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.

Fiscal spending for road construction to link Kalabakan, Sabah, Malaysia with North Kalimantan, Indonesia is an idea that have been proposed for over 20 years. The announcement for the relocation of Indonesia’s capital city from Jakarta to East Kalimantan give a strong justification for the construction of the Serudong-Simanggaris road. The fact that population size is big in Kalimantan and strong purchasing power is estimated in North and East Kaliamantan provide a strong argument for the need to have a road link. Having said that, the effect of road construction on output growth is not clear. The purpose of this study is to estimate the impact of road construction and the business activities across two sectors being assumed on output Sabah’s output growth. Based on the input-output analysis conducted using the output multiplier, the one-off road construction would lead to 1.8% growth in Sabah’s overall output.

Regional cooperation stands as a key strategy to address intense economic competition and formidable local governance challenges. Successful regional collaborations are typically founded on the basis of institutional similarity, which also serves as the starting point for a multitude of related theoretical studies. Consequently, the regional cooperation within the context of institutional conflicts has been overlooked. This paper aims to explore the process of regional cooperation against the backdrop of conflicts, using the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) as a case study and analyzing it from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. The article posits that conflicts can stimulate interactions among various actors, foster the generation of local knowledge, and propel specific cooperative practices. Moreover, local and central governments, grounded in local knowledge and universal managerial insights, continuously authenticate and propagate local innovations, establishing guiding policies and, consequently, producing rational knowledge. The accumulation of such knowledge has not only strengthened civilian cooperation but also facilitated broader collaborative efforts. The study reveals that despite the GBA’s remarkable achievements in cooperation, challenges persist: on the one hand, there are issues with the government’s process of rational knowledge production and the quality of knowledge itself; on the other hand, excessive governmental dominance may suppress the production and application of local knowledge. Therefore, refining the knowledge production mechanism is especially critical. The findings of this paper uncover the mechanisms of regional cooperation amidst institutional conflicts and deepen our understanding of regional collaboration and cross-border governance.

High-quality implementation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (cross-border M&As) is an important pathway for emerging-market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) to enhance their international competitiveness. However, in comparison to developed countries, cross-border M&As by EMNEs are often prohibited by the liability of origin caused by negative political coverage. How and why negative political coverage affect the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs? What are the contextual constraints that moderate the impact of negative political coverage on cross-border M&As completion? Based on the “liability of origin” theory, this paper addresses these questions using data from the Zephyr database on cross-border M&As by EMNEs in the United States from 2016 to June 2021 and employing a logit model for estimation. The research findings are as follows: (1) Negative political coverage leads to negative perceptions of emerging market countries by host country stakeholders, creating the liability of origin and stigmatizing the corporate nationality, thereby reducing the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (2) Increasing geographical distance leads to information asymmetry, reinforcing the negative impact of negative political coverage on the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (3) Relevant mergers and acquisitions exacerbate the negative effect of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (4) Being a publicly traded firm and having successful experience in cross-border M&As both intensify the negative impact of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs.

Cross-border ecological cooperation is always a challenging issue. Ecological cooperation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has its own uniqueness as it is cross-border cooperation under “One Country, Two Systems”, which is different from multinational cooperation or regional collaboration within one country. This paper analyses the cooperation documents of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, official reports and academic literature, and then summarises the unique pattern of ecological cooperation in the Greater Bay Area under “One Country, Two Systems”. It outlines four characteristics: different priorities in ecological management of each side, case by base cooperation, government-dominated cooperation with low public participation, and huge institutional gap between three sides. This article also identifies several problems and causes: lack of common ecological targets for each side and effective cross-border regulative measures, cumbersome coordination in cross-border cooperation. Finally, four feasible recommendations have been put forwarded: creating new institutional arrangements under the context of “One Country, Two Systems”, establishing the efficient decision-making platform for the inter-city cooperation, introducing the market-based resource allocation, and encouraging public participation in ecological monitoring.