The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A New Financial Order?
Sustainable Growth or Strategic Play? The Dual Role of the AIIB
TL;DR:
Established in 2016 by China to address Asia's infrastructure investment gap and challenge the Western-led financial order (e.g., World Bank, IMF).
Key motivations: Enhance China's influence, counter perceived marginalization in global financial governance, and support the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Governance concerns: China holds ~26% voting power, granting effective veto control. Non-resident board raises questions about oversight and transparency compared to institutions like the World Bank.
Environmental and social standards: AIIB criticized for weaker safeguards compared to Western banks, risking ecological and social harm. Projects like the Mombasa-Nairobi Railway and Batang Toru Dam highlight concerns over sustainability and biodiversity impact.
Geopolitical implications: Perceived as a tool for China’s "debt-trap diplomacy," influencing borrowing nations’ policies and sovereignty. U.S. opposition failed as allies joined, signaling shifting alliances in global finance.
Potential fragmentation: Risk of a divided financial system where countries align with either Western or Chinese-led frameworks, complicating global economic governance.
Opportunities: Push for reforms in existing institutions and alternative financing options for underserved nations.
Challenges: Balancing rapid development, geopolitical ambitions, and adherence to global standards for governance and sustainability.
Future impact: AIIB's success or failure will significantly influence the direction of global financial governance and the balance of economic power.
And now for the Deep Dive
Introduction
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) emerged in 2016 as a significant player in the global financial landscape, primarily initiated by China with the stated aim of financing infrastructure projects across Asia to bridge the region's substantial investment gap. Established amidst the backdrop of China's growing economic clout, the AIIB quickly garnered international attention and membership, including from countries traditionally aligned with Western financial institutions. However, beneath this veneer of cooperative development lies a more complex narrative. The bank was not merely a response to the infrastructure needs of Asia but was also envisioned as part of China's broader strategy to reshape global financial governance, challenging the long-standing dominance of Western-led institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The AIIB's establishment can be seen as a strategic move by China to counteract its perceived marginalization in global financial decision-making where its economic might does not translate into proportional influence. Despite being a member of both the World Bank and the IMF, China has often been at odds with these institutions over issues like voting rights and reform pace, which do not reflect its economic weight. The AIIB, therefore, represents China's attempt to set new rules of the game, where it can lead rather than follow. This shift raises questions about the bank's true objectives: Is it genuinely focused on development, or does it serve as a vehicle for extending China's geopolitical influence under the guise of economic aid?
Critics argue that while the AIIB was promoted as an apolitical institution dedicated to infrastructure development, its operations might subtly undermine the established financial architecture. The bank's governance structure, where China holds a significant share of voting rights, hints at a potential for Beijing to exert undue influence over its decisions. This aspect of the AIIB's setup not only challenges the transparency and democratic principles that underpin Western-led multilateral banks but also potentially introduces a new form of economic diplomacy where infrastructure loans could be leveraged for political gains. The fear is that the AIIB might encourage a fragmented global financial system, where countries might choose between competing blocs, thus diluting the effectiveness of coordinated global economic governance.
The implications of the AIIB's rise are multifaceted, suggesting a possible reorientation of global economic power dynamics. If the AIIB continues to expand its influence and membership without adhering to the same rigorous standards of environmental, social, and governance issues as seen in more established institutions, it might set a precedent for a less regulated, potentially more volatile form of development finance. This could lead to a scenario where countries, especially those in dire need of infrastructure funding, might become overly dependent on China, not just economically but politically, thereby altering the traditional balance of international finance. The debate over whether the AIIB will complement or compete with existing financial institutions remains open, but its trajectory will undeniably shape the future landscape of global financial governance.
Background of AIIB
The inception of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) marks a significant moment in the annals of global financial institutions, primarily because it was spearheaded by China with the intention of filling a critical gap in infrastructure financing in Asia. Officially launched in 2016, the AIIB began with an initial capital of $100 billion, which was set to expand over time. The founding members included 57 countries, with a notable presence from Asia, Europe, and even some from regions like Africa and Latin America, demonstrating a broad, albeit selective, international support. This diverse membership was not just a testament to the bank's appeal but also to China's diplomatic outreach, aiming to redefine economic cooperation on its terms.
