Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The BRI-Led Globalization and Its Implications for East Asian Regionalization

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Political Science Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the dynamic interaction between the processes of globalization and regionalization within the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Our aim is two-pronged: first, we examine the BRI as a comprehensive blueprint for an alternative type of globalization based on a new set of economic, cultural and political ideas that are qualitatively and quantitatively different from what has been promoted under the existing US-led global system. Second, we explore the potential impact of new globalization on the prospects of region building in East Asia in terms of China’s role in it. We argue that the BRI-driven globalization may have certain dampening and diluting effects on China’s participation in and contribution to the East Asian regionalization. Thus, through this study, we hope to both shed further light on the nature of relationship between globalization and regionalization and extrapolate on the future course of regionalism in East Asia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the term suffers definitional problems due to its loose economic and political structuring, in general, East Asia refers to the sub-regions of Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia (ASEAN). See Kim (2004).

  2. It must be noted here that the most authoritative document on the BRI, the Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road does not explicitly refer to the Initiative as a model for global governance but states that, among others, the BRI “embrac[es] economic globalization…” (NDRC 2015). However, over the years, a growing literature generated by both strategy circles and academia (in China and elsewhere) has offered various interpretations on the Initiative, characterizing it as complementary to, alternative for or even rival to the existing international system. See, for example, (Liu and Dunford 2016; Khan et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018; Ekman 2019; Fardella and Prodi 2017, p. 125; Zheng 2017, p. 29).

  3. In Article 31(2) of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank´s Articles of Agreement, it is explicitly stated that “The Bank, its President, officers and staff shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member, nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions.” See AIIB (2015).

  4. Held et al. (1999, p. 2) classify the varied approaches to globalization under three main categories: hyperglobalists, skeptics, and transformationalists. Also see Thompson (1998).

  5. Although the concepts of regionalism and regionalization are distinguished (but not disconnected) in the literature, in this research, the two terms are used interchangeably to indicate the general mechanisms toward regional economic and political integration. For an in-depth analysis on the two processes and their relationship, see, (Kim 2004, pp. 40; Pempel 2005; Kawai and Wignaraja 2009; Ravenhill 2010).

  6. In fact, drawing on the ancient Silk Road, which is “one of the first examples of globalization that became the first, largest, free-trade zone during the Mongol Empire,” the BRI may be considered a contemporary but more extensive reformulation of the historical communication route (Qoraboyev and Moldashev 2018, p. 121).

  7. It has been, in this respect, argued that the trade war between the US and China is more “about protecting the technological edge that has made the United States the world’s dominant economic power” than about the US trade deficit with China (Huang 2018; Gros 2019; Obe and Sugiura 2018).

  8. As opposed to the critiques, considerable literature exists on the positive correlation between the two processes of globalization and culture. See, for example, Nylund (2001), Rothkopf (1997), Clark (1990) and Dichter (1962).

  9. As of March 2019, of the 50 cities in 15 European countries which have been connected with 60 Chinese cities under the BRI-led China Railway Express (CR Express) network, Russia has the greatest number of connections (18 cities), followed by Germany with 8 cities. See, (Zhang 2019).

  10. In the Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, released by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), it is stated that “The Belt and Road Initiative… upholds the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence: mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence” (NDRC 2015). In the Joint Communique of the Leaders Roundtable of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation released in 2017, it is further underlined that the BRI involves “honoring the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law including respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries” (FMPRC 2017). Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKDC) provides a useful database to all major BRI documents at: https://beltandroad.hktdc.com/en/official-documents.

  11. Nevertheless, especially in the Western academia and policy circles, one can locate plenty of arguments to the contrary, which characterize the Belt and Road as a major challenge to the Western international order on both normative and material levels. The suspicion, in this regard, is particularly reinforced by the seemingly vague language the BRI-related documents employ (Jones 2019, pp. 2–4).

  12. The typology developed by Chen and Gong (2017, p. 75) contrasts the BRI-led globalization with the traditional form, delineating a number of sharp differences.

  13. Although in this study we focus on the relationship between new globalization and East Asian regionalization within the context of China’s approach to these two historical paradigms and seek to analyze the negative implications of the former for the latter, other scholars identify broader and geopolitically informed factors (such as China–Japan rivalry and the US Pivot to Asia) that have had destructive effects on regionalization process in East Asia. See Yeo (2019).

  14. Here, we also recognize that East Asia is only weakly defined as a region due to lack of meaningful institutionalization and integration both economically and, more so, politically. Hence, East Asia’s regionness remains more of an abstract idea than a tangible reality.

