A Comparative Guide to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Hong Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1855795

IF: 0.542

2020-01-01

Asia Pacific Law Review

Abstract:Proposed by China in 2013 and founded in 2014, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is inextricably linked to the rise of China and its push for governance reform in international develo...

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Beat or Join? the Challenges of China'S Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to the Us and Japan

Ying Bi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14330/cwr.2016.2.2.05

2016-01-01

China and WTO Review

Abstract:On January 16, 2016, AIIB declared its opening for business. Ever since its announcement by Chinese leaders in 2013, AIIB has been warmly embraced by most countries of the world. But still, neither the US nor Japan have become the AIIB members. Both of them take a rather cautious approach, viewing AIIB more as a challenge to the existing international financial order. By comparison, this paper finds that each country casts similar doubts. The US places its focal point more on 'China-led' rather than 'new MDB.' Japan focuses more on 'new MDB' instead of 'China-led,' meanwhile considering how to cope with the dilemma between the US and China. Orienting itself towards a more balanced international economic order, this paper attempts to seek a kind of positive cooperation based on the coordination of tri-lateral interests, thus suggesting the US and Japan to join AIIB as an external supervisor and internal member respectively.
A New Model of Multilateral Development Bank: a Comparative Study of Road Projects by the AIIB and ADB

Jianzhi Zhao,Yannan Gou,Wanying Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-9580-5

2018-01-01

Journal of Chinese Political Science

Abstract:As one of the hallmarks of China's increasing participation in global economic governance, the establishment of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has been widely studied by scholars and policy circles worldwide. However, most of the existing studies use narrative methods and lack microscopic or macroscopic evidence. By selecting two highly comparable cases, road projects from the AIIB and the traditional multilateral development bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), we analyze the management structure, procurement, economy, risk, supervision and safeguard policy framework for both cases. We find that the AIIB mostly aligns with international practices in critical principles but has streamlined project procurement, risk and supervision, which reflects its claim of being "lean" and "clean". We argue that compared with the ADB, the AIIB is probably more efficient and economically sustainable, which is an improvement on the traditional multilateral development banks (MDBs). However, whether the streamlined procedures lead to higher risks will be tested in time as the AIIB conducts more independent projects in the future.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Status-Seeking: China’s Foray into Global Economic Governance

Hai Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0043-x

2016-10-20

Chinese Political Science Review

Abstract:Despite the long-standing debate on the rise of China, there has been relatively little attention to the country’s status concerns. This article therefore examines how China sought an enhanced international status by looking into the illustrative case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). To this end, it employs the social identity theory (SIT) framework applied to international relations (IR), in conjunction with additional insights into institutional innovation. In the IR context, SIT posits that an aspiring state resorts predominantly to one of the three status-seeking strategies—social mobility, social competition and social creativity, i.e., emulating or competing with established powers, or attempting to achieve prestige on a new dimension. As to institutional innovation, it is introduced as a construct to understand the crystallisation of social creativity in the AIIB. By virtue of analysing primary sources and secondary literature, the research at hand finds that in the case of the AIIB China adopted largely, albeit not exclusively, the social creativity strategy to mitigate the doubt of the West and boost the legitimacy of the bank. Specifically, Beijing followed the relevant rules of the game in the institution-building process and presented as a legitimate addition the quintessential status-seeking initiative—partly born out of exasperations with the existing architecture. The case study on such a noteworthy institution-building effort can shed light on the underlying rationales and wider implications of similar China-backed structures and, relatedly, the strategic thinking of the Chinese leadership to seek a greater international status.
International Port Investment of Chinese Port-Related Companies

Weiwei Huo,Peggy Shu-Ling Chen,Wei Zhang,Kevin X. Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijstl.2019.102145

