## 1 Introduction
Based on a media content analysis of focus group discussions with key stakeholders involved inthe BRI's policy framework, [PERSON] et al. (2022) derived comparison indicators pertaining to inclusivity, capacity, labour protection, anti-corruption, the incorporation of local needs, head start, cohesiveness, commitment, debt trap, mistake allowance, focus, sustainability, and regional peace. [PERSON] (2019) employs a geoeconomic lens to compare the BRI and FOIP, distinguishing between genuine strategic articulation and propaganda use in official documents. On the contrary, [PERSON] (2021) uses a regionalism matrix analysis framework to compare the BRI and FOIP. [PERSON] (2025) compares the BRI and PGII across governance, sustainability, financing, and geopolitical dimensions from the perspectives of Sinocentric globalisation and U.S.-China competition. [PERSON] (2019) compares the BRI and 3 SI from a synergistic perspective in terms of their investment priorities, objectives, principles and infrastructure projects given their mutual interest to develop economic corridors passing through Central and Eastern Europe. Other studies offer a less direct analytical comparison between the BRI and its counterparts, e.g., [PERSON] (2021), [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2023), [PERSON] (2023), [PERSON] (2023), and [PERSON] (2019), primarily examining the narrative and features behind one of the alternative initiatives--such as FOIP/PQI, GG, or 3 SI. While the BRI is often referenced in these types of studies, the comparisons tend to be more implicit or discursive, reflecting the reality that many of these initiatives have emerged, at least in part, as responses to the BRI. Building on this emerging body of work, this review identifies two key gaps. First, most comparative studies focus narrowly on the BRI and one or two other initiatives, limiting the breadth of comparative insight. Second, while some studies examine selected benefits and trade-offs, few offer a systematic, multi-dimensional evaluation of both perceived advantages and drawbacks across all major Western and allied infrastructure initiatives. Although recent contributions such as [PERSON] (2023) and [PERSON] (2021) provide valuable insights using established frameworks, a more flexible and comprehensive approach that is grounded in themes identified across the literature can better inform CBA practitioners seeking to assess the optimal social welfare outcomes associated with participation in each initiative. Thus, this study seeks to address the following research question: how do the other major infrastructure initiatives compare with the BRI in terms of development objectives, governance models, financing mechanisms, and implications for developing economies? Rather than applying a formalised framework, we adopt a bottom-up, inductive comparative approach, identifying key themes from the academic literature, policy documents, media articles, and official communications. We evaluate the following initiatives--the BRI, PGII/BDN, GG, FOIP/PQI, and 3 SI--across seven dimensions: (1) infrastructure objectives, (2) the quality and transparency of investments, (3) investment policy orientation, (4) trade policy orientation, (5) inclusivity and regional integration, (6) coordination mechanisms, and (7) environmental sustainability. This approach offers flexibility and breadth, capturing the evolving landscape of global and regional infrastructure initiatives that remain underexplored in their totality. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive foundation for future research to build upon using more formalised comparative frameworks. These initiatives were chosen based on three practical criteria: (1) the scale and scope of their financial commitments, (2) their explicit or implied policy positioning as alternatives or complements to the BRI, and (3) their backing by major geopolitical actors, including G7 countries, the EU, Japan, and Central and Eastern European states.