Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s president Mr. Jin Liqun shares with JIPD Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Gu Qingyang, his passion for infrastructure finance, as he reflects upon his goal of steering an environmentally friend and corruption-free AIIB toward building social-impacting infrastructure across Asia.
From governmental departments to international financial institutes, Mr. Jin Liqun has undertaken almost every essential role in finance. With his vast experience across the private and public sectors, particularly in multilateral development banks, Mr. Jin Liqun currently serves as Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)’s first President since its founding in 2016, following a stint as Secretary-General of the Multilateral Interim Secretariat created to establish the bank. Beginning from his two decades of governmental experience at the Chinese Ministry of Finance, rising from the rank of Deputy Director General to Vice Minister, Mr. Jin was then called to serve as Vice President, and then Ranking Vice President, of the Asian Development Bank, and later as Alternate Executive Director for China at the World Bank and at the Global Environment Facility. Mr. Jin had also served as Chairman of China International Capital Corporation Ltd., China’s first joint-venture investment bank, in addition to serving as Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corporation and as Chairman of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds.

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.

The whole world is in a fuel crisis nearly approaching exhaustion, with climate change knocking at our doorsteps. In the fight against global warming, one of the principle components that demands technocratic attention is Transportation, not just as a significant contributor to atmospheric emissions but from a much broader perspective of environmental sustainability. 

From the traditional technocratic aspect of transport planning, our epiphany comes in the form of Land Use integrated sustainable transport policy in which Singapore has been a pioneer, and has led the way for both developed and developing nations in terms of mobility management. We intend to investigate Singapore’s Transport policy timeline delving into the past, present and future, with a case by case analysis for varying dimensions in the present scenario through selective benchmarking against contemporary cities like Hong Kong, London and New York. The discussions will include themes of modal split, land use policy, vehicular ownership, emission policy, parking policy, safety and road traffic management to name a few. A visualization of Singapore’s future in transportation particularly from the perspective of automated vehicles in conjunction with last mile solutions is also detailed. 

This paper provides a comparative perspective on infrastructure provision in developing Asia's three largest countries: China, India, and Indonesia. It discusses their achievements and shortfalls in providing network infrastructure (energy, transport, water, and telecommunications) over the past two decades. It documents how three quite distinct development paths—and very different levels of national saving and investment—were manifested in different trajectories of infrastructure provision. The paper then describes the institutional, economic, and policy factors that enabled or hindered progress in providing infrastructure. Here, contrasting levels of centralization of planning played a key role, as did countries’ differing abilities to mobilize infrastructure-related revenue streams such as user charges and land value capture. The paper then assesses future challenges for the three countries in providing infrastructure in a more integrated and sustainable way, and links these challenges with the global development agenda to which the three countries have committed. The concluding recommendations hope to provide a platform for further policy and research dialogue.