2019-01-01

International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics

Abstract:The devolution of Chinese port governance since 1990s has resulted in not only private sectors’ involvement in Chinese port investment and development but also allowing local port groups and terminal operators to implement international strategies to expand their business. This paper overviews current implementation on foreign ports investment of these two types of Chinese port-related companies. Analysing 39 foreign port investment cases, this paper finds the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) may promote China's investment in foreign ports. Four main investment modalities are adopted i.e. acquisition, joint venture, concession and build-operate-transfer (BOT). The companies mainly form a partnership for investment, and some of the investment projects involve an integration of development of ports, industrial parks and cities. Of notice is that some investment projects are through a public-private partnership (PPP) model, i.e. Chinese companies as private entities and public sectors in the host countries.
Is the AIIB a China‐controlled Bank? China’s Evolving Multilateralism in Three Dimensions (3D)

Jiejin Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12763

2019-01-01

Global Policy

Abstract:AbstractIs the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank a China‐controlled bank? This basic question highlights the issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) international credibility, especially as a multilateral institution. AIIB president Jin Liqun recognized the ‘multilateral challenge’ for China from the outset of the planning to create the new Bank, and he understood that the new Bank would only be a real success for China if the AIIB is truly a multilateral development bank – inside Beijing circles, he added, ‘and only if the new Bank does better than the long‐established counterpart MDBs’. These sentiments were alluded to in Jin’s remarks in the Financial Times: ‘China benefited a lot from the existing international system. China needs to do something which can help it be recognized as a responsible member and maybe a responsible leader in the future… if it does well, that will enhance China’s credibility, but if this institution does not follow the international best practice, who will believe in China in the future’. Skeptics, however, question whether it is ever possible that China will allow the AIIB to develop into an actual multilateral bank.
Borrowing Country-Oriented or Donor Country-Oriented? Comparing the BRICS New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

J. Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-02-06

2019-01-01

Abstract:Why have the New Development Bank (NDB), established by the BRIGS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), both created by emerging economies, taken different operational institutions? The NDB has adopted a borrowing country-oriented operational modality, while the AIIB's operational modality is still donor country-oriented. This article examines the structural factors leading to the creation of these new banks and different institutional proposals during the establishment negotiation processes to explain the operational dfferences. In the establishment of the NDB, the competition between India and China for leadership made the principle of equality a basic feature of the bank. All the founding members are the borrowing countries. The NDB is a borrowing country-oriented new multilateral development bank (MDB) with equal shareholding and the use of country systems as two prominent institutional innovations. In the case of the AIIB, after being joined by non-regional European powers, China pushed it toward an internationalized and high standards approach, in the face of political pressure toward multilateralism, especially from the European founding members, and market pressure from the international credit rating agencies in America. As a result the AIIB was similar to existing MDBs in terms of operational modality. This research shows the different institutional approaches to participation in global economic governance for emerging economies.
The Impact of China's AIIB on the World Bank

Jing Qian,James Raymond Vreeland,Jianzhi Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818322000327

IF: 5.754

2023-01-01

International Organization

Abstract:The World Bank, under the stewardship of the United States, stands out as the global leader among international development organizations. Does China's establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) undermine this status? Examining this question, we focus on the borrowing practices of a special set of countries: the founding members of the AIIB. These founders openly defied the public preference of the United States, arguably to create a potential rival to the World Bank. Using a new causal inference method, Pang, Liu, and Xu's Dynamic Multilevel Latent Factor Model-as well as several well-known estimation models as robustness checks-we document at least a temporary decrease in the number of World Bank infrastructure projects that the developing AIIB founders have entered into. This study presents the first systematic evidence that China's AIIB could unsettle the political influence the United States has enjoyed over developing countries through its leadership of the World Bank. An important set of countries may be parting ways with the World Bank and looking to a Chinese institution for leadership in the world of development.
Back to the Iron Cage? Institutional Isomorphism of the AIIB

