Abstract
The article’s purpose is to contribute to a contemporary debate over how to understand China’s latest institution-building activities in Asia and to explore whether the latest regional dynamics in Asia can be construed through the lens of connectedness among main actors. The network analysis method and two recent datasets of regional organisations in Asia (2015 and 2020 years) allow us to delve into the counterintuitive idea, suggesting that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has constrained a significant aspect of China’s network power in Asia. In 2015, China became the most betweenness central actor and the actor with the strongest network ties. Subsequently, the AIIB was introduced in 2016. It became an organisation that has decreased China’s betweenness centrality while enhancing network connectivity for other actors in Asia. Despite these immediate benefits of the AIIB to the region, the possible long-term effect of China’s institutional statecraft on the existing system of international relations is the major reason why the straightforward advantages of the AIIB are often ignored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
Data and materials for this research are available online. https://osf.io/zyv3b/?view_only=0f12f233207c4c9e8e1b4e03e5695a44
Code availability
Code for R is available online. https://osf.io/zyv3b/?view_only=0f12f233207c4c9e8e1b4e03e5695a44
Notes
Actors Taiwan, Macao, and Hong Kong (as in some IOs they have a separate seat) are not included in the dataset.
Unlike many other international organisations, multilateral development banks in Asia explicitly have regional and non-regional membership. All regional country-members were included in the dataset no matter the scale of their involvement. Non-regional members were included only if there were founding members (AIIB membership) or with a voting power share of around or more than 2% (simple 'above statistical average' threshold). Non-regional members that did not make into the dataset include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ADB members); Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Ecuador, Ephiopia, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Magadascar, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Serbia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay (The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland AIIB members' voting power share was between AIIB's average 0.6867% and ADB's average 1.836%). Partial inclusion of non-regional members was established to both demonstrate the open nature of Asian regionalism and not to overload the network with 'outliers'.
The only Track 2 forum included in the dataset is The Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD), however weakly institutionalised, it has a big importance to the region: NEACD is the only enduring channel of communication among the six countries of Northeast Asia, based on which the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear programme between 2003 and 2009 were held.
All data for this project are available online.
https://osf.io/zyv3b/?view_only=0f12f233207c4c9e8e1b4e03e5695a44
The result of analysis for all actors is available in Appendixes 1–3 and online.
https://osf.io/zyv3b/?view_only=0f12f233207c4c9e8e1b4e03e5695a44
More information on the official website of AIIB.
https://www.aiib.org/en/about-aiib/governance/members-of-bank/index.html
Further details of the counterfactual analysis are available online.
https://osf.io/zyv3b/?view_only=0f12f233207c4c9e8e1b4e03e5695a44
Strong ties here are measured as more frequent contacts (Nelson 1989).
From “Confucian Analects LunYu”, “论语”one of four texts of Confucianism, a collection of sayings by Confucius and dialogues with his disciples.
References
AIIB website. 2021. Our projects. https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/list/year/All/member/All/sector/All/financing_type/All/status/All. Accessed 26 June, 2021.
Alter, Karen J., and Sophie Meunier. 2009. The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090033.
Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organisations 59 (1): 39–75.
Beckfield, Jason. 2008. The dual world polity: fragmentation and integration in the network of intergovernmental organisations. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2008.55.3.419.
Beeson, Mark, and Corey Crawford. 2022. Putting the BRI in Perspective: History. Hegemony and Geoeconomics: Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00210-y.
Brandes, Ulrik. 2004. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal Mathematical Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249.
Breslin, Shaun. 2016. China’s global goals and roles: changing the world from the second place? Asian Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2015.1128680.
Breslin, Shaun. 2018. Global reordering and china’s rise: adoption, adaptation and reform. International Spectator 53 (1): 57–75.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Security complexes: a theory of regional security. In Regions and Powers, 40–82. Cambridge: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Ian Tsung-yen. 2020a. China’s status deficit and the debut of the Asian infrastructure investment bank. Pacific Review 33 (5): 697–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1577291.
