Challenges Faced By American Overseas Infrastructure From The Perspective Of Two-level Game ——Taking "Blue Dot Network" As An Example

In recent years,the competition of powerful countries in the field of overseas infrastructure has become an increasingly important issue,especially for the United States.The overseas infrastructure plan with obvious offensive posture has become one of the important means for the United States to rebuild the alliance and regain global influence.Therefore,the U.S.government has successively put forward the "New Silk Road" plan"Blue dot network" plan and India Pacific infrastructure investment partnership to develop overseas infrastructure and counter China,but on the whole,it has little effect.At the domestic level,the US investment in overseas infrastructure is restricted by voters,Congress and relevant interest groups.The opposition of any key domestic group will have an impact on its overseas investment.From the international level,the overseas infrastructure investment of the United States is related to the relationship between its partner countries and the degree of cooperation of the invested countries.As a typical case of American overseas infrastructure,the "blue dot network" plan is conducive to making up for the huge gap in global infrastructure,improving the influence of the United States in this field,and alleviating the shortage of financial funds in the field of infrastructure in the United States to a certain extent.However,the plan has not achieved substantive results since it was put forward in 2019.Therefore,this paper uses the two-level game theory to explore the international and domestic interaction in the process of American investment in overseas infrastructure through the two-level game analysis of the case of "blue dot network",and studies the challenges faced by American investment in overseas infrastructure from both international and domestic levels.From the perspective of two-level game theory,negotiation level and approval level interact.The approval at the negotiation level needs to be based on the domestic "win sets",which is expressed in the form of bargaining among negotiators.The factors affecting the domestic "win sets" mainly include the preferences and alliances of voters,the domestic political system and the preferences of negotiators themselves.Negotiators’ strategies also include additional provisions,improving the status of negotiators among each other’s voters,and "tit for tat".In the practice of international negotiation,negotiators often don’t have "common knowledge" about negotiation.Therefore,the two sides are engaged in anincomplete information game,that is,incomplete information static game or incomplete information dynamic game.In this case,due to the uncertainty of each other’s costs,expected benefits and decision-making order,the two sides of the game often choose a steady strategy.Taking the United States as the main body,this paper analyzes the international and domestic pressure faced by the "blue dot network" plan from the perspective of two-level game theory,which can be divided into two levels.The I level is the bargaining between the United States and partner countries and invested countries in the negotiation stage.From this level of analysis,it can be concluded that both partner countries and invested countries have distrust of the United States,and due to the diversified interest objectives of partner countries,they adopted a "steady" strategy.The Ⅱ level mainly analyzes the "win sets" in the United States.From the perspective of internal relative division and diversified society,it is beneficial to the "win sets" in the United States,but it will increase the pressure to bargain with foreign negotiators.In addition,the two party system and the separation of powers model in the United States are also conducive to the diversification of voters’ preferences and increase the possibility of reaching an agreement in international negotiations.However,due to the low trust of domestic voters in the government,it will be unfavorable to the implementation of the plan..