J. Zhu,X. Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-01

2021-01-01

International Organisations Research Journal

Abstract:During its first five years of operation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is becoming more and more similar to traditional Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in terms of operational goals, business area, and environmental and social standards. Why has the AIIB, the newest type of multilateral development bank (MDB) initiated by an emerging economy, undergone institutional isomorphism? Based on the socialization theory, this paper argues that the institutional environment in which the AIIB is operating has a strong influence on AIIB’s institution-building, mainly through the coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional isomorphic processes. On coercion, the pressures from European donors, international credit rating agencies, and global civil society have resulted in the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On mimicking, the social uncertainty of the relationship between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative and the technical uncertainty of infrastructure projects have triggered the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On normativeness, the similar educational backgrounds and working experience of the AIIB’s staff and active interactions among the MDB family members have caused the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. The paper concludes that the international institutional environment might hamper emerging economies’ capabilities of institutional innovation.
Motivation behind China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiatives and Establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Hong Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2016.1245894

IF: 3.126

2016-11-01

Journal of Contemporary China

Abstract:The ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) initiatives form the centerpiece of the Chinese leadership’s new foreign policy. The OBOR initiatives are a reflection of China’s ascendance in the global arena, economically, politically, and strategically. Developing inter-connectivity of infrastructure development forms a central part of China’s OBOR initiatives. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) aims to facilitate and accelerate infrastructure improvement in the region by providing capital loans and technical services. The AIIB will serve as the spearhead of China’s OBOR initiatives. The AIIB and OBOR initiatives have put China at the center of geoeconomics and geopolitics in the region and beyond, a position from which it hopes to strengthen its economic ties with other Asian countries. The new Silk Road initiatives also provide a channel for Chinese companies and capital to invest in other countries by leveraging China’s strengths in infrastructure development, financial power and manufacturing capacity. The OBOR initiatives and the AIIB could change the economic and political landscape of Asia, the most dynamic and economically vibrant region of the twenty-first century. However, China faces serious challenges, both internally and externally, in implementing these initiatives.

area studies
Economic–Security Nexus in the AIIB: China's Quest for Security through Eurasian Connectivity

Giovanni B. Andornino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12762

2019-11-01

Global Policy

Abstract:The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is mainly considered as a commercial connectivity and sustainability‐oriented infrastructure development bank, but there are also international security dimensions to the Bank. China's geostrategic and security motivations are said to be behind its spearheading of the AIIB. This essay highlights that China's national and international security calculations have evolved in the period after the Bank's opening. In the initial phase of the AIIB's formation, 2013–2017, the Bank's creation was part of Beijing's pursuit of a more outwardly ambitious and bold national/international security agenda of new institution‐building, looking to reshape the system of global governance. But since 2017, China's leadership has responded to sustained international pushback against its ambitious agenda, especially but not exclusively from the United States, and it has refocused its national security priorities onto protecting national economic growth, national sovereignty and regime preservation. Beijing has supported moves to put some distance between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Chinese strategists have shifted to seeing the AIIB as helpful for mitigating an economic downturn across Eurasia, and preserving China's continuing growth and regime survival in what they perceive as a period of external threat.

political science,international relations
Geopolitical shift at a time of Covid-19 and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A case study of Chinese innovation in multilateralism

David Morris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2021.00003

2021-08-31

Society and Economy

Abstract:Abstract How China will contribute to global governance has become a critical question in international relations, amplified by the linkages between the Covid-19 pandemic, escalating geopolitical contest and multilateralism in crisis. China has been doubling down on its authoritarian model of domestic governance while becoming more internationally assertive, including in existing and new multilateral institutions. Meanwhile, the United States appeared in recent years to be undermining the institutions, norms and rules of the liberal international order that it, itself, built. The subsequent decline in international cooperation poses grave risks to public health, economic and other forms of security. Can China cooperate with other actors to contribute public goods and stabilisation of global governance in such a deteriorating international environment? While there is a wide range of institutions in which to examine China's growing role in international governance, from United Nations bodies such as the World Health Organisation and World Trade Organisation to regional initiatives such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, this paper examines the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), an example of Chinese innovation in multilateralism. Established amidst geopolitical contest, the new institution seeks to address the Asian deficit of financing for sustainable development. The bank challenges a number of prevailing norms, including replacing the disproportionate power of the US and the advanced economies in the multilateral system with a more proportionate role for China and other developing countries; a new focus on infrastructure-led development which is built on Chinese confidence in the East Asian development model; and a shift away from the Bretton Woods practices of using financing conditions to drive liberal democratic and neo-liberal economic reforms. At the same time as representing a challenge to the traditional order, the bank exhibits – at least to date – best practices in implementation and addresses previously unmet concerns of the developing world. While it is not possible to extrapolate from only one initiative to draw comprehensive conclusions about China's likely future role in global governance, the AIIB case nonetheless suggests that, at least in some fields, China will challenge liberal norms to reform rather than revolutionise the international order.
The impact of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on OFDI: evidence from China