Chen, Xi. 2020b. Book review of china’s new global strategy: the belt and road initiative (BRI) and Asian infrastructure investment bank (AIIB), Volume 1. Journal Chinese Political Science 25: 155–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-019-09646-7.
Chung, Jae Ho. 2016. The Rise of China and East Asia: A New Regional Order on the Horizon? Chin: Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0006-2.
Cooley, Alexander, and Daniel H Nexon. 2013. The Empire Will Compensate You: The Structural Dynamics of the U.S. Overseas Basing Network. Perspectives on Politics. 11(4): 1034–050. Accessed August 15, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43280929.
Dahlan, Malik R. 2019. Dispute Regulation in the Institutional Development of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Establishing the Normative Legal Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative. In International Organisations and the Promotion of Effective Dispute Resolution: AIIB Yearbook of International Law, ed. Quayle Peter and Gao Xuan, 121–44. Brill, 2019. Accessed May 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.1163/j.ctvrxk3sj.11.
Doron, Ella. 2021. Balancing effectiveness with geo-economic interests in multilateral development banks: the design of the AIIB ADB the World Bank in a Comparative Perspective. Pacific Review 34 (6): 1022–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1788628.
Dorussen, Han, and Hugh Ward. 2008. Intergovernmental Organisations and the Kantian Peace: A Network Perspective. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2): 189–212. Accessed March 13, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27638603.
Foot, Rosemary. 2006. Chinese Strategies in a US-Hegemonic Global Order: Accommodating and Hedging. International Affairs 82(1): 77–94. Accessed December 12, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3569131.
Freeman, Linton. 1979. Centrality in social networks: I Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks 1: 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
Fu, Jing. 2016. AIIB chief rules out China veto power. ChinaDaily, January 27. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2016-01/27/content_23265846.htm. Accessed May 18, 2021.
Gransow, Bettina, and Susanna Price. 2019. Social risk management at AIIB—chinese or international characteristics? Journal Chinese Political Science 24: 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-9553-8.
Grevi, Giovanni. 2018. Diversity management: regionalism and the future of the international order. International Spectator. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1411558.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Alexander H. Montgomery. 2006. Power positions: international organisations, social networks, and conflict. Journal Conflict Resolution 50 (1): 3–27.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Alexander H. Montgomery. 2012. War, trade, and distrust: why trade agreements don’t always keep the peace. Conflict Management Peace Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894212443342.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Miles Kahler, and Alexander Montgomery. 2009. Network analysis for international relations. International Organisation 63 (3): 559–592.
He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. 2018. Game of institutional balancing: China, the AIIB, and the future of global governance. Report. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Accessed August 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep19929.
Henke, Marina E. 2017. The politics of diplomacy: how the united states builds multilateral military coalitions. International Studies Quarterly 61 (2): 410–424.
Ingram, Paul, Jeffrey Robinson, and Marc L. Busch. 2005. The intergovernmental network of world trade: IGO connectedness, governance, and embeddedness. American Journal Sociology 111 (3): 824–858. https://doi.org/10.1086/497350.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Lichtenstein, Natalie. 2019. Governance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Comparative Context. In Good Governance and Modern International Financial Institutions: AIIB Yearbook of International Law ed. Quayle Peter and Gao Xuan, 79–107. Brill, 2019. Accessed May 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.1163/j.ctvrxk459.9.
Maoz, Zeev. 2012. How network analysis can inform the study of international relations. Conflict Management Peace Science 29 (3): 247–256.
Nelson, Reed E. 1989. The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organisations. Academy Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256367.
Nye, Joseph S. 1968. Comparative regional integration: concept and measurement. International Organisation 22 (4): 855–880. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300013837.
Nye, Joseph S. 2015. Is the American Century over? Cambridge. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Opsahl, Tore, Filip Agneessens, and John Skvoretz. 2010. Node centrality in weighted networks: generalising degree and shortest paths. Social Networks 32: 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006.
Pan, Zhongqi. 2016. Guanxi, weiqi and chinese strategic thinking. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1: 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0015-1.
