Advertisement

Conclusion: Does ‘Rising’ in Power Equate to ‘Shifting’ of Power?

  • Enrico Fels
Chapter
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

Has there been a power shift in Asia-Pacific as the brief US-Chinese navy encounter suggested? This study has addressed this puzzle by conducting the most extensive assessment of the alleged power shift in Asia-Pacific so far. It provided an extensive overview of some of the major Western texts on Sino-US competition, which overall suggested that we are in the midst of a power shift. As shown in Chap.  1, immediately after the end of the Cold War, the demise of the Soviet Union altered the international system profoundly. Western scholars grew concerned about China as a new potential challenger to US primacy. This was particularly due to the growing Chinese economic and military profile. While not all of the authors addressed referred to China as a threat to US or Western interests, the number of authors concerned about Chinese advances both economic and the militaristic steadily grew. Particularly authors writing in a realist tradition warned about the effects of the diverging relative developments in both countries. According to them, this almost certainly lays the basis for further Chinese challenges to Washington’s leadership, both in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. Section  1.2 demonstrated that authors who write in the liberal and constructivist traditions of IR also generally accept the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing. They likewise acknowledge that some kind of power shift between both nations is happening (however, in contrast to realist authors they do not believe that this dynamic leads necessarily to increasing militarisation, hostility and violence between China and the US in the long run).

Keywords

Relational Power Foreign Policy Nuclear Weapon Great Power International Affair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergsten, C. F. (2005). Two’s Company. Foreign Affairs, September/October 2009. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2009-09-01/twos-company. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.
  2. Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1981). The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Lalman, D. (1989). Dyadic power, expectations, and war. In R. J. Stoll & M. D. Ward (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 177–191). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  4. Ferguson, N., & Kotlikoff, L. J. (2003). Going critical. American power and the consequences of fiscal overstretch. The National Interest, Fall, No. 73, 22–32.Google Scholar
  5. Gu, X. (2012). Strukturelle Macht: Eine dritte Machtquelle? Östereichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 41(3), 259–276.Google Scholar
  6. Haass, R. N. (2014). Foreign policy begins at home. The case for putting America’s house in order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. R. (2015). Return to reason: Reviving political realism in western foreign policy. International Affairs, 91(5), 933–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Layne, C. (2009). The waning of US hegemony—Myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pustovitovskij, A. (2016). Strukturelle Kraft in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zakaria, F. (1999). From wealth to power. The unusual origins of America’s world role. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Zheng, B. (2011). The ‘middle income trap’ and China’s path to development: International experiences and lessons. China Economist, 6(3), 16–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Fels
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Global StudiesUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations