@techreport{oai:ir.ide.go.jp:00051755,
 author = {Trissia, Wijaya},
 month = {Oct},
 note = {application/pdf, VRF000504_001, Ever since the so-called rise of China has started and particularly after Japan has lost a key Indonesian high-speed railway to China, Sino-Japanese relations have been increasingly posited on a geo-economic rivalry between both states. As a result, perspective on Chinese and Japanese infrastructure investment tends to place the state at the center of explanations and be guided more by what infrastructure projects are imagined to leverage, than what Southeast Asian countries have influenced. Taking issues from existing studies which have overly coalesced the discussion around geopolitical standpoint and norm-based approach, this study brings fresh framings of the political economy of Chinese and Japanese infrastructure regime in Southeast Asia. By using the case study of Indonesia, this study compares the pattern of agenda setting and political settlement that China and Japan have pursued to accommodate state transformation pertaining to the infrastructure development in Indonesia. It also unfolds the ‘localized’ process of infrastructure regime that has implicated different levels of playing field which Japan and China have encountered in the country. The study puts forward the challenges and prospects for policy engagement by analyzing initiatives, such as Japan’s ODA-based projects, Indonesian government’s master plan MP3EI, China’s Belt and Road Initaitive (BRI), Japan’s Partnership Quality Initiative (PQI), and Indonesia’s proposed PPP (Public Private Partnership) scheme. Offering a unique perspective on the linkage of power configuration and infrastructure regime, this study finds that Chinese infrastructure regime reflects a continuous trial and error in linking capital accumulation with infrastructure agenda due to an uneven expansion of sub-national entities and companies to the infrastructure market. This has led to “de-institutionalization” of policy formulation and implementation in order to accommodate fragmented interests in Indonesia. Whereas, Japanese infrastructure regime demonstrates how infrastructure projects have been historically narrated and intertwined with the rationalization of economy as well as adjusted with the political constellation and economic structure in Indonesia. Such adjustment resulted political settlement that invariably upgraded informalization into “institutionalization” so as to narrow coalitional interests and maintain centralization of authority in a well-coordinated manner.},
 title = {The political economy of Chinese and Japanese infrastructure regime : a case study of Indonesia (preliminary analysis)},
 year = {2019}
}