• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James Schwemlein"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Flawed by Design: The Challenge of Flawed Democracies to China’s Rise

BRI recipient states undergoing democratic transitions are asserting greater influence over the direction of China’s efforts. This is likely to continue as long as China’s flawed business model remains unchanged.

Link Copied
By James Schwemlein
Published on May 7, 2019

Source: Asian Affairs

Much ink has been spilled about China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), President Xi Jinping’s grand vision for leveraging China’s growing wealth to expand economic, political, and military influence. The initiative is typically defined as encompassing projects in some 65 countries across three continents, and in sum it represents the greatest directed investment in history with an estimated value of over $1 trillion over the lifetime of the initiative.1 But five years in, Xi’s “project of the century” is facing turbulence – from indications that China’s economy is slowing, routine construction and project management delays, and most interestingly efforts on the part of recipient countries to assert greater control over the direction of China’s efforts.

Much attention has been paid to the notion of local challenges to China’s BRI. But this commentary is misdirected. At this point, the issue is not an expansion of authoritarianism or the proliferation of a “China model.”2 Nor is it that local “pushback” marks emerging “resistance” to China’s effort, or indeed to China’s rise to great power status. Rather, what has been referred to as “pushback” or “resistance” should be understood narrowly as tactical efforts to amend, renegotiate, or cancel contracts or initiatives previously agreed and announced by Beijing and its local governmental partners. These signs need to be understood in more localized terms than they are typically applied. It is a mistake to confuse local efforts to assert greater influence or control over Chinese investments as a rebuke against China’s rise to global power status. Individual states may choose to curtail or alter Chinese investment plans, but China will remain a large, potentially dominant, actor in most Asian markets, despite tactical challenges against some of its individual programmes.3

This article posits that incidents where recipient states have attempt to assert greater influence share a common characteristic–democracy. Or, to be more precise, partial or flawed democracy.

Read Full Text

Notes

1. https://www.fbicgroup.com/sites/default/files/B&R_Initiative_65_Countries_and_ Beyond.pdf (accessed 14 March 2019).

2. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/16/on-chinas-new-silk-road-democracy-pays-atoll/ (accessed 14 March 2019).

3. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-24/why-democracies-areturning-against-belt-and-road (accessed 14 March 2019).

This article was originally published in Asian Affairs.

About the Author

James Schwemlein

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

James Schwemlein was a nonresident scholar in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Military Disrupts Pakistan’s Democracy Once Again

      James Schwemlein

  • Q&A
    Why Imran Khan Isn’t Going Away

      James Schwemlein

James Schwemlein
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
James Schwemlein
EconomySecuritySouth AsiaPakistanEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Has Kazakhstan Started Deporting Political Activists?

    The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?

    Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.   

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Trump’s Wars Are Boosting Russian Oil Exports

    The interventions in Iran and Venezuela are in keeping with Trump’s strategy of containing China, but also strengthen Russia’s position.

      • Mikhail Korostikov

      Mikhail Korostikov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.