Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank


“A senior US diplomat said it was up to individual countries to decide on joining a new China-led lending body, as media reports said France, Germany and Italy have agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). A growing number of close allies were ignoring Washington’s pressure to stay out of the institution, the Financial Times reported, in a setback for US foreign policy.” from The Guardian.

Similar stories ran in most of the world papers — Telegraph, NYT, and so on — China wants to fund large-scale infrastructure projects in some of Asia’s poorest countries; the US views the move as a means to up-end the IMF and World Bank (institutions that helped to usher-in the world economy that we know today.

8 thoughts on “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

  1. I am reminded of the potentially uneasy relationship that is likely to emerge between the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). A response to your question, therefore, is nicely summarized in an ADB report indicating some years ago that massive infrastructure enhancements are needed in Asian and the Pacific (here: Infrastructure, as it matters for development and the amelioration of poverty, is a big topic for ADB; here is a link to some of their reports:
    I won’t get into it here/now, but the roster of members in the ADB and the roster forthcoming for AIIB may raise a few eyebrows … most notably, the role of the US and Japan being notable members of the IMF and ADB (Japan has secured every presidency in the ADB since its inception); however, they are not part of the AIIB, which, as a bank, is seen by some as an alternative to both the IMF and ADB, and a means to reduce the influence of the Japan/US banking relationship on Asian markets (considering that their relative shares in both markets, the US #1 in the IMF and Japan #1 in the ADB, and that the US is #2 in the ADB and Japan is #2 in the IMF, well, you can imagine the simplicity of the mathematics at play here).


  2. from the bits and pieces I know of we are, as usual, talking out of both sides of our mouths, saying we want to clean up after industry/commerce and don’t want our manufacturing costs to rise, anything in particular I should check out?


  3. Well, my politics aside (though challenges to the IMF and WB seem much needed), this infrastructure investment program may be a way to (1) redirect who gains from lending and (2) a way to direct and channel resources, especially material and expertise-related, in Asia, I still think that it will have a major impact on flows of resources (extraction all the way to opening markets).

    What do you make of the US’s concern over “environmental regulations” in those “Tiger States”?


  4. “up-end the IMF and World Bank” hell that alone makes it worth a look, tho I imagine it’s just a shift in who is doing the extraction of value/resources, thanks for bringing this to my attention.


Comments are closed.