Introduction
China’s successful, unprecedented, and rapid state-led industrialization and its integration into the global political economy were followed by the creation of multilateral institutions outside the domain of the American hegemonic liberal order such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 1996 (with the Russian Federation), the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in 2010, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2013, and ultimately the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. In this respect, the Chinese leadership seems to be aware that taking a leading role in the global political economy requires mobilization of worldwide human and material resources by integrating developed and developing economies into multilateral institutions and possible alliances.
The BRI entails political-economic and cultural projects. Since its founding, the BRI has attracted participants from all continents. According to China’s official sources, 140 countries as of January 30, 2021, have signed on to jointly build the Belt and Road.1 Since its inception, the scope of the BRI expanded into areas including trade, investment and finance, industry, infrastructure, construction, energy, and people-to-people contacts for cultural exchanges. The BRI fosters connectivity on land (Silk Road Economic Belt) and sea (21st century Maritime Silk Road) among participants in the global political economy. With five land corridors and one maritime corridor, the BRI primarily seeks to integrate Eurasia and beyond with components in Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Its five priorities are policy coordination, facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration, and people-to-people bonds (National Development and Reform Commission 2015).2 A “Green BRI” is also proposed, as environmental considerations are increasingly incorporated in BRI projects. According to Chinese officials, the BRI strives toward “mutual benefit” and “win-win results” (Zhang and Xu 2019: 26-27). The project is often considered to be an alternative to neoliberal globalization and aims to promote “inclusiveness, reciprocity and innovation” to create long-term economic growth wherein “China is playing an increasingly important role” (Zhao 2019a: 1-3).
Critical evaluation of the scholarly literature on BRI
The scholarly literature on the Belt and Road Initiative is growing fast. The vast majority of the literature tries to find answers to the following two key questions regarding the origin, activities, and global impacts of the BRI:
- Why did the Chinese leadership set up the BRI?
- What are the impacts and challenges of the BRI on the participating countries and regions and the global political economy and its governance?
What we find out from the selected published scholarly literature is that, despite differences in approach, the debate among academics on BRI can be divided into roughly two categories: (neo-)realist and (neo-)liberal-oriented approaches. Publications belonging to the former share the focus on conflict and threat perceptions. A number of these scholars – based on (neo-)realism – study the impact of the BRI as a factor in changing the polarity of the global system due to China’s reemergence as the largest economy (as measured by GDP in PPP). These scholars emphasize the state as the fundamental actor and its conception of national interest, military capacity, and military industries as the foundation of the state. Publications belonging to the latter are convinced that the “market mechanism” and free trade are the road to power and wealth, without which the state cannot survive.3 On this basis, we classify a selection of literature on the BRI based on (neo-)realist and (neo-)liberal approaches. Despite differences in approach and emphasis, scholarly works converge on the potential for the BRI to shift the current structure of global politics away from post-Cold War American hegemony.
However, they diverge on whether this shift is a (deliberate) attempt by Chinese leaders to gain influence – (neo-)realism – or whether this change is a natural result of China’s state-led development and its integration in the current global system – (neo-)liberalism. Before we discuss the selected publications on the BRI, let us first give an overview of the core ideas of (neo-)realism and (neo-)liberalism in the study of International Relations (IR) and Global Political Economy (GPE).
(Neo-)realism is one of the strongest and most popular approaches in IR and GPE (e.g., see Robert Gilpin (1975, 1981, 1987); Stephan Krasner (1976); Kenneth Waltz (1979); Susan Strange (1987); and John Mearsheimer (2001)). This stream of scholarly thought comprises a variety of ideas based on common principles about the notion of the state and its behaviors in the context of the inter-state system, particularly the rational state’s priority to protect sovereignty and pursue national interests. In their school of thought, global politics is inherently conflictual due to the absence of a world government to maintain or impose international peace and security. Inter-state cooperation is borne from short-term opportunity, and relative standing determines the interaction between states. As power is fixed, inter-state interactions render one state’s gain another state’s loss (zero-sum). Therefore, states are compelled to intervene in their economy and impose market reforms to increase and/or maintain their (relative) power share and survive in the anarchic system.
(Neo-)liberalism in IR and GPE streams of thinking center the individual at the core of its analysis (Keohane and Nye 1977, 1987). Historically, and as a reaction to then-prevailing realist and mercantilist ideas, liberals argued that individuals and collective actors (e.g., organizations, interest groups, and multinational enterprises) should be able to participate in economic activities free from the pressures of the state. Thus, the key mechanism for liberals is the market. Participation in economic activities by free agents is considered by liberals to result in positive-sum outcomes in which every involved actor gains. One of the major designers of the post-World War II strategy of free trade was John Maynard Keynes, who continued the evolution of liberalism with the idea of using state action to repair or prevent market failures by incorporating an active macroeconomic policy. The Bretton Woods system that Keynes helped to create was designed to support a liberal system of international economic relations that would allow countries to use state policies to restructure the domestic market and protect it from depression. This compromise between a strong global market system (seen internationally) and state intervention is known as the Keynesian compromise in the system of embedded liberalism. One important segment of GPE, which tangles with some of the assumptions of liberalism, is the concept of interdependence. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977, 1987) argue that economic exchanges do not negate politics but create a new form of inter-state political economy. In this conceptualization, market actors deflect the drive for power-seeking by governments toward a state of mutual dependence. One may consider this approach as a synthesis of IR and GPE in the schools of realism and liberalism. Economic interdependencies are institutionalized in international organizations and agreements that take, among others, the form of international economic and financial institutions and enforceable free trade agreements. According to this perspective, international cooperation fosters peace,4 and this peace is maintained even if a relatively powerful (state) actor is in decline since the system of international organizations, agreements, and treaties does not disappear.5 Since the 1980s, neoliberalism grew in importance under the shape of conservatism in politics. The politics of Reaganomics and Thatcherism with their emphasis on the privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and market deregulation were a reflection of this. Today’s liberalism continues to embrace this notion of focusing on the benefit of individual action and the state’s potential for abuse of power. Indeed, the disintegration of Cold War global politics has led, according to some, to the triumph of liberalism over other IR/GPE th...