  15. One notable exception is the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) in which China actively sought and effectively signed a regional trade agreement with the ASEAN in 2001 in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis of 2007. For a debate on “China and East Asian Regionalism,” see Wang (2011a, p. 623).

  16. To view the investment structure of the AIIB, visit the official website at: https://www.aiib.org/en/index.html.

  17. It is possible to identify a number of reasons for the discrepancy. The first, and perhaps primary, reason lies in the fact that China is a continental-sized country in terms of its geographic scope stretching well into Central Asia. The second reason is the major power nature of the country, which requires that its interest calculation extend globally. In this respect, China’s relationship with the US, the present superpower, appears to be a major determinant. Recent heavy-handed US policies toward China, including the Obama-era Pivot to Asia and the Trump-era hard line economic measures, reflect an intention of encirclement against which China develops global strategies. Indeed, BRI itself can be seen, in part, as an outcome of such concern. Finally, it may be that decision-makers and academic community in China do not hold a view that globalization and regionalization are mutually exclusive processes. Rather, they are seen as interrelated but corresponding to different areas of policy making. Thus, one can promote both paradigms at the same time, provided that national resources are adequate.

  18. It should be noted that these surveys are only intended to give a general insight into the phenomena under study. Also, the fact that globalization has received more academic and political debate than regionalization may not always indicate that the cause for the discrepancy is the BRI. The causal uncertainty is further emphasized by the fact that even before the launch of the BRI, the regionalization discourse remained secondary to globalization in terms of scholarly and political interest even though it is also obvious that the interest discrepancy has further widened ever since the establishment of the BRI.

  19. Whereas, in this research, we emphasized the global characteristics of the BRI, there is hardly a consensus on this matter. For instance, Gimmel and Li maintains that the BRI shares certain features from both the state-driven old regionalism and market-driven new regionalism processes, thus, embodying a “hybrid model of regionalism” in which it “takes on ideas and follows trajectories of both traditions” (Gimmel and Li 2018, p. 14). The authors, however, also indicate that the BRI is more than what the two types of regionalisms suggest, thereby containing some globalization features, as well. Kaczmarski, on the other hand, points out to China’s interpretation of regionalism, which is both broader in terms of territorial outreach and inclusive. Hence, the author does not see any potential friction between the BRI and regionalism as Chinese regionalism process is seen as very much integrated in globalization (Kaczmarski 2017).

References

  • AIIB. 2015. Articles of Agreement. Published May 22 2015. https://www.aiib.org/en/about-aiib/basic-documents/_download/articles-of-agreement/basic_document_english-bank_articles_of_agreement.pdf.

  • Ali, Ashraf H.M. 2005. Globalization as a Generator of Cultural and Economic Hegemony: A Postmodern Perspective. Canadian Social Science 1 (3): 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andornino, Giovanni B. 2017. The Belt and Road Initiative in China’s Emerging Grand Strategy of Connective Leadership. China & World Economy 25 (5): 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atanassova-Cornelis, Elena. 2010. Dynamics of Japanese and Chinese Security Policies in East Asia and Implications for Regional Stability. Asian Politics & Policy 2 (3): 395–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ba, Alice D. 2009. Regionalism’s Multiple Negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (3): 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beijing Review. 2018. Views on Global Governance, May 3. https://www.bjreview.com/Opinion/201804/t20180428_800128142.html.

  • Breslin, Shaun. 2010. Comparative Theory, China, and the Future of East Asian Regionalism(s). Review of International Studies 36: 709–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, William A. 2016. China’s ‘Asia Dream’: The Belt Road Initiative and the New Regional Order. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 1 (3): 226–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Jian, and Gong Xiaoying. 2017. 'Yi Dai Yi Lu' Zhanlue Kaiqi Juyou 'Renlei Mingyun Gongtongti' yishi de quanqiuhua fazhan de xinshidai [The ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy Opens a New Era of Globalization with the Consciousness of ‘Human Destiny Community’]. Economist 7 (7): 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, Peck M. 2015. Asean, China seal free trade agreement upgrade. The Business Times, November 23. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/node/77599.

  • Clark, Terry. 1990. International Marketing and National Character: A Review and Proposal for an Integrative Theory. Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 66–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, Tom. 2017. China: From the Treasure Fleet to One Belt, One Road. Counter Punch, December 15. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/15/china-from-the-treasure-fleet-to-one-belt-one-road/.

