Framing the Asian infrastructure investment bank: a qualitative analysis of the political debate and media coverage on a China-led multilateral institution

Abstract

This qualitative study is designed to identify the frames in the debate on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and analyze the framing by different actors. To that end, it drew insights from framing theory and conducted an in-depth inductive frame analysis based on a representative sample of official documents and news articles. 14 frames (7 frames and 7 counterframes) emerged therefrom. They represent the AIIB debate along six dimensions: China vis-à-vis AIIB (Tool, We’re all equal), AIIB for members (Boon, Bane), AIIB versus status quo (Rival, Complement, Winds of change), standards (Made in China, Qualified yes, Up to par), prospects (Off to a good start, Not all roses), and external reactions (Game, Much ado about nothing). Building on the frames identified, the study went further to show how political actors applied frames in their (self-)justificatory discourse, and how media enriched the debate by bringing in frames absent from the official discussions in the political circle. The findings herein not only attest to the contested nature of the AIIB and the diverging framing by different actors, but shed some light on the wider discussions on China’s evolving relations with the incumbent global system and established powers.

Keywords:

• AIIB
• frame
• frame contest

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The selection of the six countries and four IFIs is discussed in the method section.

2 A keyword (‘Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’ and ‘AIIB’) of databases (LexisNexis and ProQuest) and websites shows that elite media dominated the AIIB news discourse and tabloid newspapers coverage was almost non-existent.

3 On the selection of news articles, two caveats are in order. First, articles were taken both from databases and websites. The latter was preferred in cases where databases do not include articles from a specific source, and where the number of online articles was much higher than that found in databases (for example, Nikkei Asian Review published 168 AIIB-focused articles online but only 48 were found in LexisNexis). All the online articles were replicated separately and are available upon request. Second, the sample gathered all the AIIB-focused articles found in selected news media, which nevertheless displayed a rather uneven distribution. However, domination of articles from a single source (e.g. Nikkei Asian Review in Japan) does not bias the findings of the inductive frame analysis wherein frame frequency is not analyzed.

4 The complete datasheet resulting from inductive coding with core elements and typical statements is available upon request.

5 The advocate of universal procurement and universal recruitment can be equally applied to the Winds of change frame if used to stress the AIIB’s difference form other MDBs.

6 The NDB is a joint project of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

7 The ‘funding gap’ argument can be used for the Complement frame as well.

8 The ‘low standard’ argument is equally applicable to the Rivalry frame if used to stress the disruptive impact of a sub-standard AIIB on Bretton Woods institutions.

9 Official position of a state government is not to be confounded with its position in close-door diplomatic exchanges.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hai Yang

Hai Yang is a doctoral candidate at the Leuven International and European Studies (LINES) in KU Leuven. His research interests include the newly-established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China’s legitimation of its multilateral initiatives, and Chinese foreign policy in general. His recent works include ‘The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and status-seeking: China’s foray into global economic governance’ published in Chinese Political Science Review, and ‘Time to up the game? Middle Eastern security and Chinese strategic involvement’ published in Asia Europe Journal.

Baldwin Van Gorp

Baldwin Van Gorp is a professor of journalism and communications management at the Institute for Media Studies in KU Leuven. His research mainly focuses on framing: conceptualization, methodologies, practical applicability, and effects. He has applied framing to a variety of topics, including refugees, Europe, psychological disorders, dementia, and child poverty. He has previously published articles in Journal of Communication, European Journal of Communication, Journalism, Journalism Practice, Social Science & Medicine, among others.