China's motivation behind establishing the AIIB goes beyond mere economic development. It is deeply entwined with its geopolitical ambitions. By creating the AIIB, China sought to challenge the Western-dominated financial order, particularly that of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The bank, headquartered in Beijing, was seen as a platform for China to flex its economic muscles and present an alternative to the existing global financial architecture. Through the AIIB, China could influence regional and, by extension, global economic policies, enhancing its image as a responsible global leader while also countering U.S. influence in Asia-Pacific.
The geopolitical dimensions of the AIIB are clear when one examines how it aligns with China's broader strategic objectives. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), another ambitious project by China, dovetails with the AIIB's activities, using the bank as a financial tool to extend China's economic reach and influence. By financing projects that align with both the BRI and AIIB's goals, China not only secures economic corridors but also cultivates political alliances, thereby expanding its sphere of influence. This strategic use of finance as a tool for diplomacy and power projection is what critics often term as "debt diplomacy," where countries could find themselves economically tied to China's geopolitical interests.
China's dissatisfaction with the current international financial systems, specifically with the IMF and World Bank, is another pivotal factor behind the AIIB's creation. Despite being a significant global economic player, China often finds itself sidelined in these institutions due to governance structures that do not reflect current economic realities in its opinion. For instance, from China’s point of view, the voting power in the IMF does not correspond to China's economic contribution or size, leading to frustration over the slow pace of reforms in these institutions. The AIIB, thus, represents China's push for a system where its economic weight translates into political and decision-making power, free from the constraints of Western-centric governance models.
Furthermore, the AIIB's governance structure itself is a point of contention. With China holding around 26% of voting shares, it effectively has veto power over major decisions, which contrasts with the more balanced voting rights in other multilateral banks. This control allows China to steer the bank's direction in ways that might favor its own interests more than those of a collective global good. Critics argue this could lead to a bank that serves more as an extension of Chinese foreign policy rather than a genuinely multilateral development institution.
The AIIB has also been accused of potentially setting lower standards for environmental and social governance. While it claims to adhere to international norms, there are concerns that to expedite projects, especially those linked to the BRI, environmental assessments might be less stringent than those required by Western banks. This could lead to infrastructure projects with significant ecological impacts, undermining global sustainability efforts and potentially fostering a race to the bottom in terms of development standards.
The strategic implications of the AIIB's formation are not lost on global powers. The United States, notably, initially opposed the bank out of concerns over governance and influence, urging its allies to stay out, only to see many, including key allies like the UK, join anyway. This scenario highlighted a shift in global alliances and raised questions about the future of U.S. leadership in global economic governance. The AIIB's rise marks a moment where countries are increasingly willing to engage with alternative systems if they perceive them as beneficial or if traditional systems fail to evolve with changing global dynamics.
While the AIIB was positioned as a solution to Asia's infrastructure needs, its formation by China is steeped in motivations that extend into the realm of global power dynamics. It represents not just an economic institution but a statement in the ongoing narrative of global governance, where China seeks to write new rules, challenge existing ones, and assert its vision for international economic cooperation.
Governance Structure and Transparency Issues
The governance structure of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has been a focal point for criticism, particularly due to the voting power dynamics that favor its founding nation, China. With more than 25% of the voting rights, China effectively holds veto power over major decisions, ensuring that no major policy or project can proceed without its consent. This significant control contrasts sharply with the more distributed voting power seen in other multilateral development banks like the World Bank, where no single country holds such decisive power. This concentration of influence raises concerns about the AIIB's ability to act as a genuinely multilateral institution and instead suggests a platform where Chinese interests might disproportionately guide outcomes.
Comparatively, the governance of the AIIB differs from that of established institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in terms of transparency and accountability. In the World Bank, for instance, there is a more extensive system of checks and balances, including a resident board of executive directors who have a hands-on role in daily operations. The AIIB, however, operates with a non-resident board that meets only a few times a year, potentially reducing the level of oversight and direct accountability to its members. This structure might expedite decision-making but at the possible cost of thorough scrutiny and inclusive governance, hallmarks of the World Bank and ADB's operations.
Transparency issues within the AIIB are particularly pronounced when it comes to the environmental and social standards applied to its funded projects. Critics have pointed out that while the AIIB has adopted an Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), there are concerns about its rigor and enforcement. Compared to Western banks, which have evolved over decades to incorporate more stringent environmental protections and social safeguards, the AIIB's standards have been criticized for containing loopholes that could lead to projects with significant ecological or social impacts. For example, the framework allows for some flexibility in application which might result in less protective measures than those mandated by institutions like the World Bank or European Investment Bank.
The decision-making processes within the AIIB further exemplify transparency issues. There is a noted opacity in how projects are approved and loans are distributed. Decision-making often occurs behind closed doors, with insufficient public disclosure about the criteria used for project selections or the specifics of loan agreements. This lack of openness can undermine public trust and stakeholder engagement, as communities and civil societies are left out of the loop regarding projects that might directly affect them. The absence of a robust, independent complaint mechanism adds to these concerns, making it difficult for affected parties to challenge or seek redress for decisions made by the bank.
Moreover, the AIIB's approach to project approval seems to prioritize efficiency and speed, which might compromise the thoroughness of environmental and social impact assessments. While this can be beneficial for getting infrastructure projects off the ground quickly, it risks bypassing critical evaluations that are essential for sustainable development. This rush can lead to projects that are not only environmentally harmful but also potentially financially unsustainable, increasing the risk of debt traps for borrowing nations, particularly those with weaker governance structures to manage large-scale projects.
The AIIB's governance is also criticized for its lack of an independent oversight body akin to the World Bank's Inspection Panel, which investigates claims of policy non-compliance. Without such a mechanism, there is little formal recourse for addressing grievances from those impacted by AIIB projects. This gap in accountability can lead to decisions where economic benefits are prioritized over social and environmental considerations, potentially fostering a culture where profit and influence are more valued than sustainable development.
Critics also highlight how the AIIB's governance model might encourage a race to the bottom in terms of standards. If countries or project developers perceive that the AIIB has lower thresholds for environmental and social compliance, they might prefer to work with this institution to expedite projects, which could undermine global efforts towards sustainability and ethical development practices.
While the AIIB presents itself as a modern, efficient alternative in the realm of multilateral development banks, its governance and transparency issues pose significant challenges. The bank's structure, where China holds considerable sway, combined with less stringent or transparent operational practices compared to its Western counterparts, raises questions about its commitment to global standards of transparency, accountability, and sustainable development. These concerns are pivotal in assessing the AIIB's role and impact in reshaping the global financial order.
Impact on Global Financial Governance
The establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) by China has been perceived by many as a direct challenge to the existing global financial order, particularly to those institutions long dominated by the United States and its allies. This move by China to set up a rival institution not only questions the hegemony of the U.S.-led financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) but also potentially fragments the unified approach to global economic governance. The AIIB presents an alternative venue for countries to seek funding, possibly leading to a division where nations might choose to align with either Western-led or Chinese-led financial frameworks, thereby diluting the coherence and effectiveness of global financial strategies.
The notion of "new norms" in finance introduced by the AIIB raises questions about whether it promotes a set of "Asian values" that might differ from the established international standards on governance, transparency, and sustainability. Critics argue that the AIIB's approach to project approval, environmental safeguards, and social accountability might not be as rigorous as those of Western banks. This could lead to a divergence in global financial practices where economic development is prioritized over environmental and social considerations, potentially setting a precedent for less regulated financial operations which might appeal to countries eager for rapid development but at a cost to global standards.
On the economic influence front, the AIIB has been accused of practicing what some refer to as "debt trap diplomacy." This concept suggests that by offering loans for infrastructure projects, especially in less developed countries, China might be strategically positioning itself to gain political leverage as these nations become indebted. The concern is that this could lead to a scenario where countries, unable to repay, might concede strategic assets or policy concessions to China, thereby extending its influence through economic means. Countries like Sri Lanka, which handed over the Hambantota Port to China on a 99-year lease due to debt issues, serve as cautionary tales in this narrative.
The response from established powers, particularly the United States, to the AIIB has been marked by opposition and skepticism. Initially, the U.S. tried to dissuade its allies from joining the bank, citing concerns over governance standards, transparency, and the potential for China to wield undue influence. However, this strategy backfired as key allies, including the United Kingdom, decided to join despite U.S. objections. This not only highlighted a fracture in traditional Western alliances but also isolated the U.S. position, making it appear out of step with an evolving global economic landscape where countries are more willing to engage with China on its terms.
The U.S.'s failure to engage constructively with the AIIB has had broader implications for global financial governance. By not participating, the U.S. has missed opportunities to influence the bank's policies from within, potentially leading to standards that might not align with American or traditional Western values of transparency and accountability. This has allowed China to set the tone for what might become an alternative model of international finance, one where economic development might be pursued with less regard for the stringent environmental and social guidelines typically advocated by the West.
