Analysis finds infrastructure-led development may face challenges from geopolitical tensions and limited agency of local actors.
China's launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013 reinvigorated debates on infrastructure-led development and reshaped core–periphery relations through large-scale port investments. A prominent case is the 99-year lease of Darwin Port in Australia's Northern Territory to the Chinese company Landbridge Group in 2015, which sparked both development hopes and geopolitical controversy. While subnational actors play a central role in mediating external investment – especially in port infrastructure – their agency in host countries remains underexplored in the literature on BRI and global production networks (GPNs). This study addresses this gap by combining the strategic coupling framework with agenda-setting theory to analyse how regional actors in Darwin attempted to align local assets with Landbridge's commercial strategy under BRI-linked investment. Based on empirical fieldwork, the study finds that while Darwin possessed distinctive, immobile assets and institutional ambition, the lease structure and broader geopolitical tensions constrained long-term developmental gains. Initial hopes to catalyse economic diversification, population growth and regional connectivity were overridden by multi-scalar power asymmetries and the securitisation of Chinese infrastructure capital. The result was not strategic but structural coupling – characterised by limited embeddedness, abandoned projects and reinforced dependency. The paper contributes to debates on infrastructure-led development by showing that strategic coupling is not guaranteed by asset endowments alone but is a contingent, negotiated process shaped by scalar coherence, institutional capacity and geopolitical alignment. In doing so, it adds nuance to GPN theory by foregrounding host-region agency and the geopolitical context in shaping development outcomes in peripheral settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johanna Fellbrich (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: