China–ASEAN Infrastructure Cooperation after the Launch of Belt and Road Initiative

Despite the fact that during the first years after the Belt and Road Initiative’s launch its image was assessed as positive, later the attitude towards the Belt and Road initiative (BRM) became ambiguous. The perception of China using BRI as a tool of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ to increase its geopolitical influence has become widespread. BRI-related projects were also criticized for insufficient job creation among the local population or for increasingly high harm caused to the environment. The ASEAN countries have become the "arena" for the implementation of not only BRI, but also other infrastructure projects as the G7 countries’ Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment , European Union’s Global Gateway and Japan’s Partnership for Quality Infrastructure. One of the features of cooperation with other countries within the BRI’s framework is the pursuit to synergise BRI with the national strategy, which contributes to the increase in mutually beneficial cooperation levels. This study aims to determine how the level of BRI’s synergising with ASEAN countries’ national strategies relates to the ‘quality’ of the projects implemented within BRI’s framework. The author identifies three levels of BRI’s synergizing with ASEAN countries’ national strategies: synergising at the official level; intention to synergise BRI with national strategies expressed at the official level; the opinion on the advisability of synergising BRI with national strategies provided in the expert (academic) literature. The ‘quality’ of infrastructure projects is assessed using the G20 principles for quality infrastructure investment. The theoretical basis of the study is the theory of economic interdependence introduced by R. Keohane and J. Nye. Using this theory, it was identified that the interdependence between China and ASEAN countries is asymmetric, and the sensitivity of interdependence is connected with financing mechanisms as well as with the availability of a regulatory framework for cooperation, vulnerability relates to the availability of alternative infrastructure strategies and initiatives launched in the Southeast Asia. As a result of the research, the author concludes that the level of strategic synergy does not determine the quality of projects. This is demonstrated by the fact that projects of the second category of countries (intention to synergise BRI with national strategies expressed at the official level) were assessed as more high-quality than projects of the first category of countries (synergising at the official level). Moreover, the lower quality of projects in each category of countries is explained by similar reasons, mainly financial factors. The recommendations for further research are to take into account the context of the synergising with the BRI (for example, country’s political course), and to consider to which extent alternative infrastructure strategies are available for the specific ASEAN country.