Increasing the efficiency of Chinese infrastructure investments by applying modern project management methods

Large infrastructure megaprojects frequently exhibit persistent underperformance in terms of cost, schedule, and long-term public value, despite advances in engineering capability and project management practice. This dissertation investigates why megaprojects with comparable technical characteristics and investment scale generate measurably different performance outcomes, focusing on the role of project lifecycle governance rather than financing origin or geopolitical context. The central argument advanced is that megaproject performance is primarily conditioned by the quality of institutional governance embedded in early project preparation and lifecycle management, rather than by the nationality of investors, contractors, or financiers.
The research applies Project Cycle Management (PCM) and the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) as analytical frameworks to evaluate how governance structures shape efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term impact across the megaproject lifecycle. Rather than treating PCM and LFA as procedural planning tools, the dissertation conceptualizes them as governance mechanisms that structure decision-making, accountability, and learning from project identification through implementation and evaluation. This perspective enables systematic comparison between projects that embed disciplined front-end appraisal, explicit intervention logic, and measurable performance indicators, and those that do not.
Empirically, the study employs a comparative research design integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. The dataset comprises 84 large infrastructure megaprojects implemented in European Union member states and Western Balkan countries engaged in the EU accession process, evenly divided between projects affiliated with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and those financed or co-financed by international financial institutions (IFIs). Efficiency is assessed using indicators of cost and schedule deviation, while effectiveness and impact are evaluated through qualitative analysis of project logic, monitoring systems, and institutional arrangements. Given the characteristics of the data, the analysis relies on descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests, complemented by institutional and governance analysis.
The findings demonstrate that projects implemented within governance frameworks aligned with PCM and LFA principles exhibit systematically lower dispersion of efficiency outcomes, greater transparency in performance deviations, and stronger linkage between delivered outputs and intended outcomes. Importantly, the analysis shows that differences in performance between BRI-affiliated and IFI-affiliated projects are largely mediated by host-country institutional capacity and project preparation quality, rather than by financing model or geopolitical alignment. Where PCM-like governance disciplines are embedded institutionally, performance convergence is observed across delivery models.
The dissertation contributes to the literature on megaproject management by reframing PCM and LFA as governance technologies rather than technical checklists and by offering a transferable analytical framework for evaluating infrastructure performance across diverse investment regimes. The findings provide policy-relevant insights for governments, international financial institutions, and foreign investors seeking to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of future megaprojects.