This shift in alliances and the creation of the AIIB also signals a move towards a multipolar financial world where power is not concentrated in one or two dominant players but spread across multiple institutions with different backers. This could lead to a scenario where global economic governance becomes more complex, with overlapping jurisdictions and potentially conflicting standards, which might complicate international cooperation on economic issues.
Furthermore, the AIIB's emergence might push for reforms within existing institutions to remain relevant. The pressure from the AIIB could spur the World Bank and IMF to expedite changes in their governance structures to better reflect the new economic realities, like giving more voice to emerging markets. However, if these institutions fail to adapt, they might see a further erosion of their influence, which could reshape the landscape of international finance in ways that are less predictable and possibly less stable.
In essence, the AIIB's impact on global financial governance is multifaceted, presenting both challenges and opportunities. While it offers new avenues for infrastructure financing, especially in regions historically underserved by Western institutions, it also introduces elements of competition and potential fragmentation in global economic policy. How the world navigates this new financial order will depend significantly on how different powers can reconcile their interests, values, and the need for a cohesive, sustainable approach to global development.
Case Studies of AIIB Projects
Several projects funded by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have become case studies in the debate over the bank's approach to development, environmental protection, and economic viability. One such project is the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya, part of China's broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This railway project, while intended to boost connectivity and economic activity, has raised significant environmental concerns. The construction involved deforestation, habitat disruption for wildlife, and potential threats to local water sources. Critics argue that while the AIIB claims to adhere to international environmental standards, the execution of this project suggests a compromise on these commitments, possibly to expedite development or align with the strategic interests of China.
Another notable project is the Padma Bridge in Bangladesh, which was lauded for its potential to enhance economic connectivity but also came under scrutiny for its environmental impact. The bridge crosses the Padma River, one of the most biodiverse and ecologically significant bodies of water in the region. Despite environmental assessments, the construction led to sedimentation issues, affecting fish populations and altering river flows, which might have long-term implications for the ecology of the area. The project's oversight by the AIIB has been criticized for not ensuring robust mitigation measures to protect the river's ecosystem, highlighting a potential gap between policy and practice in AIIB's environmental commitments.
The AIIB's involvement in the Tarbela 5 Extension Hydropower Project in Pakistan also brings to light questions about economic viability and sustainable development. This extension of an existing dam aims to increase energy production, which is crucial for Pakistan's energy needs. However, the project has been criticized for its heavy reliance on large-scale hydropower, which, while renewable, can have significant environmental repercussions, including altering water flows, affecting downstream communities, and potentially leading to social displacement. Furthermore, the economic sustainability of such projects is questioned when considering the long-term maintenance costs and the environmental degradation that might offset some of the project's benefits.
In Indonesia, the AIIB has financed the Regional Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) Project, which supports various sub-projects like road construction and water management. Here, the economic viability of these projects under the BRI umbrella has been debated. While infrastructure development is essential for economic growth, there are concerns about the strategic motives behind these investments. Critics argue that these projects might serve more to extend Chinese influence in Southeast Asia than to genuinely focus on sustainable development. The economic returns might not justify the environmental costs, especially if these infrastructures become economically unviable or if they lead to over-indebtedness for the host country.
The AIIB-funded Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary project in India, aimed at wildlife conservation, also presents a curious case where environmental intentions might clash with practical outcomes. Although the project focuses on habitat preservation, there's skepticism about how the influx of funds and construction activities might disrupt the sanctuary's natural balance. There are fears that enhanced road access could lead to increased human-wildlife conflict and poaching, undermining conservation efforts. This project underlines the challenge of balancing development with environmental protection, where the AIIB's involvement has been questioned for possibly not addressing these complexities adequately.
Moving to Europe, the AIIB's investment in the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) in Turkey illustrates another dimension of the bank's project selection. While TANAP aims to diversify energy supply routes, thus contributing to energy security, it also involves significant environmental risks due to potential gas leaks and the impact on local ecosystems. The economic rationale for such a project is clear, but the sustainability of promoting fossil fuel infrastructure in an era pushing for green energy transitions is contentious, raising questions about the AIIB's alignment with global climate goals.
