sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

China's massive international infrastructure project will benefit the world much like the post-WWII Marshal Plan did for Europe, says Shang-Jin Wei. And the costs are not high for China, although the returns might be

Business
China's massive international infrastructure project will benefit the world much like the post-WWII Marshal Plan did for Europe, says Shang-Jin Wei. And the costs are not high for China, although the returns might be

By Shang-Jin Wei*

Since 2013, China has been pursuing its “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to develop physical infrastructure and policy linkages connecting more than 60 countries across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Critics worry that China may be so focused on expanding its geopolitical influence, in order to compete with the likes of the United States and Japan, that it may pursue projects that make little economic sense.

But, if a few conditions are met, the economic case for the initiative is strong.

As a recent Asian Development Bank report confirms, many Belt and Road countries are in urgent need of large-scale infrastructure investment – precisely the type of investment that China has pledged. Some, such as Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, lack reliable electricity supplies, which is impeding the development of their manufacturing sectors and stifling their ability to export. Others, like Indonesia, do not have enough ports for internal economic integration or international trade.

The Belt and Road initiative promises to help countries overcome these constraints, by providing external funding for ports, roads, schools, hospitals, and power plants and grids. In this sense, the initiative could function much like America’s post-1945 Marshall Plan, which is universally lauded for its contribution to the reconstruction and economic recovery of war-ravaged Europe.

Of course, external funding alone is not sufficient for success. Recipient countries must also undertake key reforms that increase policy transparency and predictability, thereby reducing investment risk. Indeed, implementation of complementary reforms will be a key determinant of the economic returns on Belt and Road investments.

For China, the Belt and Road investments are economically appealing, particularly when private Chinese firms take the lead in carrying them out. In 2013, when China first proposed the Belt and Road initiative, the country was sitting on $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, which were earning a very low dollar return (less than 1% a year). In terms of China’s own currency, the returns were negative, given the expected appreciation of the renminbi against the US dollar at the time.

In this sense, Belt and Road investments are not particularly costly for China, particularly when their far-reaching potential benefits are taken into account. China’s trade-to-GDP ratio exceeds 40% – substantially higher than that of the US – owing partly to underdeveloped infrastructure and inadequate economic diversification among China’s trading partners. By addressing these weaknesses, China’s Belt and Road investments can lead to a substantial increase in participant countries’ and China’s own trade volumes, benefiting firms and workers substantially.

This is not to suggest that such investments are risk-free for China. The economic returns will depend on the quality of firms’ business decisions. In particular, because efficiency is not the primary consideration, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) might purse low-return projects. That is why China’s SOE-reform process must be watched carefully. Nonetheless, while the Belt and Road initiative is clearly driven partly by strategic objectives, a cost-benefit analysis shows that the economic case is also very strong – so strong, in fact, that one might ask why China didn’t undertake it sooner.

Even the United States and other countries may reap significant economic returns. A decade after the global financial crisis erupted, recovery remains weak and tentative in much of the world. Bold, large-scale infrastructure investments can provide much-needed short-run stimulus to global aggregate demand. The US, for one, is likely to see a surge in demand for its own exports, including cars, locomotives, planes, and high-end construction equipment, and financial, accounting, educational, and legal services.

In the longer term, the new infrastructure will ease logistical bottlenecks, reducing the costs of production inputs. The result will be higher productivity and faster global growth.

If Belt and Road projects are held to high environmental and social standards, significant progress can also be made on global challenges such as climate change and inequality. The more countries choose to participate in these projects, the better the chance of achieving these standards, and the greater the global social returns will be.

In an era when some of the world’s most influential countries are turning inward, talking about erecting trade barriers and constructing border walls, the world needs initiatives focused on building bridges and roads, both literal and figurative – initiatives like the Belt and Road strategy.


Shang-Jin Wei, a former chief economist of the Asian Development Bank, is the  N.T. Wang Professor of Chinese Business and Economy at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017, published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

13 Comments

There is absolutely nothing in common between the US's post-war Marshal Plan and China's Belt & Road strategy. Nothing. The first of these was driven by a liberal democracy in order to rebuild liberal democracy in Europe. And liberal democracy, it might be remembered, was highly welcome after the tyranny of Nazism and in the face of the tyranny of Soviet communism. What, I wonder, beyond money, is there to welcome in Chinese influence?

The fact is, there is not a single political, ethical or humane idea that any free people welcome from the People's Republic of China. Not one. It has nothing to offer but money, a market, and the productive capacity for material goods. Nothing else that the free world is interested in. The comparison made in this article is beneath contempt.

Up
0

Incorrect. The Marshall (not Marshal) Plan had one simple goal and that was to get Germany's economy back on it's feet as fast as possible so it could start paying reparations. The USA invested approximately 13 billion USD (1945 dollars) and Germany made its final repayment circa 2010 having repaid fines and confiscations to the value of 23 billion USD (1945 dollars) and given up territories to Poland and the USSR.

