Cross-border infrastructure projects offer significant economic and social benefits for the Asia-Pacific region. If the required investment of $8 trillion in pan-Asian connectivity was made in the region’s infrastructure during 2010–2020, the total net income gains for developing Asia could reach about $12.98 trillion (in 2008 US dollars) during 2010–2020 and beyond, of which more than $4.43 trillion would be gained during 2010–2020 and nearly $8.55 trillion after 2020. Indeed, infrastructure connectivity helps improve regional productivity and competitiveness by facilitating the movement of goods, services and human resources, producing economies of scale, promoting trade and foreign direct investments, creating new business opportunities, stimulating inclusive industrialization and narrowing development gaps between communities, countries or sub-regions. Unfortunately, due to limited financing, progress in the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region is low.

This paper examines the key challenges faced in financing cross-border projects and discusses the roles that different stakeholders—national governments, state-owned enterprises, private sector, regional entities, development financing institutions (DFIs), affected people and civil society organizations—can play in facilitating the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region. In particular, this paper highlights the major risks that deter private sector investments and FDIs and provides recommendations to address these risks.

The paper examines the motivations, financing, expansion and challenges of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI was initially designed to address China’s overcapacity and promote economic growth in both China and in countries along the “Belt” and “Road” through infrastructure investment and industrial capacity cooperation. It took into account China’s strategic transition in its opening-up policy and foreign policy to pay more attention to the neighboring countries in Southeast Asia and Central and West Asia when facing greater strategic pressure from the United States in East Asia and the Pacific region. More themes have been added to the initiative’s original framework since its inception in 2013, including the vision of the BRI as China’s major solution to improve international economic cooperation and practice to build a “community of shared future for mankind”, and the idea of the Green Silk Road and the Digital Silk Road. Chinese state-owned enterprises and policy and commercial banks have dominated investment and financing for BRI projects, which explains the root of the problems and risks facing the initiative, such as unsustainable debt, non-transparency, corruption and low economic efficiency. Measures taken by China to tackle these problems, for example, mitigating the debt distress and improving debt sustainability, are unlikely to make a big difference anytime soon due to the tenacity of China’s long-held state-driven investment model.

The world economy needs a growth-lifting strategy, and infrastructure financing seems to hold the key. Based on the New Structural Economics (Lin, 2010; 2012) we discuss the heterogeneity of capital focusing on the long-term versus short-term orientation (STO). Traditional neoliberalism assumes that capital is homogenous, complete capital account liberalization is “beneficial”. However, previous studies have found evidence of long-term orientation (LTO) in the culture of many Asian economies (Hofstede, 1991). In this exploratory paper, we suggest that the LTO can be considered a special endowment which, under certain circumstances, can be developed into a comparative advantage (CA) in patient capital. If these countries can turn their latent CA into a revealed CA in patient capital, and develop the ability to “package” profitable and non-profitable projects in meaningful ways, they would have a “revealed” competitive advantage in infrastructure financing. The ability to “package” public infrastructure and private services is one of the key institutional factors for success in overseas cooperation.

COVID-19 has amplified existing imbalances, institutional and financing constraints associated with a development strategy that did not take sufficient account of challenges with emissions, environmental damage and health risks associated with climate change in a number of countries, including China. The recovery from the pandemic can be combined with appropriately designed investments that take into account human, social, natural and physical capital, as well as distributional objectives, that can also address commitments under the Paris agreement. An important criterion for sustainable development is that the tax regimes at the national and sub-national levels should reflect the same criteria as the investment strategy. Own-source revenues, are essential to be able to access private financing, including local government bonds and PPPs in a sustainable manner. Governance criteria are also important including information on the buildup of liabilities at all levels of government, to ensure transparent governance.
Despite differences in political systems, the Chinese experiences are relevant in a wide range of emerging market countries as the measures utilize institutions and policies reflecting international best practices, including modern tax administrations for the VAT, and income taxes, and benefit-linked property taxes, as well as utilization of balance sheets information consistent with the IMF’s Government Financial Statistics Manual, 2014. The options have significant implications for policy advice and development cooperation for meeting global climate change goals while ensuring sustainable employment generation with transparency and accountability.

Against the backdrop of anti-globalization rhetoric, this paper summarizes our joint book entitled Going Beyond Aid (Lin and Wang, 2017a) and discusses the prospects for development finance in the broad context of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Based on the New Structural Economics (Lin, 2010; 2011), here we focus on China’s demonstrated comparative advantages in infrastructure, e.g. in hydropower and high-speed railways (HSR). In addition, long-term orientation (LTO) and patient capital are latent comparative advantages that many Asian economies possess, and are critical for the Belt and Road Initiative. Only if these comparative advantages are utilized can these economies cooperate to potentially achieve win-win.