Lingduo Jiang,Shuangshuang Liu,Guofeng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2206630

IF: 1.916

2023-04-28

Applied Economics

Abstract:This study empirically explores the impact of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) on outward foreign direct investment (OFDI). Based on data of Chinese cross-border investments during 2007–2020 obtained from the Bureau van Dijk (BvD) Zephyr database, we use a multi-period difference-in-differences estimation strategy to identify the construction of the AIIB throughout the period of 2014–2020. The results reveal that the establishment of the AIIB increases the possibility of China's OFDI by an average of 15.45%; furthermore, the number of China's OFDI projects arises by 20.40% and the amount of China's OFDI flows boosts by 23.04% on average. Moreover, the heterogeneity analyses show that the AIIB prompts more OFDI flows to countries with higher economic developments, especially those technology- and export-oriented ones.

economics
China–Japan Competition in Infrastructure Investment in Southeast Asia: A Two-Level Analysis

Liqin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00231-7

2022-10-11

Chinese Political Science Review

Abstract:The article examines to what extent China and Japan compete in infrastructure investment in Southeast Asia. At the state level, China pursues more geo-economic goals whereas Japan seeks more mercantilist objectives, which mitigates their competition to a substantial extent. At the institutional level, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Japan-led Asian Development Bank (ADB) compete for potentially valuable infrastructure projects in Southeast Asia from the supply-side perspective. It is necessary and sensible for the AIIB to cooperate with other multilateral development banks (MDBs), including the ADB. That the AIIB keeps a low profile, other MDBs accommodate the AIIB’s preference, and the non-condition principle catalyses the cooperation between the AIIB and other MDBs. Therefore, there is no need to be alarmed by the competition in infrastructure investment in Southeast Asia between China and Japan because there are still possibilities for China-led AIIB and Japan-led ADB to cooperate at the institutional level.
China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB

L. Jones,Shahar Hameiri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/IA/IIY026

2018-05-01

Abstract:Many observers of international politics detect a growing Chinese challenge to the rules-based, liberal international order. In particular, some saw Beijing's recent creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as a threat to existing organizations governing international development financing. This article broadly concurs with more sanguine accounts emphasizing the AIIB's similarity to existing multilateral development banks. However, we go further by arguing that the full extent of China's challenge to global governance cannot be understood without reference to the ongoing transformation of the Chinese party-state: the contested fragmentation, decentralization and internationalization of state apparatuses. These processes mean that the AIIB is just one institution among many in China's messy international development financing field-alongside policy and commercial banks, functional ministries, provincial governments and state-owned enterprises. Contestation among these agencies will shape China's real challenge to global economic governance, which will often be significant, yet unintended and non-strategic, in nature.

Political Science,Economics
China�s Perspectives on Multilateralism: A Preliminary Exploration of The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

Emilia Kurniasari,Asra Virgianita,Ardhitya Eduard Yeremia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v6n2.10

2022-05-31

Abstract:This article seeks to explore how China understands multilateralism. Employing content analysis, this article analyzes Chinese leaders� speeches surrounding the establishment of AIIB. The result finds that within the speeches, �fazhan� (development/to develop) is the most frequently mentioned word. The narratives concerning the word suggest that from the China perspective, a multilateral cooperation framework is instrumental to pursue its long-term geopolitical goals. For China, multilateral practices should be based on the principle of flexibility. On the one hand, the implementation of such a principle is central in projecting the image of China as being accommodative. On the other hand, it is fundamentally instrumental to ensure that China would have wider room to maneuver in achieving and defending its interests. Keywords: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China, economic development, global governance, multilateralism
Strategic Reassurance in Institutional Contests

