Publication: Public Procurement in the Belt and Road Initiative
Loading...
Date
2018-12
ISSN
Published
2018-12
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) includes major infrastructure investment projects – roads, ports, railways – that aim to improve connectivity along a number of transport corridors spanning 71 countries. In this paper we find that notwithstanding the large scale of the initiative, relatively little systematic data exists on the practices being followed by the different, primarily Chinese, entities that finance BRI-related contracts and how firms are being selected to execute projects. The limited available data however indicate that Chinese companies account for the majority of BRI-procurement, even in light of their high share of total infrastructure projects in developing countries. We discuss the limited publicly available evidence on the procurement of BRI projects and specific dimensions of the institutional features pertaining to public procurement regimes of BRI countries, including China, both as embedded in domestic regulations and in international agreements that countries may be part of. Finally, we discuss the efforts that BRI countries can take -individually or as part of an international agreement- to improve procurement practices for BRI projects.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Ghossein, Tania; Hoekman, Bernard; Shingal, Anirudh. 2018. Public Procurement in the Belt and Road Initiative. MTI Discussion Paper,no. 10;. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31069 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Public Procurement, Regional Integration, and the Belt and Road Initiative(Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the World Bank, 2021-05-21)China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a mechanism through which countries can upgrade connectivity-related infrastructure, including through cross-border projects, complementing traditional sources of finance. An overarching goal of the BRI is to reduce trade costs between China and partner countries, in part by helping to integrate regional markets. The large-scale borrowing associated with BRI projects has given rise to potential debt servicing and sustainability concerns. The rate of return of BRI regional infrastructure projects depends in part on the integrity of public procurement processes and realizing value-for-money objectives. To date BRI projects financed by Chinese institutions have been largely awarded to Chinese companies. Enhancing transparency of BRI procurement processes and international cooperation among countries participating in the BRI would help achieve value for money goals and support the integration of BRI countries.Publication Belt and Road Economics(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2019-06-18)China proposed the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 to improve connectivity and cooperation on a transcontinental scale. This study, by a team of World Bank Group economists led by Michele Ruta, analyzes the economics of the initiative. It assesses the connectivity gaps between economies along the initiative’s corridors, examines the costs and economic effects of the infrastructure improvements proposed under the initiative, and identifies complementary policy reforms and institutions that will support welfare maximization and mitigation of risks for participating economies.Publication Procurement in Infrastructure : What Does Theory Tell Us?(2009-07-01)Infrastructure has particular challenges in public procurement, because it is highly complex and customized and often requires economic, political and social considerations from a long time horizon. To deliver public infrastructure services to citizens or taxpayers, there are a series of decisions that governments have to make. The paper provides a minimum package of important economic theories that could guide governments to wise decision-making at each stage. Theory suggests that in general it would be a good option to contract out infrastructure to the private sector under high-powered incentive mechanisms, such as fixed-price contracts. However, this holds under certain conditions. Theory also shows that ownership should be aligned with the ultimate responsibility for or objective of infrastructure provision. Public and private ownership have different advantages and can deal with different problems. It is also shown that it would be a better option to integrate more than one public task (for example, investment and operation) into the same ownership, whether public or private, if they exhibit positive externalities.Publication Belt and Road Initiative(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-06)Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), announced in 2013 and formalized in 2015, is China’s long-term commitment and aims to improve connectivity within Asia as well as between Asia and other continents via transport corridors (rail, road, maritime, air) and deeper economic, political, and cultural integration between China and the countries in Europe and Africa (National Development and Reform Commission, 2015). This study analyzes a potential impact of the BRI on Azerbaijan’s economy by focusing on (1) Azerbaijan’s connectivity and trade with the BRI economies; (2) its recent improvements in transport, power, and ICT infrastructure as part of the China, Central Asia, West Asia economic corridor; (3) its remaining connectivity gaps and challenges; and (4) potential economic effects of BRI on Azerbaijan’s trade, foreign investment, growth and welfare. Finally, the study concludes with policy implications that would mitigate the BRI risks and maximize the benefits.Publication Connectivity Along Overland Corridors of the Belt and Road Initiative(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2018-10)The six land corridors that are the ‘Belt’ part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) connect more than sixty countries. As the initiative progresses, policy makers, analysts and researchers are trying to answer a few open questions of which the most common are: How can a country best benefit from the BRI? How should projects be prioritized and sequenced? What opportunities emerge as a result of participating in the initiative? The authors use a network economics approach to answer some of these questions and others. Our hypothesis is that the ability of countries to maximize the benefits of BRI will depend on the position of each country in the new connectivity maps that are emerging. Ultimately, an initiative such as the BRI will change the way economic centers, as the most productive nodes in each country, are connected. Productivity, competition, market opportunities, and transport and logistics costs are all likely to be impacted. However, the magnitude of the effects will depend on where along the Belt corridors a city is located relative to all other countries and economic centers. Ultimately, the difference in outcomes will depend on whether a center intermediates trade flows in the network or serves as an end node that generates inbound and outbound flows. Centers that are not well connected in the new BRI maps may not experience much positive impact. Emphasis should therefore be on the weak links within the networks.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Measuring Financial Inclusion : The Global Findex Database(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04)This paper provides the first analysis of the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) Database, a new set of indicators that measure how adults in 148 economies save, borrow, make payments, and manage risk. The data show that 50 percent of adults worldwide have an account at a formal financial institution, though account penetration varies widely across regions, income groups and individual characteristics. In addition, 22 percent of adults report having saved at a formal financial institution in the past 12 months, and 9 percent report having taken out a new loan from a bank, credit union or microfinance institution in the past year. Although half of adults around the world remain unbanked, at least 35 percent of them report barriers to account use that might be addressed by public policy. Among the most commonly reported barriers are high cost, physical distance, and lack of proper documentation, though there are significant differences across regions and individual characteristics.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.