The Belt and Road Initiative: Maximizing benefits, managing risks—A computable general equilibrium approach

Hongjoo Hahm, Selim Raihan

Abstract


Using a Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, and China as the base for analytical comparison, this paper shows that there are significant economic benefits to China and the participating countries along all six Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) economic corridors. However, to maximize these benefits, the social and environmental risks need to be well managed. The analysis shows a clear sequencing in terms of priority corridors. Two corridors have minimal investments and immediate returns, two corridors have significant investments with huge returns, and two corridors have high investments with lower returns. Overall, the paper demonstrates that to ensure the sustainability of any BRI corridor development, there is a need to consider its costs and benefits from the economic, social and environmental perspectives.


Keywords


BRI; GTAP; sustainable development

Full Text:

PDF

References


The Economist Corporate Network (2016). “ASEAN connections: How mega-regional trade and investment initiatives in Asia will shape business strategy in ASEAN and beyond”.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2015). “Prospects and challenges on China’s ‘one belt one road’: A risk assessment report”. London, UK: The Economist Intelligence Unit. Available from: http://www.eiu.com.

Farchy J (2016). “China seeking to revive the Silk Road”. Financial Times, 10 May.

Hertel TW (1997). Global trade analysis: Modelling and applications. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Lord MJ (2010). “Impact of the EWEC on development in border provinces: Case study of Savannakhet Province in Lao PDR”. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Luft G (2016). “It takes a road: China’s one belt one road initiative: An American response to the new silk road”. Potomac, MD, USA: Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. Available from: http://www.iags.org/Luft_BRI.pdf.

McKinsey Global Institute (2016). “Bridging global infrastructure gaps”. New York, NY, USA: McKinsey Global Institute.

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (2015). “Vision and actions on jointly building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road”. March 2015. Beijing, China: NDRC.

Rastogi C and Arvis JF (2014). The Eurasian connection: Supply-chain efficiency along the modern silk route through central Asia. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9912-5.

Reilly J (2016). “China: Turning money into power.” In: Leonard M (Ed.), Connectivity wars: Why migration, finance and trade are the geo-economic battlegrounds of the future. Page 189–197. London, UK: European Council on Foreign Relations.

Rolland N (2015). “China’s new Silk Road”. NBR Commentary, 12 February. Washington, DC, USA: National Bureau of Asian Research.

Tekes (2016). “One Belt One Road: Insights for Finland”. Team Finland Future Watch Report, January 2016. Helsinki, Finland: Tekes - Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation.

United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (2015). “Trade facilitation and paperless trade: State of play and the way forward for Asia and the Pacific”. Studies in trade and investment No. 85. Bangkok, Thailand: ESCAP. Available from: http://www.unescap.org/publications/trade-facilitation-and-paperless-trade-state-play-and-way-forward-asia-and-pacific.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v2i1.140

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Hongjoo Hahm

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.