| Summary/Abstract |
This qualitative study is designed to identify the frames in the debate on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and analyze the framing by different actors. To that end, it drew insights from framing theory and conducted an in-depth inductive frame analysis based on a representative sample of official documents and news articles. 14 frames (7 frames and 7 counterframes) emerged therefrom. They represent the AIIB debate along six dimensions: China vis-à-vis AIIB (Tool, We’re all equal), AIIB for members (Boon, Bane), AIIB versus status quo (Rival, Complement, Winds of change), standards (Made in China, Qualified yes, Up to par), prospects (Off to a good start, Not all roses), and external reactions (Game, Much ado about nothing). Building on the frames identified, the study went further to show how political actors applied frames in their (self-)justificatory discourse, and how media enriched the debate by bringing in frames absent from the official discussions in the political circle. The findings herein not only attest to the contested nature of the AIIB and the diverging framing by different actors, but shed some light on the wider discussions on China’s evolving relations with the incumbent global system and established powers.
|