The AIIB's financing of the Batang Toru hydropower project in Indonesia has stirred controversy due to its impact on the critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan. The project, part of China's BRI, has been criticized for not only potential habitat destruction but also for lacking adequate environmental impact assessments before project initiation. This case exemplifies how strategic geopolitical interests might override environmental considerations, putting at risk species survival for the sake of energy development.
So these case studies reveal a pattern where the AIIB's projects often prioritize rapid infrastructure development, sometimes at the expense of environmental sustainability and long-term economic viability. The bank's role in these projects underlines the tension between its stated goals of sustainable development and the practical implications of its investments, particularly when they serve broader geopolitical strategies like the BRI. This necessitates a more critical examination of how the AIIB navigates the balance between development and conservation, ensuring that its projects do not merely serve as vehicles for extending influence but genuinely contribute to sustainable growth.
(Pictured above: Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway)
The Future of Global Financial Architecture
The future of the global financial architecture, particularly with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in play, presents several potential scenarios. One such scenario involves the concept of 'coexistence or conflict' where the AIIB might either integrate smoothly into the existing global financial system, contributing to a more multipolar structure, or it could intensify competition among financial institutions. If the AIIB fosters cooperation by aligning its practices with those of established banks like the World Bank, it could lead to a balanced system where different institutions cater to diverse needs, potentially enhancing global financial stability. However, if the AIIB continues to operate with its own set of norms and standards, it might lead to a fragmented system where competition could overshadow cooperation, possibly causing friction in international financial governance.
The debate between 'reform vs. revolution' is central when considering the AIIB's influence on traditional financial institutions. On one hand, the AIIB's emergence could act as a catalyst for reform within institutions like the IMF and World Bank. The pressure from a new player with significant backing from emerging markets might push these institutions to update their governance structures, giving more voice to countries like China, India, and Brazil, which have been advocating for such changes. On the other hand, the AIIB might represent not just a reform but a revolution, where it seeks to establish an entirely new financial order, one that questions the very foundations of the post-World War II financial architecture, potentially leading to a shift in global economic power dynamics.
When it comes to 'implications for developing nations', the AIIB's role could be dual-edged. On one side, it offers an alternative source of funding, which could be critical for countries with significant infrastructure needs but limited access to traditional Western financing due to political or economic conditions. The AIIB's focus on infrastructure could accelerate development in regions where such projects might have been stalled. However, the other side of the coin involves the risk of economic dependency on China. As countries take on loans from the AIIB, they might find themselves in a position where their economic policies are increasingly aligned with or influenced by Chinese interests.
This dependency could affect the sovereignty and policy-making freedom of these nations. For example, if a country becomes heavily indebted to the AIIB, it might be compelled to make concessions in terms of strategic assets or policy decisions that favor China. The narrative of "debt-trap diplomacy" suggests that such financial leverage could be used by China to gain political or strategic influence in these countries, potentially reshaping regional geopolitics in its favor.
The AIIB's operations could also lead to a scenario where developing nations feel compelled to align with either a Western or Chinese financial sphere, reducing their autonomy in international economic relations. This could lead to a polarized global economy where countries are caught between competing economic blocs, each with its own set of expectations and influences on domestic policy.
Moreover, the future financial landscape might see a push for more localized or regional development banks, inspired by the AIIB model, which could further diversify the global financial system. However, this diversification could also complicate international cooperation, as each bank might come with its own geopolitical agenda, potentially leading to a less coordinated approach to global economic challenges like climate change or poverty alleviation.
If the AIIB promotes a model of development that is less stringent on environmental and social safeguards, it might set a trend where developing nations prioritize rapid economic growth over sustainable practices. This could have long-term negative impacts on the global environment and social structures, challenging the international community's efforts towards sustainable development goals.
The AIIB's role in shaping the future of global financial architecture will depend on how it navigates its relationship with existing institutions, its approach to governance, transparency, and sustainability, and how it manages its influence over borrowing nations. Whether it leads to a more inclusive, cooperative global finance system or exacerbates competition and dependency will be crucial in determining the health and direction of the global economy in the coming decades.
Conclusion
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) represents a transformative force in the global financial architecture, embodying both opportunities and challenges for international development and governance. Its emergence has underscored the shifting dynamics of global power, reflecting China's ambition to redefine its role in the international economic order. While the AIIB has succeeded in mobilizing resources for critical infrastructure projects, it also raises concerns regarding governance transparency, environmental sustainability, and geopolitical influence.
