Dao Quoc Huy*
| Tran Thi Ha | Nguyen Thao Minh
© 2025 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has emerged as a transformative force reshaping infrastructure and trade connectivity across Asia. This study assesses the impact of BRI-funded transport infrastructure projects on agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia, focusing on key projects such as the China-Laos Railway and Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). The research employs a mixed-methods approach combining trade flow analysis, policy document review, and semi-structured stakeholder interviews. The findings reveal that transport costs for agricultural products decrease by up to 50%, while transit times are halved, particularly benefiting perishable goods such as fruits and vegetables. Export volumes of staples such as rice and cassava increase substantially, with durian exports to China reaching USD 3 billion annually. Despite these achievements, challenges remain, including limited access for smallholder farmers, insufficient rural infrastructure, and logistical bottlenecks in cold-chain systems. By integrating recent data and insights, this study underscores the need for targeted policies, such as harmonised trade regulations and investments in rural connectivity, to maximise the equitable and sustainable benefits of BRI infrastructure for agricultural trade.
Belt and Road Initiative, agricultural trade, transport infrastructure, Southeast Asia, trade efficiency, cold-chain logistics
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China in 2013, is a transformative global strategy designed to enhance trade connectivity and economic integration across Asia, Europe, and Africa. Through large-scale investments in railways, roads, ports, and multimodal logistics systems, the BRI aims to address infrastructure deficits that constrain cross-border trade. Southeast Asia, strategically located as both a logistics corridor and a vital source of agricultural products, has become a key focus area for BRI infrastructure development [1, 2].
Agriculture remains a cornerstone of Southeast Asia’s economy, accounting for substantial shares of GDP, employment, and exports across the region. However, the sector’s growth and global competitiveness have been hindered by long-standing challenges in logistics and transport, such as high freight costs, inefficient cross-border processes, and limited cold-chain capacity [3, 4]. Smallholder farmers—who form the majority of agricultural producers—are disproportionately affected by these inefficiencies, with inadequate rural connectivity limiting their ability to access international markets [5, 6].
Previous studies have examined the BRI’s role in improving infrastructure connectivity and facilitating trade at a broad regional level [7-9]. While some research has focused on trade volume, macroeconomic outcomes, or geopolitical implications, relatively few studies have assessed how BRI-funded infrastructure influences agricultural trade efficiency specifically, especially from an operational and microeconomic standpoint [10-12]. Moreover, many analyses treat Southeast Asia as a monolithic region, overlooking the diversity in trade capacity, agricultural systems, and institutional frameworks between countries.
This study aims to bridge this gap by offering a comparative, country-level assessment of how BRI-related infrastructure, particularly railway investments, impacts agricultural trade efficiency in Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with qualitative insights from field interviews and reports, we examine concrete performance indicators such as transport costs, transit time reductions, and export competitiveness of perishable goods. Projects like the China-Laos Railway demonstrate substantial reductions in freight costs (up to 50%) and increased delivery speed for tropical exports, making them valuable case studies of transformative logistics [13-15].
The novelty of this research lies in its focus on sector-specific trade impacts, its integration of empirical data from both infrastructure performance and stakeholder experience, and its policy-oriented analysis. Furthermore, it contributes to academic and policy debates by identifying barriers still faced by smallholders and proposing strategies, such as rural logistics investments and sustainable trade practices, to maximize the inclusive and resilient benefits of BRI [16-18]. Ultimately, this study provides a timely and nuanced evaluation of how infrastructure can serve as a lever for agricultural development, and how emerging connectivity projects should be designed to support sustainability, equity, and economic integration in Southeast Asia.
Having reviewed the theoretical and empirical landscape on trade and infrastructure connectivity, the following section outlines the research design and methodology used to examine the impact of the BRI on agricultural trade performance.
2.1 The role of the BRI in trade connectivity
The BRI has emerged as a transformative strategy to address global infrastructure deficits and enhance trade integration. By investing in large-scale transport projects, including railways, ports, and highways, the BRI facilitates the seamless movement of goods across borders. Southeast Asia, with its strategic position in global trade, has become a focal point for BRI investments [17, 19].
Recent studies underscore the potential of BRI-funded infrastructure, such as the China-Laos Railway, to lower transport costs by 30–50% and reduce transit times for agricultural products by half [15, 20]. This has been particularly impactful for time-sensitive goods like tropical fruits and vegetables, where speed and cost efficiency are critical to maintaining quality and market competitiveness. However, challenges such as regulatory misalignment and uneven accessibility for rural areas persist, limiting the full realization of BRI’s benefits [6, 21, 22]. This study addresses the gap by focusing on agricultural trade—specifically, how improved connectivity impacts smallholder farmers and rural exporters.