Zheng Chen,Yanchuan Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429317002-6

IF: 3.126

2018-01-01

Journal of Contemporary China

Abstract:The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has been widely conceived as a Chinese effort to promote reforms of global financial governance. While the existing literature of contested multilateralism tends to focus on the problem of threat credibility, this article highlights the necessity of strategic reassurance in institutional contests. To facilitate incremental reforms of the existing order, rising powers like China need not only to pose credible challenge towards established institutions, but also to demonstrate their benign intentions and commitment to future cooperation. Besides revealing strength and resolve, the creation of a new multilateral regime helps rising powers to signal their self-restraints and reassure other powers. Consequently, the institutional configuration of new multilateral organizations involves a trade-off between the dual needs for threats and reassurance. Chinese behaviours in creating the AIIB can be explained through this framework.
The Belt and Road Initiative and the AIIB: Potential Impact on the Economic Architecture of Asia

Ya. V. Leksyutina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2020-12-4-40-66

2020-12-20

Moscow University Bulletin of World Politics

Abstract:Dynamics of economic development in Asia in the first two decades of the 21st century can be visualized schematically as a series of waves with different focuses of economic activities of regional powers and prevailing regional economic agenda. The first decade of this century was marked by an increasing number of bilateral free trade agreements, the establishment of ASEAN+1 free trade zones and very general in nature discussions on the prospects for the establishment of a large regional integration block. The US ‘Pivot to Asia’ has promoted transformation of these abstract discussions into substantive debates on parameters and principles of a broader regional trading and economic cooperation arrangement. The second wave in the development of economic processes in Asia (from 2010 to 2017) was characterized by a ‘soft’ rivalry between the US and China for setting the priority model of economic integration in the region (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership vs. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) and for establishing rules of a regional trade and investment system. The third wave followed the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative and AIIB, which expanded the focus of the regional countries’ activities from trade liberalization to promoting regional infrastructure development and connectivity. The author aims to assess the role of the Belt and Road and AIIB initiatives in consolidating China’s position in Asia, as well as their potential impact on the regional economic architecture. The first section outlines economic processes in China and in the region in general, which provided a context for establishing the Belt and Road and AIIB initiatives. The second and third sections examine their impact on regional economic processes and on the PRC’s regional positions. The author accentuates substantive changes that these initiatives underwent in 2013-2019 and identifies their intermediate outcomes. The author concludes that the Belt and Road and AIIB initiatives reflect the PRC’s intent to convert its growing economic and financial capabilities into regional influence. The establishment of new multilateral financial institutions, development of new rules governing trade, investment and economic activities, adoption of new production and technical standards, transformation of the regional transport and logistics system, development of new value chains, and other outcomes of foreign economic activities of China already has the potential to reshape the regional economic architecture.
A New Integrative Vision: China’s Belt-Road Initiative and Its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Philip C. C. Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700420929273

IF: 0.75

2020-06-16

Modern China

Abstract:For nearly two centuries, China has been trapped in the dilemma of many developing countries, for which the modern West is both the imperialist enemy and the model of development. Its modern and contemporary history has seen violent swings from outright rejection of the West to imitation of it. Today, China is finally working its way toward a more integrative approach, drawing both on its experience of anti-imperialist revolution and of Western-style modernization, and is moving forward with a vision that would attempt to take the best from each of the hitherto either/or approaches. This change is well illustrated by China’s recent Belt and Road Initiative and the launching of the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank. Much of Western scholarship and analyses, however, are still largely mired in an older Cold War Manichaean world view, with a tendency to project onto China simply Machiavellian schemes in the pursuit and uses of power. Even Chinese scholars themselves, under the influence of political science studies that focus mainly on power and its use, have tended to overlook the distinctive Chinese mode of thinking of combining moral vision with practical considerations. Or, they simply restate or elaborate on official statements, without considering their actual practices or their underlying vision. We need a better understanding of the conceptual roots of China’s new perspective and vision in order to grasp its new strategy for development and its new integrative vision for the future. A comparison of the new vision with the recent strategies for rural development in China in the last section of this article will serve to illustrate more completely and clearly differences between the two approaches.

