IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v18y2025i6p338-d1682516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of the Belt and Road Initiative with Other Global and Regional Infrastructure Initiatives: Prospects and Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Euston Quah

    (School of Social Sciences (Economics), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639818, Singapore)

  • Jun Rui Tan

    (School of Social Sciences (Economics), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639818, Singapore)

  • Iuldashov Nursultan

    (School of Social Sciences (Economics), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639818, Singapore)

Abstract

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the first and currently the most expansive global infrastructure initiative, notably for its scale and emphasis on connectivity. In response, alternative initiatives such as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP), including their components the Blue Dot Network (BDN) and Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (PQI), as well as Global Gateway (GG) and the Three Seas Initiative (3SI), have emerged to counterbalance the BRI’s influence and promote more transparent, sustainable, and rules-based infrastructure frameworks. This review investigates how global and regional infrastructure initiatives—namely PGII/BDN, GG, FOIP/PQI, and 3SI—compare with the BRI in terms of development objectives, implementation models, institutional structures, and implications for developing economies. Adopting an inductive approach, this review identifies key themes from the literature to evaluate these initiatives across seven dimensions: (1) infrastructure objectives, (2) the quality and transparency of investments, (3) investment policy orientation, (4) trade policy orientation, (5) inclusivity and regional integration, (6) coordination mechanisms, and (7) environmental sustainability. While PGII/BDN, GG, FOIP/PQI, and 3SI appear well-positioned to address some of BRI’s shortcomings, the evidence does not clearly favour one model over another in terms of achieving welfare-enhancing outcomes and bridging development gaps. Nonetheless, strategic competition and complementarities among the connectivity policies of multiple initiatives can ultimately contribute to more accountable, multidimensionally sustainable, and socially inclusive infrastructure development. We also illustrate how stated preference methods, i.e., willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA), can be used to quantify the value of soft infrastructure, particularly public preferences for sustainable investment and norm diffusion, which are central to evaluating the social welfare gains from participating in these initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Euston Quah & Jun Rui Tan & Iuldashov Nursultan, 2025. "A Comparative Analysis of the Belt and Road Initiative with Other Global and Regional Infrastructure Initiatives: Prospects and Challenges," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-27, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:6:p:338-:d:1682516
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/6/338/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/6/338/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zdenek Drabek & Warren Payne, 2002. "The Impact of Transparency on Foreign Direct Investment," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 17, pages 777-810.
    2. Kamal Saggi & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2018. "Bilateralism, multilateralism, and the quest for global free trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 7, pages 156-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Eugénia C. Heldt, 2023. "Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Instrument of Geopolitics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(4), pages 223-234.
    4. Eman Elish & Mostafa E. AboElsoud, 2024. "Assessing the Belt and Road Initiative’s environmental footprint: an impact evaluation analysis of African member countries," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Tovar Jalles, João & Park, Donghyun & Qureshi, Irfan, 2024. "Public and Private Investment as Catalysts for Growth: An analysis of emerging markets and developing economies with a focus on Asia," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Eugénia C. Heldt, 2023. "Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Instrument of Geopolitics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(4), pages 223-234.
    7. repec:zbw:wtowps:99-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Stephen Nagy, 2021. "Sino-Japanese Reactive Diplomacy as Seen Through the Interplay of the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision (FOIP)," China Report, , vol. 57(1), pages 7-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heidland, Tobias & Michael, Maximilian & Schularick, Moritz & Thiele, Rainer, 2025. "Identifying mutual interests: How donor countries benefit from foreign aid," Kiel Working Papers 2291, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Guri Rosén & Sophie Meunier, 2023. "Economic Security and the Politics of Trade and Investment Policy in Europe," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(4), pages 122-128.
    3. Saggi, Kamal & Wong, Woan Foong & Yildiz, Halis Murat, 2017. "Preferential Trade Agreements and Rules of the Multilateral Trading System," MPRA Paper 76330, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kevin x.d. Huang & Engin Volkan & M. ege Yazgan, 2013. "Nonhomothetic Preferences with Habit Formation in Nondurable and Durable Consumption: Implications for Sectoral Comovement," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 13-00002, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    5. Couttenier, Mathieu & Toubal, Farid, 2017. "Corruption for sales," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-66.
    6. Bedri Peci, 2016. "Fiscal Transparency In Theory And Practice: The Case Of Kosovo," International Journal of Business and Management, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 4(4), pages 78-91, November.
    7. Kamal Saggi & Woan Foong Wong & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2022. "The role of non‐discrimination in a world of discriminatory preferential trade agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 174-212, February.
    8. Hur, Jung & Alba, Joseph D. & Park, Donghyun, 2010. "Effects of Hub-and-Spoke Free Trade Agreements on Trade: A Panel Data Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1105-1113, August.
    9. Talamo, Giuseppina, 2010. "Corporate governance and capital flows," MPRA Paper 35853, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2011.
    10. Turan Subasat & Sotirios Bellos, 2013. "Governance and foreign direct investment in Latin America: A panel gravity model approach," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 50(1), pages 107-131, May.
    11. Dolansky, Eric & Alon, Ilan, 2008. "Religious freedom, religious diversity, and Japanese foreign direct investment," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 29-39, January.
    12. Cole, Matthew T. & Lake, James & Zissimos, Ben, 2021. "Contesting an international trade agreement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    13. Nabamita Dutta & Deepraj Mukherjee, 2018. "Can financial development enhance transparency?," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 279-302, November.
    14. Bebonchu Atems & John K Mullen, 2016. "Outward FDI from the USA and host country financial transparency," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 1122-1143, November.
    15. Paul Missios & Kamal Saggi & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2018. "External trade diversion, exclusion incentives and the nature of preferential trade agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 10, pages 223-237, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Juyoung Cheong & Do Won Kwak & Kam Ki Tang, 2015. "Can Trade Agreements Curtail Trade Creation and Prevent Trade Diversion?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 221-238, May.
    17. Ornelas, Emanuel, 2012. "Preferential trade agreements and the labor market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121752, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Alejandro Caparrós & Jean-Christophe Péreau, 2017. "Multilateral versus sequential negotiations over climate change," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 365-387.
    19. Stoyanov, Andrey & Yildiz, Halis Murat, 2015. "Preferential versus multilateral trade liberalization and the role of political economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 140-164.
    20. Appelbaum, Elie & Melatos, Mark, 2024. "Preferential trade agreements as insurance," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:6:p:338-:d:1682516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.