As the AIIB continues to evolve, its long-term impact will hinge on its ability to balance rapid development with rigorous adherence to global standards for accountability and sustainability. The bank's governance structure, which heavily favors China, and its strategic alignment with initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, suggest that it serves not only as a financial institution but also as a tool of geopolitical strategy. This dual identity has fueled debates about the AIIB's role in fostering cooperation versus competition within the global financial system.
The challenge moving forward will be for the AIIB to demonstrate its commitment to inclusivity, environmental stewardship, and equitable development while navigating the complexities of international finance. Whether it complements or competes with existing institutions, the AIIB's trajectory will undeniably shape the future of global economic governance, influencing not just Asia but the broader international community. The extent to which it fulfills its potential as a transformative yet responsible financial entity will determine its legacy in reshaping the global financial landscape.
Sources:
Sohn, I. (2015). AIIB: A plank in China’s hedging strategy. Brookings. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/articles/aiib-a-plank-in-chinas-hedging-strategy/
Subacchi, P. (2015). The AIIB is a threat to global economic governance. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/31/the-aiib-is-a-threat-to-global-economic-governance/
Callaghan, M., & Hubbard, P. (2016). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Multilateralism on the Silk Road in a Sinocentric world. East Asia Forum. Retrieved from eastasiaforum.org/2016/02/19/the-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-multilateralism-on-the-silk-road-in-a-sinocentric-world/
Griffith-Jones, S., & Ocampo, J. A. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral development bank. Journal of International Development, 30(4), 592-608. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jid.3360
Beeson, M., & Xu, Y. (2019). China's evolving role in global governance: The AIIB and the limits of an alternative international order. Global Policy, 10(2), 181-191. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12664
Lim, D. J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2013). Regional organizations and international politics: Japanese influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council. World Politics, 65(1), 34-72. Retrieved from cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/regional-organizations-and-international-politics-japanese-influence-over-the-asian-development-bank-and-the-un-security-council/255613F14E869152B09C5F4B1A40F9D9
Brahm, L. (2015). A new global financial architecture emerges. Institutional Investor. Retrieved from www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b14zfg3xtcz83r/a-new-global-financial-architecture-emerges
Renard, T. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China's new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Egmont Papers, (64). Retrieved from www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/05/ep64.pdf
Chow, D. C. K. (2016). Why China Established the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49(5), 1255-1304. Retrieved from scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol49/iss5/2/
Callaghan, M., & Hubbard, P. (2016). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Multilateralism on the Silk Road in a Sinocentric world. East Asia Forum. Retrieved from eastasiaforum.org/2016/02/19/the-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-multilateralism-on-the-silk-road-in-a-sinocentric-world/
Subacchi, P. (2015). The AIIB is a threat to global economic governance. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/31/the-aiib-is-a-threat-to-global-economic-governance/
Lim, D. J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2013). Regional organizations and international politics: Japanese influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council. World Politics, 65(1), 34-72. Retrieved from cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/regional-organizations-and-international-politics-japanese-influence-over-the-asian-development-bank-and-the-un-security-council/255613F14E869152B09C5F4B1A40F9D9
Humphrey, C., & Michaelowa, K. (2013). Shopping for development: Multilateral lending, shareholder composition and borrower preferences. World Development, 44, 142-155. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12002423
Griffith-Jones, S., & Ocampo, J. A. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral development bank. Journal of International Development, 30(4), 592-608. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jid.3360
Beeson, M., & Xu, Y. (2019). China's evolving role in global governance: The AIIB and the limits of an alternative international order. Global Policy, 10(2), 181-191. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12664
Renard, T. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China's new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Egmont Papers, (64). Retrieved from www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/05/ep64.pdf
Horta, K., & Wang, W. (2020). The AIIB’s transparency deficit. Eco-Business. Retrieved from www.eco-business.com/opinion/the-aiibs-transparency-deficit/
Beeson, M., & Xu, Y. (2019). China's evolving role in global governance: The AIIB and the limits of an alternative international order. Global Policy, 10(2), 181-191. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12664
Chen, X. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Governance innovation and prospects. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-10-7442-1
Gutner, T. (2018). AIIB: Is the Chinese-led Development Bank a Role Model? Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from www.cfr.org/blog/aiib-chinese-led-development-bank-role-model
Griffith-Jones, S., & Ocampo, J. A. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral development bank. Journal of International Development, 30(4), 592-608. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jid.3360
