In March 2014, I had the privilege of being at the Boao Forum in Hainan to listen to President Xi Jinping unveil his vision for what was then referred to as OBOR, or One Belt One Road. As I'm sure many others felt, the excitement about the potential of linking up so many historically important countries along the old Silk Road all the way through to Europe, was so easy to be swept up in.

Whether it be neighboring Kazakhstan or distant, but crucially located Austria, the conceptual benefits could be huge. For someone like myself, with a background in international economics and especially having spent quite a bit of time on development economics, I perhaps realized more than others about just how transforming this could be.

Let me explain more. Not only does economic theory suggest that international trade and cross-border investment boost economic growth in a win-win type of way, but there is a huge amount of evidence that this actually happens. Whether it be a Singapore, to take one example in Asia, or a Switzerland, in Europe, there are countless examples. Indeed, China itself, since opening up 40 years ago, has perhaps benefited more than many realize from just these two forces, both of which lie at the core of the -- now renamed -- Belt and Road Initiative, BRI concept.

Let me further expand, and conceptualize, as I am not sure whether people realize the potential scale of what a successfully implemented BRI could unleash. I have become well-known for creating the so-called BRIC acronym, which in 2001 I first highlighted the potential for the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, to become important to the world. In 2003, colleagues and I first showed that by the late 2030s, these four combined, could become economically larger than the so-called G7 countries. Three of these four countries are critically placed for BRI. China of course, at its eastern edge but India and Russia are in key geographic places. If the ongoing development of BRI just achieved major increases in trade between China and these two, that in itself could have huge positive trade and FDI consequences, not just for these countries, but other satellite nations to each of the three. India and China, greatly for historic reasons have not embraced trade or FDI with each other, but I thought when I heard President Xi, this could be literally, transformative. Russia has had a better relationship with each of India and China, although that itself has been erratic.

In addition to the three of the BRIC countries, many of the next largest populated emerging economies are along either the Silk Road or the maritime routes. In 2004, when trying to explain why I had chosen those four countries as those being most worthy of the BRIC title, my colleagues and I then talked about the "Next 11", a loose description of most of the largest 11 populated countries after the BRIC nations. Six of them are all geographically crucial to BRI, being in Asia. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea and Vietnam, each and all six of them. Of the other five, both Iran and Turkey are extremely well geographically placed to benefit and contribute. Which only leaves Egypt, Nigeria and distant Mexico not to be as well placed. For the six that sit along the land or maritime routes, they have all had challenged economic histories, with perhaps the important exception of South Korea; and the same is, of course, true for Iran and Turkey. But as Xi delivered his Boao speech, I thought this could be a mammoth moment if all these countries seized the opportunity.

Fast forward to early 2019. While BRI gets talked about worldwide, it isn't clear to me that it is on track to deliver the excitement that I imagined back five years ago, nor importantly, without changes, can it deliver what President Xi would surely want.

Let me make some suggestions, which are hopefully not too provocative. In some ways, this is the first major global type initiative that modern China has embarked upon, and when I think about it, it is hardly surprising that there might be some serious challenges. Obviously China is unique in so many ways, including its political system and its interplay with business. It is also unique in that, for such a large country, in its modern incarnation, it has understandably completely prioritized domestic development. The launch of BRI changes this, and brings China's uniqueness into so many other countries. And it has made many of them uncomfortable about China's motives and style of operation. This might have surprised many Chinese business and political figures, and should be a useful learning factor. Amongst other things, it suggests China needs to boost its, what I would call, soft skills in dealing with other nations and their business systems. From what I can tell, this is true, either whether it is neighboring Kazakhstan or far more removed European nations. They all have their own ways of conducting international business, and they aren't going to easily accept somewhat unfamiliar ways of conducting business, even if the conceptual fruits are clear.

Some specific ideas to help re-position BRI if I may. First of all, I think China should invite some other key Asian countries to feel empowered to influence the path of BRI. A seemingly radical idea would be to encourage India to influence the next stage. Whenever I have discussed this idea with seasoned Asia watchers, they think I am either joking or am very naive due to the two countries tricky historic relationship. I'm not especially surprised by this reaction. An undiplomatic response might be, "if China can't really engage India, then the whole project can't really be serious". After all, China and India are immediate neighbors, part of the same BRIC political small club, and the only two billion-plus populated countries in the world. If BRI is truly ambitious , then it requires serious ambition.

Second, why not invite some non-Chinese expert entities to devise a code of best practice for BRI project financing that would guide how infrastructure projects might be financed? Such an approach might even help improve the operational efficiency of many Chinese companies.

And third, partly linked to the latter, China should seek a group of trusted helpful countries, possibly involving the most advanced countries such as the UK to help these two ideas and maybe others. For post-Brexit Britain, searching for a new content-rich, global narrative, what better than this. An even more radical idea might be to invite the US to be such a trusted ally as part of some truly ambitious trade deal. Apart from anything else, it would demonstrate to the US that the BRI is not about China trying to impose its will on the world.

What is for sure, the underlying ambition of the BRI concept is so ambitious, it requires equally ambitious tactics to ensure its success.

Jim O’Neill is chair of Chatham House. The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively.

The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.