"Scholars have found...": That is foggy and sources of this/links would need to be quoted.

It does not matter who "leads" AIIB, whether China or India or anybody else. In a currently divisive world it would actually be important to not add fuel to the fire by superfluously politicising AIIB's work.

Infrastructure and financing thereof is very, very important for inducing development in under-developed countries. But not only the construction, also *quality* and *continued maintenance* thereof are of supreme importance.

It cannot be that hydropower plants in Africa, meant to last for a hundred years, start crumbling within two years after construction. It also cannot be that projects fall into disrepair within a few years owing to absence of maintenance. This would make the entire exercise useless and result not only in a colossal waste of money, but also in a tremendous loss of prestige of AIIB and whoever wants to claim to be the "lead" of AIIB.

Such failures of non-AIIB projects are a great learning opportunity for AIIB and better be taken to heart.

Expand full comment

You may it interesting that one of the reasons AIIB (and the NDB) came up as an idea was the very expensive + onerous safeguards clearance process of the MDBs of the day, even in countries with robust laws and systems. Also, big borrowers (like India, China) had reached the country-exposure limits at those MDBs, which meant brakes on large loans. But we still needed relatively less-expensive funding, given the infra deficit.

Expand full comment