Up
0

Wazim, you will find numerous excellent discussions of the Marshall Plan (yes, I missed the second 'l', as my eyes were on this craven piece of propaganda) in many scholarly articles. Its goal was the rebuilding of European democratic economies, and its main tool in this was the wiping of German sovereign debt. Yes, recipients of Marshall money agreed to a charge on Germany. As a result of Marshall aid, Europe had the support needed for rebuilding, and West Germany gained a sound financial footing and entered on its subsequent decades of economic prosperity. Reparations were never the objective. Return of funds, and the willing return of funds, were the results of the programme's success.

But none of this touches my points above. US contributions rebuilt liberal democratic freedom in Europe. And China? It may represent freedom to wretched North Korean escapees. To no-one else. Let me say it again - there is not a single humane idea the world wants from China. It has none to offer. No amount of supposed economic benefice can disguise this fact. This time the cheque book is in very different hands.

Up
0

I'm no fan of the Communist party of China (or any other dictatorship) and I am very nervous of large creatures so madness in the government of Andorra worries me less than say in the White house. So I thought I would be agreeing with you. However "humane idea" - what does that mean and would it apply to say New Zealand? I suppose if you go back far enough you could say 'votes for women' and 'exporting refrigerated meat' but China could counter with numerous technical and cultural advances.
If you leave the communist party / government of China out of it then China has produced a recent Nobel prize winner and Ai Weiwei the contemporary artist and activist. There would be many more the world would appreciate if the Communist Party of China removed its heavy censorship.

Up
0

"If you leave the communist party / government of China out of it"

Also, unicorns.

Up
0

I think "Marshal Plan" is being used here as a metaphor for a large scale government program that supposedly benefits other countries.
Also the Marshall Plan seems to have reached mythical proportions in some people's minds. It was only 132 billion in today's dollars and Germany received only 11% of that. Compare that to the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which is about two trillion.
Germany benefited somewhat by having a lot of their infrastructure destroyed and machinery stolen as they then replaced it with new and more efficient equipment.

Up
0

"" benefited somewhat by having a lot of their infrastructure destroyed and machinery stolen as they then replaced it with new and more efficient equipment "" you underestimate the destruction - the German economic miracle was based on the willingness of ordinary Germans to rebuild factories before rebuilding their own homes. I hope Christchurch has a similar economic miracle.
Thanks for the numbers - I hadn't realised how well they spent money in Europe after the war and how badly they spend in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up
0

The destruction continued after the war as well with factory buildings being deliberately destroyed by the Allies, patents seized and entire plants being shipped out to the victor's countries. Konrad Adenauer pointed out to the Allies how stupid it was to destroy factories while implementing the Marshall Plan and they eventually stopped. The Germans on balance didn't benefit at all from US post war assistance. It's just propaganda. France and UK received way more.
It is amazing Germany did as well as it did when you consider how many Germans were used as slaves by the Allies after the war as well.

Up
0

Astonishing how quickly Germany recovered and became the manufacturing leader of Europe. It may not have been as beneficial as I had supposed but surely a far better solution than after WW1. Marshall & Truman remain historical figures I admire (even if rather ignorant about them).

Up
0

Short piece on the German post war economic miracle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHQ_7vx6xx0

Up
0

China is the Weinstein of geopolitics.

Up
0

Nothing in human affairs is ever truly binary (good-bad or whatever). To reply to you, Zachary, yes, the US role in post-war Europe can be criticised; and, yes, Lapun, Al Weiwei is an admirable artist in any assessment (however his treatment by the Chinese authorities exemplifies the divergence of state power there and creative humanity). Humane ideas, Lapun, to my mind, include such things as the rule of law, religious freedom, freedom of assembly and speech, and these - happily - inform our society. And these are issues the Chinese leadership is violently and increasingly opposed to. By way of example, while we talk here in freedom, the Chinese authorities seek to implement and extend its so-called 'social credit' scheme - a comprehensive digital framework that will keep tabs on, and determine the state's treatment of, every citizen or individual in its purview.

And thus, regarding Belt & Road, and the Marshall Plan, there's an essential issue to emphasise. Both are/were state investment initiatives, based - in the simplest analysis - in choices as to the international deployment of a state's substantial capital. At that crude or simple level, they may be seen as similar. However, investment is never an impartial act. Investment brings or includes an investor. And this is where there's a radical divergence between the investors, between what they stand for. If anyone supposes there is no practical difference between these investors and their attitudes, or believes such investment is impartial, it's worth talking to anyone in business in Hong Kong

Up
0

"One Belt, One Road" - hmmm, on the one hand I think of railways, roads and ports in places like Pakistan (funded by China) that any reasonable person would say is a sign of progress and development and must be a good thing for people in those countries. What's not to like?

On the other hand I read those words and see "One Belt" literally tying/strapping people into an embrace with China, and "One Road" all leading to Rome, sorry Beijing, sucking the economic resources out of the neighboring countries for the benefit of Chinese consumers and manufacturers.

I think another country in Asia had similar ideas 60 years ago and it started with "Co-Prosperity Sphere"....

Up
0