Park, Miran. 2017. China-led AIIB as a gradual modification of asian financial order: chinese strategies to launch new financial institution. Journal International Area Studies 24 (2): 57–76.
Pass, Jonathan. 2020. China’s institutional statecraft within the liberal international order: infrastructure investment bank. Revista Española De Derecho Internacional 72(2): 89–115. Accessed May 18, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26927912.
Pevehouse, Jon C.W.., Timothy Nordstron, Roseanne W. McManus, and Anne Spencer Jamison. 2019. Tracking organisations in the world: the correlates of war IGO version 30 datasets. Journal Peace Research. 57 (3): 492–503.
Powers, Kathy, and Gary Goertz. 2011. The Economic-institutional Construction of Regions: Conceptualisation and Operationalisation. Review of International Studies 37(5): 2387–416. Accessed April 6, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41308461
Pu, Xiaoyu. 2017. China’s International Leadership: Regional Activism vs. Global Reluctance. Chin: Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-017-0079-6.
Qin, Yaqing. 2018. A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869505.
Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.
Schweller, Randall, and Pu. Xiaoyu. 2011. After unipolarity: China’s vision of international order in an era of U.S. decline. International Security. 36 (1): 41–72.
Shambaugh, David. 2005. China engages Asia: reshaping the regional order. International Security 29 (3): 64–99.
Snedden, Christopher. 2018. Regional Security Architecture: Some Terms and Organisations. Research Report for Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. Accessed April 12, 2019. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21066.
Subedi, Ritu Raj. 2017. Can China revitalize SAARC? http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-02/01/content_40183757.htm
Thompson, William. 1973. The regional subsystem: a conceptual explication and a propositional inventory. International Studies Quarterly 17 (1): 89–117.
Torfason, Magnus, and Paul Ingram. 2010. The global rise of democracy: a network account. American Sociological Review 75 (355–377): 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410372230.
von Stein, Jana. 2008. The international law and politics of climate change: ratification of the United Nations framework convention and the kyoto protocol. Journal Conflict Resolution 52 (2): 243–268.
Ward, Hugh. 2006. International linkages and environmental sustainability: the effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research 43 (2): 149–166.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Wei, Liang. 2021. China’s institutional statecraft under xi jinping: has the AIIB served China’s interest? Journal Contemporary China 30 (128): 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2020.1790903.
Wetherell, Charles. 1998. Historical Social Network Analysis. International Review of Social History 43: 125–44. Accessed June 2, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26405516.
Wu, Charles Chong-Han. 2022. The Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Its Implications for China’s Regional Policy. Chin: Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00209-5W.
Yang, Hai. 2016. The Asian infrastructure investment bank and status-seeking: China’s foray into global economic governance. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1: 754–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0043-x.
Yang, Song, Franziska Barbara Keller, and Lu Zheng. 2017. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Examples. Sage Publications.
Yilmaz, Serafettin, and Bo. Li. 2020. The BRI-Led globalization and its implications for East Asian regionalization. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 5: 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00145-2.
Zhang, Chunman. 2020. The power of a niche strategy and China’s preemptive and adaptive response to the US indo-pacific strategy. China Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/26928118.
Zhang, Enyu, and Patrick James. 2022. All Roads Lead to Beijing: Systemism. Power Transition Theory and the Belt and Road Initiative: Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00211-x.
Zhao, Jianzhi, Yannan Gou, and Wanying Li. 2019. A new model of multilateral development bank: a comparative study of road projects by the AIIB and ADB. Journal Chinese Political Science 24: 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-9580-5.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 14th Pan-European Conference of International Relations (13–17 September, 2021) and the author would like to thank the participants for the valuable suggestions. Volha Kryvets is a PhD candidate in International Relations at SIRPA, Fudan University researching networks of regional organisations in Asia and China's regional posture. Previously received her MPA degree from the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsinghua University and conducted a research internship at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
No conflict of interest exists.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kryvets, V. Side Effects of Creating a Major Regional Development Bank: How Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Has Decreased China’s Network Centrality in Asia. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 8, 553–572 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00229-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00229-1