’s unique historical and political experience make convergence highly unlikely. Second, BRI’s accompanying outcomes do not just entail a change among Chinese actors, but the active involvement of host country actors, politics, and institutions in the process. How have different regions – Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa – learned from, and adapted to, the problems and opportunities presented by BRI and China’s other initiatives? Various regions differ on the degree to which they are politically and economically integrated. Unlike two or three decades ago, today, China and host country actors have accumulated vast amounts of experience working in and dealing with one another.
1) What does the learning process entail?
2) What has China learned in the host country and how, if any, did they change their behavior?
3) How have different Chinese actors responded to the issues presented by host country politics, institutions, and actors?
4) How have host country elites learned from BRI and other initiatives?
5) How have different countries and regions been affected by BRI or other initiatives?
6) Why have countries been able to learn from their mistakes while others have been less able to?
7) Comparing host country learning to Chinese vis-à-vis Western, Japanese, and other capitals.
We look forward to manuscripts that synthesize or creatively use different methods to tease out the mechanisms of learning, find out about new arrangements, among others. We are also open to single case studies, comparisons of different countries, or theme-specific analysis.
BRI's 10th year anniversary presents an opportunity for social scientists to address two issues. First, it analyzes the degree to which BRI’s difficulties has contributed to changing China’s investment and lending practices, which have been seen as unique by many analysts and scholars. This issue goes back to whether or not policy banks and major firms will eventually converge with multilateral lending and commercial practices. On the one hand, some argue that China’s divergent practices can be explained by its lack of experience in the Global South. On the other, some argue that China’s unique historical and political experience make convergence highly unlikely. Second, BRI’s accompanying outcomes do not just entail a change among Chinese actors, but the active involvement of host country actors, politics, and institutions in the process. How have different regions – Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa – learned from, and adapted to, the problems and opportunities presented by BRI and China’s other initiatives? Various regions differ on the degree to which they are politically and economically integrated. Unlike two or three decades ago, today, China and host country actors have accumulated vast amounts of experience working in and dealing with one another.
1) What does the learning process entail?
2) What has China learned in the host country and how, if any, did they change their behavior?
3) How have different Chinese actors responded to the issues presented by host country politics, institutions, and actors?
4) How have host country elites learned from BRI and other initiatives?
5) How have different countries and regions been affected by BRI or other initiatives?
6) Why have countries been able to learn from their mistakes while others have been less able to?
7) Comparing host country learning to Chinese vis-à-vis Western, Japanese, and other capitals.
We look forward to manuscripts that synthesize or creatively use different methods to tease out the mechanisms of learning, find out about new arrangements, among others. We are also open to single case studies, comparisons of different countries, or theme-specific analysis.
Keywords: China, Global South, Development, Security, Learning
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