area studies
Reflections on the Belt and Road Initiative

Yu Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/chn.2019.0038

2019-01-01

China An International Journal

Abstract:The grand "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI), comprising various routes by land and by sea, is a globally oriented outreach strategy intended to connect China with the world. Essentially, the BRI is about global outreach, connecting the world with China as the core hub. The initiative is known in Chinese as "Yi Dai Yi Lu" ("One Belt, One Road") but in practice, it encompasses multiple routes along the BRI, connecting various specific countries and regions, transportation modes and industrial sectors. China has the financial resources, the technology, the manpower, and most importantly, the political will and strategic vision to support infrastructure development in developing countries. Nevertheless, the BRI is currently at a crossroads. The tremendous enthusiasm for the promise of increased infrastructure connectivity and trade promotion under this initiative has begun to subside. Indeed, the implementation of the BRI has faced various practical issues and serious challenges.
Soft balancing against the US ‘pivot to Asia’: China’s geostrategic rationale for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Lai-Ha Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1357679

2017-08-07

Australian Journal Of International Affairs

Abstract:The existing accounts about the China-led multilateral development bank—the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—have focused on the USA’s policy concerns and the economic and commercial reasons for China having established it. Two deeper questions are left unaddressed: Was there any strategic rationale for China to initiate a new multilateral development bank and, if so, how effective is China’s strategy? From a neorealist balance-of-power perspective, this article argues that China has felt threatened by the Obama administration’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific strategy. In response, China is opting for a soft-balancing policy to carve out a regional security space in Eurasia in order to mitigate the threat coming from its east. China’s material power, premised on the fact that the country is a huge domestic market and flush with cash, has proved irresistible for Asian states, with the exception of Japan, to be enticed away from the USA. On the one hand, this article adds weight to the claim that although the USA remains the pre-eminent military power in the Asia-Pacific, it has fallen into a relative decline in regional economic governance; on the other, China’s soft balancing has its own limitations in forming like-minded partnerships with, and offering security guarantees to, AIIB members. A China-led regional order is yet to have arrived, even with the AIIB.

international relations

A Comparative Guide to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Beat or Join? the Challenges of China'S Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to the Us and Japan

A New Model of Multilateral Development Bank: a Comparative Study of Road Projects by the AIIB and ADB

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Status-Seeking: China’s Foray into Global Economic Governance

International Port Investment of Chinese Port-Related Companies

Is the AIIB a China‐controlled Bank? China’s Evolving Multilateralism in Three Dimensions (3D)

Borrowing Country-Oriented or Donor Country-Oriented? Comparing the BRICS New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

The Impact of China's AIIB on the World Bank

Back to the Iron Cage? Institutional Isomorphism of the AIIB

Motivation behind China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiatives and Establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Economic–Security Nexus in the AIIB: China's Quest for Security through Eurasian Connectivity

Geopolitical shift at a time of Covid-19 and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A case study of Chinese innovation in multilateralism

The impact of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on OFDI: evidence from China

China–Japan Competition in Infrastructure Investment in Southeast Asia: A Two-Level Analysis

China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB

China�s Perspectives on Multilateralism: A Preliminary Exploration of The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

Strategic Reassurance in Institutional Contests

The Belt and Road Initiative and the AIIB: Potential Impact on the Economic Architecture of Asia

A New Integrative Vision: China’s Belt-Road Initiative and Its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Reflections on the Belt and Road Initiative

Soft balancing against the US ‘pivot to Asia’: China’s geostrategic rationale for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank