## 4 Discussion and Conclusions
As mentioned, the BRI has already expanded beyond hard infrastructure through its Digital Silk Road, Green Silk Road, and Health Silk Road, signalling an effort to catch up to the governance, sustainability, and inclusiveness standards promoted by other initiatives. As such, the potential for convergence and mutual learning among initiatives suggests that future complementarities could become even more pronounced, especially in addressing the evolving needs of developing economies. Ultimately, the role of global and regional infrastructure initiatives is to coordinate and trigger sustainable development within their respective spheres while collectively contributing to efforts in narrowing the global infrastructure gap. The whole world stands to benefit if such initiatives prove to be successful in addressing the global infrastructure gap. Future studies could offer empirical answers to the following questions, which are complex and not easily resolved: Could the strict conditions for sustainable development imposed by alternative initiatives and the reliance on attracting sufficient private sector investment impede the development process? How would these alternative initiatives balance the need to simultaneously ensure mutual cooperation by engaging local stakeholders in the decision-making process and for the host countries to absorb a certain extent of values, norms and standards of the political and economic unions involved to ensure quality infrastructure? Would economic asymmetries between China and BRI-participating countries prove to be harmful in the long run? Is a non-zero-sum game possible to ensure that developed countries in these initiatives do not benefit purely at the expense of developing countries, considering the relatively less cohesive presence of a central coordinating body or unified leadership to ensure funding commitment compared to the BRI? With the backdrop of the U.S.-China trade war, what is the outlook for the financial sustainability of the BRI? Given the overlap in regional coverage, is there room for these initiatives to coexist and perhaps complement the BRI, despite geopolitical tensions? Overall, competition between the BRI, PGII, GG and others is a good thing, as it can encourage all initiatives to strive for excellence, promote innovation and ultimately lead to better infrastructure projects and more economic development for the countries involved. At the same time, competition inadvertently creates conflicts of interest, undermines cooperation and collaboration in critical areas, and hinders the possibility to effectively achieve shared goals and objectives of both initiatives such as sustainable development and decarbonisation. It is important for both initiatives to strike a balance between healthy competition and cooperation and learn from each other in order to maximise their positive impact on economic development and infrastructure in developing countries. However, initiatives such as the BRI, PGII, GG, FOIP, and 3 SI are not make or break for developing countries. Ultimately, the economic future of the developing world is in its own hands, and much will depend on its own capability to manage the competing needs of its societies amidst a rapidly changing global landscape. Participating countries need to be pragmatic and act in their own interest to benefit the most from the competition. History has proven that even smaller countries could negotiate bilaterally with China and successfully achieve better offers. This means that each country needs to be conducting better cost-benefit analyses to estimate the demand for both tangible and intangible infrastructure elements and understanding their trade-offs to guide government spending. Such research would help ensure that investments are neither under- nor overspent, allowing these initiatives to stand as worthy competitors (or even partners) to the BRI in bridging the infrastructure gap between developed and developing economies. Conceptualization, E.Q. ; methodology, J.R.T. ; validation, E.Q. and I.N. ; formal analysis, J.R.T.