Renard, T. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China's new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Egmont Papers, (64). Retrieved from www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/05/ep64.pdf
Wang, H. (2016). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral financial institution or a vehicle for China's geostrategic ambitions? German Development Institute. Retrieved from www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_1.2016.pdf
Humphrey, C. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Will it promote or undermine sustainable development? Development, 58(2-3), 270-277. Retrieved from link.springer.com/article/10.1057/dev.2015.45
Subacchi, P. (2015). The AIIB is a threat to global economic governance. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/31/the-aiib-is-a-threat-to-global-economic-governance/
Brautigam, D. (2019). A critical look at Chinese ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: The rise of a meme. Area Development and Policy, 5(1), 1-14. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828
Chin, G. T. (2016). Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Governance innovation and prospects. Global Governance, 22(1), 11-25. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26427513
Lim, D. J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2013). Regional organizations and international politics: Japanese influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council. World Politics, 65(1), 34-72. Retrieved from cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/regional-organizations-and-international-politics-japanese-influence-over-the-asian-development-bank-and-the-un-security-council/255613F14E869152B09C5F4B1A40F9D9
Renard, T. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China's new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Egmont Papers, (64). Retrieved from www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/05/ep64.pdf
Griffith-Jones, S., & Ocampo, J. A. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral development bank. Journal of International Development, 30(4), 592-608. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jid.3360
Beeson, M., & Xu, Y. (2019). China's evolving role in global governance: The AIIB and the limits of an alternative international order. Global Policy, 10(2), 181-191. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12664
Hameiri, S., & Jones, L. (2018). China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB. International Affairs, 94(3), 573-593. Retrieved from academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/94/3/573/4992402
Horta, K., & Wang, W. (2020). The AIIB’s transparency deficit. Eco-Business. Retrieved from www.eco-business.com/opinion/the-aiibs-transparency-deficit/
Bosshard, P. (2016). AIIB and the environment: Challenges and opportunities. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. Retrieved from us.boell.org/en/2016/10/26/aiib-and-environment-challenges-and-opportunities
Brautigam, D., & Hwang, J. (2016). Eastern promises: New data on Chinese loans in Africa, 2000-2014. Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from static1.squarespace.com/static/5652847de4b033f56d2bdc29/t/59ff769b85ede14b86292739/1510944923818/Eastern+Promises+Data+Set_0.pdf
Li, X., & Xu, H. (2018). Environmental impact assessment of the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 578-589. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618305911
Choudhury, A., & Hasan, M. (2017). The Padma Bridge project: Environmental and social impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 34-43. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925516302434
Chen, X. (2019). China's Belt and Road Initiative and its impact on the environment. Asia Europe Journal, 17(3), 299-318. Retrieved from link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10308-019-00554-0
Li, L., & Li, W. (2021). Environmental impact of the Tarbela 5 Extension Hydropower Project. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 50590-50602. Retrieved from link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-14350-5
Supriyanto, A., & Rukmi, R. (2020). The Batang Toru dam project: A case study of environmental and biodiversity conservation challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29(10), 2937-2958. Retrieved from link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-020-02006-4
Beeson, M., & Xu, Y. (2019). China's evolving role in global governance: The AIIB and the limits of an alternative international order. Global Policy, 10(2), 181-191. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12664
Griffith-Jones, S., & Ocampo, J. A. (2018). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A new multilateral development bank. Journal of International Development, 30(4), 592-608. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jid.3360
Subacchi, P. (2015). The AIIB is a threat to global economic governance. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/31/the-aiib-is-a-threat-to-global-economic-governance/
Chin, G. T. (2016). Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Governance innovation and prospects. Global Governance, 22(1), 11-25. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26427513
Hameiri, S., & Jones, L. (2018). China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB. International Affairs, 94(3), 573-593. Retrieved from academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/94/3/573/4992402
Renard, T. (2015). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China's new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Egmont Papers, (64). Retrieved from www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/05/ep64.pdf
Brautigam, D. (2019). A critical look at Chinese ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: The rise of a meme. Area Development and Policy, 5(1), 1-14. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828
Wang, H. (2017). Global imbalances and the challenge of multilateralism. Global Policy, 8(2), 236-245. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1758-5899.12431