Link to Session Platform

Chairs(s):

Xiaofeng Liu, The University of Hong Kong

; Mia Bennett, University of Washington

Description:

Infrastructure development is not only political: it is geopolitical, too. In the push to bolster global connectivity, grand plans are spanning international borders and involving a diverse array of both state and non-state stakeholders (Appel, Anand, & Gupta, 2018). Infrastructure, serving as a material channel for major powers’ global or regional influence, is also an instrument for territorialization (Bouzarovski, Bradshaw, & Wochnik, 2015; Flint & Zhu, 2019; Turner & Johnson, 2017).

There is also an economic imperative for infrastructure investment. In recent years, numerous reports have identified a “global infrastructure gap,” or a massive shortfall in the amount of capital invested in infrastructure versus what is actually needed. Motivated both to close this gap and to expand their influence, countries, multilateral organizations, and supranational organizations have emerged as constructors, lenders, and financiers for infrastructure projects. Among them are China, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the European Union, through its Strategy on Eurasian Connectivity and its Global Gateway Initiative, and the G7, with its Build Back Better World (B3W) plan. These initiatives are often taking place in overlapping or neighboring spaces, which can lead to healthy competition or more destructive rivalry, depending on the geopolitical contexts (Zhao, 2019).

For the recipients of infrastructure development projects, which are typically in the Global South, these initiatives can help drive economic growth while transferring capital, technology, and expertise (Ho, 2020). At the same time, these interventions can cause manifold political and environmental controversies at a range of scales (Dwyer, 2020; Glass, Addie, & Nelles, 2019). Given the socially and environmentally destructive legacies of past infrastructural investments motivated by great power ambitions rather than local desires, the consequences of their 21st-century counterparts invite scrutiny. This is all the more important in light of financiers’ claims that this time around, projects will be sustainable, equitable, and green.

Non-Presenting Participants Agenda