Temporality and the Geopolitical Enframing of Chinese International Development Thinking

Locating the Belt and Road Initiative's spatial trilectics

“…The normative underpinning confirms BRI's alignment with the state-led development policy enthusiasm of the 20 th century (Cheng & Liu, 2022c). It invites a heavy focus on high-technology solutions and the 'hardware' of development, entailing novel combinations of mega-infrastructure and industrial projects with major investments in the built environment which read as impressive statements of 'modernization redux' by replacing 'traditional', 'unruly' informal spaces that precede them (Cheng & Liu, 2022c). In Nepal, for example, the discourses surrounding BRI infrastructural realities and myths do not deviate substantially from the old rhetoric of modernization 'that thinks a rural and ethnically marginal population can be brought into modern economic ways and opportunities through simply providing infrastructural connection[s]' (Campbell, 2010, p. 276).…”

“…The normative underpinning confirms BRI's alignment with the state-led development policy enthusiasm of the 20 th century (Cheng & Liu, 2022c). It invites a heavy focus on high-technology solutions and the 'hardware' of development, entailing novel combinations of mega-infrastructure and industrial projects with major investments in the built environment which read as impressive statements of 'modernization redux' by replacing 'traditional', 'unruly' informal spaces that precede them (Cheng & Liu, 2022c).…”

“…The BRI is thus (co‐)shaping hegemonic expectations of prosperity, rejuvenation and connectivity that reflect the complex interrelationships between transnational and domestic/local politics and struggles often foreclosing alternative visions of sustainability and prosperity. Crucially, its particular modernist imaginary alters existing everyday life and has tangible socio‐political effects in the places where BRI projects materialize (Cheng & Liu, 2022c). In the case of northern Kenya, nomadic pastrolists become deemed ‘lacking modernity’ and their livelihood practices ‘unproductive’ in the state‐level policy focus on mega‐infrastructure, livestock trade and economic development in the region that aims at promoting participation in relations of market exchange and integration into global commodity flows (Lesutis, 2020).…”

The cooperation‐infrastructure nexus: Translating the ‘China Model’ into Laos

“…China model discourse thus works in the Chinese leadership's favour by encouraging countries to adopt Chinese norms, share Chinese values, and align themselves with Chinese strategic aims (Kurlantzick, 2017). As Cheng and Liu (2023: 1959) note, more than a system of explanations, Chinese development thinking ‘provides an implicit set of practical directives for poorer countries to consider pursuing’.…”

“…Nonetheless, there are several common attributes of a China model highlighted in recent studies that are often shared through cooperation (Benabdallah, 2019; Cheng & Liu, 2023; Economy, 2020; Harlan, 2017; King, 2013; Li, 2016; Xu et al ., 2016). The first is self‐reliance , emphasizing that China did not depend on other countries in its own development, but used its own ingenuity and know‐how.…”