2.2 Agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia
Efficient logistics networks are essential for the success of agricultural trade, particularly in Southeast Asia, where agriculture contributes significantly to GDP and employment [23, 24]. Studies indicate that improved transport infrastructure can reduce post-harvest losses, enhance market access, and increase trade competitiveness [5, 25]. For example, the integration of multimodal transport systems under the BRI has significantly reduced logistics barriers in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), benefiting exporters and producers alike [26].
Nonetheless, rural producers, especially smallholder farmers, often face challenges accessing major transport hubs. Poor rural roads, high logistics fees, and limited cold-chain infrastructure hinder their ability to fully leverage BRI investment [27-29]. Our research explores these disparities directly by analyzing both quantitative trade outcomes and qualitative data from smallholders affected by BRI projects.
2.3 Sustainability and green logistics
While BRI projects have improved trade efficiency, we have explored additional environmental assessments to provide insights into ensuring sustainable development. For example, large-scale infrastructure development has led to deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and the displacement of local communities [24, 30-32]. To address these concerns, recent research has emphasized the importance of adopting green logistics practices and climate-smart agricultural supply chains [33].
The integration of digital technologies, such as AI-powered logistics management systems and blockchain for supply chain transparency, has been identified as a key solution for improving both efficiency and sustainability [24, 31]. For instance, smart logistics hubs in Lao PDR and Thailand have reduced emissions while enhancing operational efficiency [6].
2.4 Regulatory and policy challenges
By triangulating field interviews with trade and policy data, this research shows how regulatory bottlenecks disproportionately impact small-scale agricultural exporters. Inconsistent customs procedures, differing track gauges, and varying trade policies across ASEAN countries create logistical bottlenecks [4, 34]. Harmonizing these regulations is essential for maximizing the potential of BRI infrastructure.
Furthermore, regional cooperation mechanisms, such as the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation Framework, play a crucial role in aligning trade and transport policies, facilitating cross-border trade, and enhancing regional connectivity [35].
2.5 Research gaps
The existing literature extensively examines the macroeconomic impacts of the BRI, particularly in the context of trade facilitation and infrastructure development. However, critical research gaps remain regarding its effects on agricultural trade efficiency. While many studies explore the BRI’s influence on trade, few provide a sector-specific analysis of agriculture, despite its heavy reliance on efficient logistics and infrastructure. Agriculture is a cornerstone of Southeast Asia’s economy, yet the extent to which BRI-funded projects enhance or hinder agricultural trade efficiency remains insufficiently explored [25, 36-40]. There is also a lack of research on the inclusivity of BRI infrastructure, particularly regarding its accessibility for rural and smallholder farmers. While large agribusinesses may readily integrate into improved transport networks, smallholder farmers often face barriers such as inadequate feeder roads, high logistics costs, and insufficient access to cold-chain facilities, limiting their ability to benefit from these developments [23, 24, 31, 35, 41-44]. Additionally, concerns about the long-term sustainability of BRI projects persist, particularly regarding their environmental and social trade-offs. Issues such as deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and the displacement of local communities remain underexamined, raising questions about the balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility [9, 45-49]. Adding to these gaps, there is limited access to resources, a lack of comprehensive surveys of farmers and industry experts, and a shortage of empirical studies measuring the actual benefits and challenges faced by stakeholders in the region [27, 34]. Addressing these gaps requires a detailed evaluation of how BRI-funded infrastructure impacts agricultural trade efficiency, a closer examination of its inclusivity for smallholder farmers, and a deeper investigation into its long-term sustainability implications in Southeast Asia.
3.1 Research design
The selected projects—the China-Laos Railway, Malaysia’s ECRL, and the Pan-Asia Railway Network—were chosen due to their strategic importance in connecting agricultural production zones with major export markets. These projects represent different geographic scopes, infrastructure types, and levels of maturity, providing a comprehensive view of BRI’s varied impacts across Southeast Asia.
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the impact of the BRI-funded transport infrastructure on agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia. By integrating quantitative data analysis with qualitative insights, the research provides a comprehensive understanding of measurable outcomes such as transport costs, transit times, and export volumes, while also exploring stakeholders’ experiences and challenges.
Three key BRI-funded transport projects were selected for case study analysis:
This research enables a detailed examination of project-specific impacts on agricultural trade efficiency while allowing cross-case comparisons to identify common trends and challenges.
3.2 Data collection methods
To ensure the relevance and depth of the analysis, a purposive sampling strategy was adopted. The selection of case studies—the China-Laos Railway, Malaysia’s ECRL, and the Pan-Asia Railway Network—was based on three main criteria: (1) the infrastructure project's direct connection to agricultural production zones and export corridors, (2) availability of reliable trade and logistics data over a multi-year period (2015–2023), and (3) geographical diversity to reflect varying levels of infrastructure maturity across Southeast Asia.
For the qualitative component, interview participants were also purposively selected to represent diverse perspectives in the agricultural trade supply chain. Criteria for inclusion included: active involvement in cross-border agricultural trade, direct use or experience with BRI-funded infrastructure, and geographical representation across Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand. Expert consultations from Vietnam, Cambodia, and China were additionally conducted to gather regional perspectives, although these were not used in the final coding structure.
3.2.1 Quantitative data
Quantitative data were collected to measure the tangible impacts of BRI infrastructure on agricultural trade efficiency. Key metrics included transport costs (USD/ton), transit times (Days), and export volumes metric (Tons). The following data sources were utilized:
3.2.2 Qualitative data
Qualitative data were collected to provide in-depth insights into the experiences, challenges, and perceptions of stakeholders directly affected by BRI-funded transport infrastructure.
(1) Stakeholder Interviews
To complement the quantitative analysis, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 70 participants, divided into the following groups:
(2) Thematic Coding
Interview transcripts were processed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s framework [54]. Coding was conducted with NVivo software, where recurring themes were categorized into five main domains:
These themes reflect the lived experiences of stakeholders and provide granular insight into how BRI infrastructure affects agricultural trade beyond macroeconomic indicators.
To enhance the reliability of the qualitative findings, a triangulation approach was adopted. This involved systematically cross-referencing interview responses with secondary data sources, including trade statistics, logistics performance indices, and regional policy frameworks.
This integration of qualitative perspectives with quantitative and documentary evidence enhances the analytical rigor of the study. It also reveals the extent to which ground-level experiences align—or diverge—from broader policy objectives and trade performance metrics.
(3) Document Analysis
Policy documents, feasibility studies, and trade reports were analyzed to supplement interview findings and provide context. These included ASEAN trade agreements, customs reports, and BRI project evaluations.
To better understand stakeholder experiences, perceptions, and challenges related to BRI-funded infrastructure, qualitative interviews were thematically analyzed. As shown in Table 1, key themes varied across stakeholder groups: farmers emphasized market access and rural road issues, exporters highlighted reduced logistics costs and customs delays, while logistics providers pointed to improved delivery reliability but insufficient cold storage. Policymakers, on the other hand, focused on optimizing trade routes and regulatory inconsistencies. These themes illustrate the complex, multi-layered impact of BRI projects beyond just infrastructure delivery.
Table 1. Themes identified from interviews
|
Stakeholder Group |
Key Themes Identified |
|
Farmers |
Improved market access; challenges with rural road connectivity |
|
Exporters |
Reduced logistics costs; delays at customs checkpoints |
|
Logistics Providers |
Enhanced delivery reliability; insufficient cold storage |
|
Policymakers |
Optimized trade routes; inconsistent cross-border regulations |
The combined use of quantitative and qualitative data ensures a comprehensive evaluation of BRI infrastructure impacts. Quantitative data provided measurable evidence of improved trade efficiency, such as cost reductions, shorter transit times, and increased export volumes. Qualitative data offered critical insights into the experiences of farmers, exporters, and other stakeholders, highlighting both benefits and persistent challenges. This study provides a holistic understanding of how BRI-funded infrastructure affects agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia.
While the qualitative approach provides useful insights into local perceptions and institutional implementation, a complementary quantitative analysis is needed to measure the BRI’s tangible effects. The next section introduces trade and logistics metrics to capture these impacts.
3.3 Data analysis
3.3.1 Quantitative analysis
To assess the effects of BRI-funded infrastructure on agricultural trade efficiency, the study employed descriptive statistics and comparative analysis. These methods were selected based on the structure and availability of the dataset, which includes time-series trade metrics from 2015 (pre-BRI implementation) and 2023 (post-BRI implementation). Given the aggregated and non-panel nature of the data, these approaches are suitable for revealing macro-level trends and changes over time.
These methods were appropriate for this study because the data were not available at sufficient granularity or frequency to support econometric modeling. Future studies with panel or micro-level datasets may incorporate regression analysis or difference-in-differences estimation for causal inference.
Table 2. Comparative analysis of transport costs and transit times
|
Route |
Metric |
Pre-BRI 2015 |
Post-BRI 2023 |
% Change |
|
Laos to China Rice |
Transport Costs |
$200 |
$120 |
-40% |
|
Transit Times |
8 days |
4 days |
-50% |
|
|
Thailand to China Durian |
Transport Costs |
$180 |
$110 |
-39% |
|
Transit Times |
9 days |
4 days |
-55% |
3.3.2 Qualitative analysis
Qualitative data from stakeholder interviews were analyzed using thematic coding and triangulation techniques:
This mixed-method approach ensures that the analysis captures both measurable trade outcomes and the lived experiences of farmers, exporters, and logistics providers across the region.
3.4 Ethical considerations
3.5 Limitations
The following section presents findings from both qualitative and quantitative analyses. By combining perspectives from stakeholders and official trade data, the study offers a comprehensive assessment of the BRI’s influence on agricultural trade flows and logistics performance.
4.1 Impact of BRI infrastructure on agricultural trade efficiency
This subsection analyzes changes in key trade-related metrics—such as transport cost, transit time, and export volumes—before and after the implementation of the BRI. These indicators help to quantify the improvements in trade efficiency.
4.1.1 Reduction in transport costs
The completion of key BRI transport corridors has led to substantial cost savings in agricultural logistics. As shown in Table 3, these cost reductions are most noticeable in bulk commodity routes, such as rice from Laos and cassava from Thailand.
Table 3. Transport costs before and after BRI implementation (USD/ton)
|
Route |
Pre-BRI 2015 |
Post-BRI 2023 |
% Reduction |
|
Laos to China Rice |
$200 |
$120 |
-40% |
|
Thailand to China -Cassava |
$180 |
$110 |
-39% |
Transport costs for agricultural exports have dropped by nearly 40%, largely due to more direct routes and rail-based shipment efficiency. This reduction boosts price competitiveness and opens new export opportunities for producers.
4.1.2 Improvements in transit times
Infrastructure improvements have also reduced transit times dramatically, which is particularly important for perishable products such as fruits and vegetables. Transit time reductions were especially notable for perishable agricultural products, where delivery speed directly affects product quality and market value. As shown in Figure 1, average transit times from Laos to China for rice shipments fell from 8 days to 4 days, representing a 50% decrease. Similarly, durian exports from Thailand and cassava shipments from Cambodia to China experienced time reductions of 55% and 50%, respectively. These improvements significantly reduce post-harvest losses and enhance the competitiveness of fresh produce in international markets.
The halving of transit durations contributes to higher export quality, reduced spoilage, and greater delivery reliability for fresh produce exporters.
4.1.3 Increase in export volumes
As shown in Table 4, export volumes of key agricultural commodities from Southeast Asia to China have significantly increased since the implementation of the BRI. Lao rice exports to China rose from approximately 8,000 metric tons in 2015 to 10,866 tons in 2023, marking a 136% increase. Similarly, Thailand's cassava exports grew from 200,000 tons to 332,000 tons (+161%), and durian exports tripled from 30,000 tons to 90,000 tons (+300%) over the same period. These trends reflect the substantial improvement in trade logistics and market access facilitated by BRI infrastructure investments, especially through cross-border rail and streamlined customs clearance. BRI connectivity has stimulated exponential growth in trade volumes for agricultural goods, including both staple and high-value commodities [6]. The rise in volume suggests not just infrastructure success but also improved market demand and access:
Table 4. Export volume growth by commodity (Metric tons)
|
Commodity |
Pre-BRI 2015 |
Post-BRI 2023 |
% Growth |
|
Rice Laos to China |
8,000 |
10,866 |
136% |
|
Cassava Thailand to China |
200,000 |
332,000 |
161% |
|
Durian Thailand to China |
30,000 |
90,000 |
300% |
The dramatic increases in trade volume highlight how BRI infrastructure has removed logistical bottlenecks, especially for time-sensitive and high-margin products like durian.
4.2 Benefits and challenges for stakeholders
4.2.1 Benefits observed
4.2.2 Challenges faced by stakeholders
Qualitative Insight: A farmer from Laos noted: “The railway helps us export more rice to China, but we still struggle with transporting goods from our farms to the station because local roads are in poor condition.”
4.3 Regional connectivity and trade integration
The BRI has strengthened regional trade linkages:
The integration of BRI corridors into the ASEAN trade ecosystem has led to faster customs processes, improved cold-chain logistics, and increased trade volume across borders. A consolidated overview of trade and logistics performance between 2015 and 2023 reveals the transformative impact of BRI infrastructure. As detailed in Table 5, average transport costs fell by 40%, transit times were halved, and export volumes surged from 80,000 to over 81,115 metric tons. Cold-chain coverage increased from 40% to 60%, while customs clearance time was cut from 48 hours to 24 hours. These metrics underscore the broad-based improvements not only in efficiency but also in reliability and logistical sophistication across the region.
Table 5. Summary of trade and logistics improvements (2015 vs. 2023)
|
Key Metric |
Pre-BRI 2015 |
Post-BRI 2023 |
% Change |
|
Transport Costs USD/ton |
$200 |
$120 |
-40% |
|
Transit Times Days |
8-9 |
4 |
-50% |
|
Export Volumes Metric Tons |
80,000 |
81,115 |
1.4% |
|
Freight Cargo Volume Tons/year |
2,000,000 |
4,000,000 |
200% |
|
Cold-Chain Efficiency % Products in Cold-Chain |
40% |
60% |
50% |
|
Customs Clearance Time Hours |
48 |
24 |
-50% |
4.4 Policy implications of results
The quantitative and qualitative results presented in the previous sections reveal important insights into how BRI transport infrastructure has reshaped agricultural trade dynamics across Southeast Asia. While the improvements in export volumes and reductions in logistics time are encouraging, these outcomes have uneven effects depending on producer scale and infrastructure access.
First, the observed 136% increase in agricultural export volumes along BRI corridors such as the China-Laos Railway and ECRL indicates improved market integration. However, interview evidence suggests that this growth is largely captured by large-scale exporters who have access to centralized logistics hubs, rather than by smallholder farmers in rural provinces.
Second, the decrease in average border transit time (from 8-9 days to ~4 days) demonstrates the success of BRI in addressing certain logistical inefficiencies. Nevertheless, persistent complaints about inconsistent customs procedures and language mismatches highlight the need for regulatory harmonization under ASEAN-led frameworks like the ASEAN Single Window.
Third, the lack of cold-chain infrastructure remains a major bottleneck for perishable goods trade. Although BRI corridors have introduced better roads and rail connectivity, they have not proportionally expanded temperature-controlled storage or transport access for rural producers. This gap directly impacts the competitiveness of smallholder agricultural exports and may limit long-term trade gains.
The findings of this study highlight the transformative impact of BRI transport infrastructure on agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia. Large-scale projects such as the China-Laos Railway and the Pan-Asia Railway Network have demonstrably reduced transit times and transportation costs—for example, rice shipping costs from Laos to China declined by 40%. These improvements have directly enhanced the competitiveness of agricultural exports by lowering logistics barriers and expanding access to major consumer markets like China.
However, a deeper analysis reveals that the benefits of BRI infrastructure are distributed unevenly, particularly disadvantaging smallholder farmers. The study reveals that although export volumes and efficiency have improved at the macro level, farmers in remote areas still face persistent challenges, including limited rural connectivity, exclusion from cold-chain logistics, and high relative logistics costs. These barriers reflect structural inequalities within the agricultural value chain and reinforce pre-existing vulnerabilities. As such, while the infrastructure itself is functional and impactful, its social inclusiveness remains limited.
These findings contribute to the existing literature by offering empirical evidence of the "dual-speed" nature of BRI gains in the agricultural sector, whereby commercial-scale exporters reap most of the benefits, while small-scale producers are marginalized. This aligns with prior critiques of BRI-induced development asymmetries and adds specificity by focusing on trade logistics in agri-food systems.
From a policy perspective, the study underscores the need for targeted interventions to close last-mile gaps. Investments should prioritize rural road networks, farm-to-hub connectivity, and shared cold storage facilities. Additionally, digital integration—through mobile-accessible customs systems, blockchain-based traceability, and e-market platforms—could enhance market access for smallholders. This echoes the World Bank’s emphasis on “inclusive logistics” as a cornerstone of sustainable development.
Environmental sustainability also emerged as a cross-cutting concern. While BRI infrastructure has improved economic connectivity, it has also led to deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and rising emissions. This study reinforces the argument that BRI expansion must internalize environmental externalities. Future infrastructure planning should integrate green design standards—such as elevated rail tracks to minimize habitat disruption and low-emission logistics fleets powered by renewables. These recommendations build upon emerging best practices observed in countries like Germany and Japan, while proposing regionally tailored adaptations, such as solar-powered cold storage in tropical settings.
Technological innovation presents another area with high potential for transformation. The application of the Internet of Things (IoT), AI-based routing algorithms, and blockchain traceability systems can optimize cold-chain management, reduce spoilage, and increase transparency—particularly for high-value, perishable exports such as durian and mango. These tools offer both efficiency and compliance advantages, positioning regional exporters for greater success in increasingly sustainability-conscious global markets.
Moreover, integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks into BRI project evaluation can improve both implementation success and public legitimacy. ESG-based design encourages inclusive stakeholder consultation, anti-corruption safeguards, and transparent land-use processes, thereby reducing socio-political resistance and financing risk. Given rising investor attention to ESG compliance, these dimensions are not only ethical imperatives but strategic necessities.
The geopolitical dimension of infrastructure development also requires attention. Maritime disputes in the South China Sea and political instability in Myanmar introduce significant uncertainties that can delay project implementation or reduce investment flows. While this study does not model these risks quantitatively, it highlights the importance of de-risking strategies such as multilateral diplomacy, regional trade agreements, and project diversification across less-contested zones.
Despite offering valuable insights, this study has several limitations. First, the trade data used was not disaggregated by producer type (e.g., smallholder vs. corporate farm), limiting the ability to analyze distributional effects with precision. Second, while qualitative interviews were conducted, their scope was geographically limited and may not capture the full diversity of farmer experiences across the region. Third, the study relies heavily on historical data (2015–2023) and cannot fully anticipate how future political or environmental developments may alter investment patterns. Finally, the analysis centers on rail-based logistics; future research could explore multimodal integration (e.g., rail-sea-air connectivity) and its comparative advantages.
This study comprehensively evaluates how BRI-funded transport infrastructure has reshaped agricultural trade efficiency in Southeast Asia. Focusing on high-impact projects such as the China-Laos Railway and the Pan-Asia Railway Network, the findings confirm that investments in logistics corridors have led to measurable reductions in transport costs and transit times, while enabling exponential increases in export volumes, particularly in high-value sectors, such as durian exports from Thailand.
Beyond these quantitative outcomes, the study contributes to the broader understanding of trade equity, sustainability, and digital transformation under infrastructure-led development. It highlights the structural disparities that leave smallholder farmers unable to fully benefit from improved connectivity due to limited rural access, exclusion from cold-chain networks, and regulatory fragmentation. At the same time, it demonstrates the risks of environmental degradation and rising emissions when infrastructure expansion is not paired with strong governance and ecological safeguards.
By integrating both macro-level trade metrics and qualitative stakeholder insights, this research bridges a critical gap in the literature. It offers an integrated view of infrastructure effectiveness—one that balances efficiency with equity—and expands the scope of BRI studies by incorporating environmental, social, and technological dimensions. These findings are particularly relevant for developing economies seeking inclusive export-led growth under regional cooperation frameworks.
From a policy perspective, the study reinforces the need for inclusive logistics strategies: investments in rural roads and aggregation hubs, wider cold-chain access, harmonised cross-border trade protocols, and digital technologies such as blockchain and AI for traceability and optimisation. It also underscores the importance of integrating ESG principles into infrastructure planning to ensure long-term viability, stakeholder trust, and financing legitimacy.
While drawing from diverse datasets and stakeholder interviews, the study acknowledges several limitations, including the lack of disaggregated trade data, the constrained scope of qualitative sampling, and the reliance on historical performance indicators. These limitations suggest a need for future research using longitudinal and micro-level data to assess differentiated impacts and evolving dynamics, particularly in the context of geopolitical tensions and environmental uncertainty.
In summary, the BRI holds significant potential to transform agricultural trade across Southeast Asia, but realizing its full promise requires a strategic shift from infrastructure quantity to infrastructure quality. This study provides both the empirical foundation and policy roadmap to support a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient approach to regional connectivity and development.
[1] Cui, L., Song, M. (2019). Economic evaluation of the Belt and Road Initiative from an unimpeded trade perspective. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(1): 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1492532
[2] Enderwick, P. (2018). The economic growth and development effects of China's One Belt, One Road Initiative. Strategic Change, 27(5): 447-454. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2229
[3] Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2024). ADB Annual Report 2023. https://doi.org/10.22617/FLS240103
[4] Dennis, A., Shepherd, B. (2011). Trade facilitation and export diversification. The World Economy, 34(1): 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01303.x
[5] Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2017). Meeting Asia's Infrastructure Needs. https://doi.org/10.22617/FLS168388-2
[6] Mekong Institute. (2023). Mekong Institute Annual Report 2023. https://mekonginstitute.org/mi-annual-report-2023/.
[7] Chen, J., Chen, D., Yao, A. (2020). Trade development between China and countries along the Belt and Road: A spatial econometric analysis based on trade competitiveness and complementarity. Pacific Economic Review, 25(2): 205-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0106.12329
[8] Chen, X., Hou, Y., Kastner, T., Liu, L., et al. (2023). Physical and virtual nutrient flows in global telecoupled agricultural trade networks. Nature Communications, 14: 2391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38094-4
[9] Lu, H., Rohr, C., Hafner, M., Knack, A. (2018). China Belt and Road Initiative: Measuring the Impact of improving transportation connectivity on trade in the region. RAND Europe, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr2625
[10] Brakman, S., Frankopan, P., Garretsen, H., Van Marrewijk, C. (2019). The New Silk Roads: An introduction to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(1): 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy037
[11] Brona, A. (2018). One Belt, One Road: New framework for international relations? Polish Journal of Political Science, 4(2): 57-76.
[12] Cai, K.G. (2020). The One Belt One Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Beijing's new strategy of geoeconomics and geopolitics. In China’s New Global Strategy. Routledge, pp. 19-35.
[13] Liu, X., Xu, L. (2024). The impact of China's Belt and Road Initiative on agricultural trade status: A network analysis of countries along the route. Agribusiness. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21981
[14] Ruta, M., Mulabdic, A., Murray, S., Rocha, N., de Soyres, F. (2018). How much will the Belt and Road Initiative reduce trade costs? The Trade Post. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/trade/how-much-will-belt-and-road-initiative-reduce-trade-costs?utm_source.
[15] Wang, C., Lim, M.K., Zhang, X., Zhao, L., Lee, P.T.W. (2020). Railway and road infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative countries: Estimating the impact of transport infrastructure on economic growth. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134: 288-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.02.009
[16] Panibratov, A., Kalinin, A., Zhang, Y., Ermolaeva, L., Korovkin, V., Nefedov, K., Selivanovskikh, L. (2022). The Belt and Road Initiative: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 63(1): 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1857288
[17] Rana, P.B., Ji, X. (2020). China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Impacts on Asia and Policy Agenda. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5171-0
[18] Qayyum, M., Yuyuan, Y., Bhatti, U.A., Shijie, L. (2023). Evaluation of the One Belt and One Road (OBOR) in economic development and suggestions analysis based on SWOT analysis with weighted AHP and entropy methods. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(10): 14985-15006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13565-w
[19] Xue, R., Liu, H.Z., Baron, C., Miao, X.Y., Jafri, M.A.H. (2022). Insight of the Chinese enterprises’ investment performance along ‘One Belt One Road.’ Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 29(2): 634-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2022.2035094
[20] Research Network Sustainable Global Supply Chains. (2023). Sustainable global supply chains in times of geopolitical crises. Annual Report 2023. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). https://doi.org/10.23661/r1.2024
[21] Huang, Y. (2016). Understanding China's Belt & Road initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment. China Economic Review, 40: 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2016.07.007
[22] Keeling, D.J. (2007). Transportation geography: New directions on well-worn trails. Progress in Human Geography, 31(2): 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507075370
[23] Husseini, S., Khalid, A.M., Premaratne, G. (2024). Assessing infrastructure and trade connectivity through network analysis evidence from BRI countries. China Economic Journal, 17(2): 259-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2024.2334108
[24] Trakem, V., Fan, H. (2024). Agricultural trade liberalization, governance quality, and technical efficiency in the agricultural sector of Southeast Asia. Heliyon, 10(21): e39553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39553
[25] Weber, S., Taqa, A.R. (2024). China's Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for global trade and diplomacy. International Journal of Research and Review Techniques (IJRRT), 3(2): 1-9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383847595_China's_Belt_and_Road.
[26] Mekong Institute. (2024). Mekong Forum 2024 Proceedings. https://mekonginstitute.org/mekong-forum-2024-proceedings./
[27] Zhu, J., Liu, X., Cao, L. (2025). The Belt and Road Initiative and China's diversifying food imports: A perspective on the "Five-pronged approach". Journal of Asian Economics, 96: 101849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2024.101849
[28] Chan, S. (2017). The Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for China and East Asian economies. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 35(2): 52-78. https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v35i2.5446
[29] Cheng-Chwee, K. (2005). Multilateralism in China's ASEAN policy: Its evolution, characteristics, and aspiration. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 27(1): 102-122.
[30] Bouët, A., Elbehri, A., Nguyen, D.B., Traoré, F. (2022). Measuring agricultural trade integration in Southeast Asia. Journal of Economic Integration, 37(2): 235-266. https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2022.37.2.235
[31] Fan, Q., Liu, J., Zhang, T., Liu, H. (2022). An evaluation of the efficiency of China’s green investment in the “Belt and Road” countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 60: 496-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.01.003
[32] Teo, H.C., Lechner, A.M., Walton, G.W., Chan, F.K.S., Cheshmehzangi, A., Tan-Mullins, M., Chan, H.K., Sternberg, T., Campos-Arceiz, A. (2019). Environmental impacts of infrastructure development under the Belt and Road Initiative. Environments, 6(6): 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6060072
[33] World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2016). Efficient agriculture, stronger economies in ASEAN – Private Sector perspectives for policy makers. https://www.aprilasia.com/images/pdf_files/BCSD/BCSD_white_paper.pdf.
[34] Yang, G., Huang, X., Huang, J., Chen, H. (2020). Assessment of the effects of infrastructure investment under the belt and road initiative. China Economic Review, 60: 101418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101418
[35] Mekong Institute. (2019). The study on "regional cooperation mechanism on priority areas under Mekong-Lancang cooperation framework". https://mekonginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/4.Study_on__Regional_Cooperation_Mechanism_on_Priority_Area_apr2020.pdf.
[36] Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M.C.H. (2019). China's One Belt One Road Initiative: The impact of trade facilitation versus physical infrastructure on exports. The World Economy, 42(6): 1673-1694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12808
[37] Thürer, M., Tomašević, I., Stevenson, M., Blome, C., Melnyk, S., Chan, H.K., Huang, G.Q. (2020). A systematic review of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for global supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 58(8): 2436-2453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1605225
[38] Qiu, H., Yang, J., Huang, J., Chen, R. (2007). Impact of China-ASEAN free trade area on China's international agricultural trade and its regional development. China & World Economy, 15(5): 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-124X.2007.00083.x
[39] Wang, H.W., Zhekenov, D., Kurmangali, M. (2018). Chinese global project: One Belt and One Road. International Relations and International Law Journal, 1: 28-35. https://pps.kaznu.kz/en/Main/FileShow2/116526/99/359/1189/Кукеева%20Фатима%20Тураровна/2020/2#page=28.
[40] Rahman, P., Musa, M. (2025). Bridging innovation and growth: The Belt and Road Initiative’s impact on Chinese provincial economies. International Economics and Economic Policy, 22: 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-025-00666-8
[41] Chen, M.X., Lin, C. (2020). Geographic connectivity and cross-border investment: The Belts, Roads and Skies. Journal of Development Economics, 146: 102469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102469
[42] Ryu, D., Nam, H.J. (2024). Impacts of gender inequality on international trade and innovation. Finance Research Letters, 63: 105366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105366
[43] Jiang, L., Zhang, G., Zhang, H. (2023). The role of the Belt and Road Initiative: New opportunity for Chinese exporters? The World Economy, 46(6): 1609-1647. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13353
[44] Chen, B., Suo, L., Ma, J. (2015). A network approach to interprovincial agreements: A study of Pan Pearl River Delta in China. State and Local Government Review, 47(3): 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X15610384
[45] Jiang, X., Zhang, S. (2021). Visualizing the services embodied in global manufacturing exports. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 571: 125365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.125365
[46] Liu, H., Wang, Y., Jiang, J., Wu, P. (2020). How green is the “Belt and Road Initiative”? – Evidence from Chinese OFDI in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 145: 111709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111709
[47] Liu, W., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Lim, M.K., Shi, X. (2024). Logistics and supply chain management in the belt and road initiative: Research opportunities and future challenges. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2024.2367555
[48] Coquidé, C., Lages, J., Ermann, L., Shepelyansky, D.L. (2022). COVID-19’s impact on international trade. Entropy, 24(3): 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24030327
[49] Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1): 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330027157
[50] The United Nations Comtrade Database. https://comtradeplus.un.org/.
[51] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2024). Value of Agricultural Production. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QV.
[52] Arvis, J.F., Ojala, L., Ulybina, D., Wiederer, C. (2023). Connecting to Compete 2023: Trade Logistics in an Uncertain Global Economy - The Logistics Performance Index and its Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099042123145531599.
[53] Belt and Road Portal. https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/.
[54] Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