  • Cook, Paul, and Colin Kirkpatrick. 2010. Globalization, Regionalization and Third World Development. Regional Studies 31 (1): 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, Herman E. 2001. Globalization and Its Discontents. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 21: 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Graaff, Naná, and Bastiaan van Apeldoorn. 2018. US–China relations and the liberal world order: contending elites, colliding visions? International Affairs 94 (1): 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, Christopher M. 2009. Japan, China and East Asian Regionalism: Implications for the European Union. Asia Europe Journal 7: 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, Ernest. 1962. The World Consumer. Harvard Business Review 40 (4): 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, Julan, and Yifei Zhang. 2017. Does One Belt One Road Initiative Promote Chinese Overseas Direct Investment? China Economic Review 47: 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy, Alex. 1998. Thoughts on Globalization, Marxism, and the Left. Latin American Perspectives 25 (6): 55–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, Alice (ed.). 2019. China’s Belt & Road and the World: Competing Forms of Globalization. IFRI: Center for Asian Studies, Paris. Published April 2019.

  • Ekman, Alie. 2017. China’s New Silk Roads: A Flexible Implementation Process. In The Years of China’s New Silk Roads: From Words to (Re)action?, 9–17. IFRI: Center for Asian Studies, Paris. Published February 2017.

  • Enderwick, Peter. 2018. The economic growth and development effects of China's One Belt, One Road Initiative. Strategic Change 27: 447–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Richard. 1999. Predatory Globalization: A Critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fardella, Enrico, and Giorgio Prodi. 2017. The Belt and Road Initiative Impact on Europe: An Italian Perspective. China & World Economy 25 (5): 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleet, Michael. 2017. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Harnessing Opportunities for Canada. In Cracks in the Liberal International Order: 2018 Global Trends Report, 95–100. Waterloo: Balsillie School of International Affairs.

  • FMPRC. 2017. Joint Communique of the Leaders Roundtable of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation.Published May 16 2017. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1462012.shtml.

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self Identity. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmel, Andreas, and Yuan Li. 2018. The belt and road initiative: A hybrid model of regionalism. Working Papers on East Asian Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, 122: 1–22.

  • Gros, Daniel. 2019. This is not a Trade War, It is a Struggle for Technological and Geo-strategic Dominance. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) 1: 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, David. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Yafei. 2017. China’s New Role in Global Governance Shaping the Emerging World Order. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies 3 (3): 341–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D., Anthony G. McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrero Alicia, G., and Xu Jianwei. 2017. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Can Europe Expect Trade Gains? China & World Economy 25 (6): 84–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalisation: Ten Frequently Asked Questions and Some Surprising Answers. Soundings 4: 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Yiping. 2016. Understanding China's Belt & Road Initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment. China Economic Review 40: 314–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Yukon. 2018. Opinion: China’s Trade War with U.S. is About Technological Dominance. Caixin Global, May 16. https://www.caixinglobal.com/2018-05-16/opinion-chinas-trade-war-with-us-is-about-technological-dominance-101250670.html.

  • Jones, Lee. 2019. Does China’s Belt and Road Initiative Challenge the Liberal, Rules-Based Order? Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 10000: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00252-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacowics, Arie M. 1999. Regionalization, Globalization, and Nationalism: Convergent, Divergent, or Overlapping? Alternatives 24: 528–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczmarski, Marcin. 2017. Non-western visions of regionalism: China’s New Silk Road and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. International Affairs 93 (6): 1357–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Davd C. 2007. China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawai, Masahiro, and Ganeshan Wignaraja. 2011. Asian FTAs: Trends, Prospects and Challenges. Journal of Asian Economics 22 (1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner, Douglas. 2002. Theorizing Globalization. Sociological Theory 20 (3): 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner, Douglas. 2018. Donald Trump as Authoritarian Populist: A Frommian Analysis. In Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism, ed. Jeremiah Morelock, 71–82. London: University of Westminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, Muhammad K., Imran Ali Sandano, Cornelius B. Pratt, and Tahir Farid. 2018. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A Global Model for an Evolving Approach to Sustainable Regional Development. Sustainability 10 (11): 4234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Samuel S. 2004. Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies 4: 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohl, Tristan. 2019. The Belt and Road Initiative’s Effect on Supply-Chain Trade: Evidence from Structural Gravity Equations. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 12 (1): 77–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D. 2009. Power, The State and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lairson, Thomas D. 2018. The Global Strategic Environment of the BRI: Deep Interdependence and Structural Power. In China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Changing the Rules of Globalization, ed. Wenxian Zhang, Ilan Alon, and Christoph Lattemann, 35–55. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, E.X. 2016. The End of Globalism. Foreign Affairs, December 9.

  • Li, Ming. 2016. Guoji fa yu 'yidai yilu [International Law and ‘One Belt, One Road’]. Law Science Magazine 37 (1): 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Yuan, and Yang Lihua. 2002. Quanqiuhua Quyuhua yu Guojia Zhuyi [Globalization, Regionalization and Globalism]. Journal of Literature, History & Philosophy 1: 156–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Weidong, and Michael Dunford. 2016. Inclusive globalization: unpacking China's Belt and Road Initiative. Area Development and Policy 1 (3): 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomnitz, Claudio. 1994. Decadence in Times of Globalization. Cultural Anthropology 9 (2): 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mao, Haiou, Guanchun Liu, Chengsi Zhang, and Atif Rao. 2019. Does Belt and Road Initiative Hurt Node Countries? A Study from Export Perspective. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade 55: 1472–1485.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Clifford D. 2018. Give Anti-Globalism a Chance. The Washington Times, April 4. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/3/give-anti-globalism-a-chance/.

  • May, Hongmei G. 2018. Globalization 5.0 Led by China: Powered by Positive Frames for BRI. In China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Changing the Rules of Globalization, eds. Wenxian Zhang, Ilan Alon and Christoph Lattemann, 321–337. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • McQuail, Denis. 2000. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehanna, Rock-Antoine. 2008. Globalization Versus Regionalization: And the Winner Is…. Journal of Transnational Management 13 (4): 287–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Tom. 2017. China’s Asian Dream: Quiet Empire Building along the New Silk Road. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Melinda. 2009. Globalization and Inequality. European Sociological Review 25 (1): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair, Deepak. 2008. Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia: A Frustrated Regionalism? Contemporary Southeast Asia 31 (1): 110–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • NDRC. 2015. Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, March 28. https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669367.html.

  • Nef, Jorge. 2002. Globalization and the Crisis of Sovereignty, Legitimacy and Democracy. Latin American Perspectives 29 (6): 59–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, Katarina. 1990s. Cultural Analyses in Urban Theory of the 1990s. Acta Sociologica 44 (3): 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obe, Mitsuru, and Eri Sugiura. Five Things to Know About ‘Made in China 2025’. Nikkei, April 04. https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/Five-things-to-know-about-Made-in-China-20252.

  • Oman, Charles. 1994. Globalisation and Regionalisation: The Challenge for Developing Countries. Paris: OECD Development Centre Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oman, Charles. 1999. Globalization, Regionalization, and Inequality. In Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics, ed. Andrew Hurrell and Ngaire Woods, 36–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Jinsoo. 2012. Regional Leadership Dynamics and the Evolution of East Asian Regionalism. Pacific Focus 27 (2): 290–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pempel, TJ. 2005. Introduction: Emerging Webs of Regional Connectedness. In Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region, ed. T.J. Pempel, 1–28. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Pritchett, Lant. 1997. Divergence, Big Time. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (3): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qoraboyev, Ikboljon, and Kairat Moldashev. 2018. The Belt and Road Initiative and Comprehensive Regionalism in Central Asia. In Central Asia: Rethinking the Silk Road, ed. Maximilian Mayer, 115–130. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, Bala, and Matthew Yeung. 2019. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: The Impact of Trade Facilitation versus Physical Infrastructure on Exports. The World Economy 42 (6): 1673–1694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, Martin. 2003. The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Why Measurement Matters. International Affairs 79 (4): 739–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenhill, John. 2010. The ‘New East Asian Regionalism’: A Political Domino Effect. Review of International Political Economy 17 (2): 178–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer, Peter J. 2018. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Underlying Economic and International Relations Dimensions. Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University 32 (2): 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, Robbie T. 2003. The Three Waves of Globalization A History of a Developing Global Consciousness. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, Roland. 1995. Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In Global Modernities, ed. Scott Lash, Roland Robertson, and Mike Featherstone, 25–44. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, Dani. 2001. Trading in Illusions. Foreign Policy 123: 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, David. 1997. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Foreign Policy 107: 38–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schortgen, Francis. 2018. China and the Twenty-First-Century Silk Roads: A New Era of Global Economic Leadership? In China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Changing the Rules of Globalization, ed. Wenxian Zhang, Ilan Alon, and Christoph Lattemann, 17–35. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook, Jeremy. 2004. Consuming Cultures: Globalization and Local Lives. UK: New International Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searight, Amy. 2018. ADMM-Plus: The Promise and Pitfalls of an ASEAN-led Security Forum. CSIS, November 1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/admm-plus-promise-and-pitfalls-asean-led-security-forum.

  • Segal, Gerald. 1996. East Asia and the ‘Constrainment’ of China. International Security 20 (4): 107–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siu, Ricardo C.S. 2019. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Reducing or Increasing the World Uncertainties? Journal of Economic Issues 53 (2): 571–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaine, Michael D. 2015. Chinese Views and Commentary on the “One Belt, One Road” Initiative. China Leadership Monitor 47: 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, Göran. 2000. Globalizations: Dimensions, Historical Waves, Regional Effects, Normative Governance. International Sociology 15 (2): 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, Göran, and Habibul Haque Khondker (eds.). 2006. Asia and Europe in Globalization: Continents, Regions and Nations. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Grahame. 1998. Globalisation Versus Regionalism? The Journal of North African Studies 3 (2): 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Xinquan. 2018. Is the Belt and Road Initiative a Chinese-style Regionalism? Korea Economic Institute of America (KEIA), August 3. https://www.keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/jukas_3.1_is_the_belt_and_road_initiative_a_chinese_style_regionalism.pdf.

  • Valuev, Vasiliy. 2000. Globalization Through Regionalization. International Journal of Political Economy 30 (3): 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, Raimo. 2003. Regionalism: Old and New. International Studies Review 5 (1): 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, Robert H. 2004. Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality? International Journal of Health Services 34 (3): 381–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Hongying, and James N. Rosenau. 2009. China and Global Governance. Asian Perspective 33 (3): 5–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Jiangyu. 2011a. China and East Asian Regionalism. European Law Journal 17 (5): 611–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Mingguo. 2017. The Logic of Institutions of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. Teaching and Research 8: 58–66. [In Chinese].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Xueyu. 2004. Xin Diqu Zhuyi—Zai Guojia yu Quanqiuhua Zhijian Jiaqi Qiaoliang [New Regionalism: Bridging the Gap between Nation-States and Globalization]. World Economics and Politics 1: 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Yiwei. 2016. The Belt and Road: What Will China Offer the World in Its Rise. Beijing: New World Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Yuzhu. 2011b. China, Economic Regionalism, and East Asian Integration. Japanese Journal of Political Science 12 (2): 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Min. 2003. Quanqiuhua yu Diqu Zhuyi [Globalization and Regionalism]. The Journal of International Studies 40 (4): 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, Andrew. 2019. China’s rising assertiveness and the decline in the East Asian regionalism narrative. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, Serafettin, and Changming Liu. 2018. China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Strategy in Eurasia and Euro-Atlanticism. Europe-Asia Studies 70 (2): 252–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Mu. 2003. Guo Jia Zhu Yi Qu Yu Zhu Yi Yu Quan Qiu Zhu Yi De Xiang Hu Guan Xi [The Relationship Among Nationalism, Regionalism and Globalism]. Guangxi Social Sciences 5: 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, Jinghan. 2019. Chinese Views of Global Economic Governance. Third World Quarterly 40 (3): 578–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, Fan. 2018. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A Preliminary Quantitative Assessment. Journal of Asian Economics 55: 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Wenxian, Ilan Alon, and Christoph Lattemann (eds.). 2018. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Changing the Rules of Globalization. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Xinyuan. 2019. Data Tells: China-Europe Freight Train Continues to Expand in Scope. CGTN, April 17. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d774d3263444d34457a6333566d54/index.html.

  • Zheng, Bijian. 2017. China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Plan Marks the Next Phase of Globalization. New Perspectives Quarterly 34 (3): 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Weifeng, and Mario Esteban. 2018. Beyond Balancing: China’s Approach towards the Belt and Road Initiative. Journal of Contemporary China 27 (112): 487–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Feng. 1997. Guanyu quyu zhuyi yu quan qiu zhuyi [Regionalism and Globalism]. Contemporary International Relations 9: 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, Keyuan, and Wenxian Qiu. 2018. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Common Heritage of Mankind: Some Preliminary Observations. Chinese Journal of International Law 17 (3): 749–756.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao Campus, Jimo, 72 Binhai Road, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China

    Serafettin Yilmaz & Bo Li

Authors
  1. Serafettin Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yilmaz, S., Li, B. The BRI-Led Globalization and Its Implications for East Asian Regionalization. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 5, 395–416 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00145-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00145-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation