Abstract
A Chinese foreign-policy process emerged in the aftermath of the reform era. During this time, a number of key developments within the state structure reshaped the process. These developments have produced a foreign-policy process that now consists of a number of actors, each with its own particular institutional environment and institutional objective. Thus, the actions of various actors often come into conflict with one another and lead to counterproductive actions. This raises an important question: How does the Chinese foreign-policy process function if the actors within the process are in conflict or undertaking counterproductive actions? This study argues that a structural imperative facilitates the functioning of the system by allowing for collective action. It also argues that the dominant political discourse is that structural imperative.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allison GT (1969) Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review 63:689–718
Allison GT (1971) Essence of Decision. Little Brown, London
Allison GT, Zelikow P (1999) Essence of Decision, Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd edn. Longman, New York
Art RJ (1973) Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique. Policy Sciences 4:467–490
Ball DJ (1974) The Blind Men and the Elephant: A Critique of Bureaucratic Politics Theory. Australian Outlook 28:71–92
Blyth M (2002) Great Transformations Economic Ideas and institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brenner MJ (1976) Bureaucratic Politics in Foreign Policy. Armed Forces & Society 2:326–332
Breuning M (2007) Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Brighi E (2007) Europe, the USA and the ‘Policy of the Pendulum’: The Importance of Foreign Policy Paradigms in the Foreign Policy of Italy (1989–2005). Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 9(2):99–115
Carlsnaes W (2008) Actors, Structures and Foreign Policy Analysis. In: Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T (eds) Foreign Policy Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 94–95
Conrad B (2010) Bureaucratic Land Rush China’s Administrative Battles in the Area of Climate Change Policy. Harvard Asia Quarterly Spring, pp 52–64
Cox R (1983) Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method Millennium. Journal of International Studies 12(2):162–175
Douglas M (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge, London
Germain RD, Kenny M (1998) Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians Review of International Studies 24(1):3–21
Goldstein J, Keohane RO (1993) Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In: Goldstein J, Keohane RO (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 3–30
Gramsci A (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart, London (trans: Hoare Q, Smith, GN)
Hall PA (1989) The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hay C (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Hermann MG, Hermann, CF (1989) Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry. International Studies Quarterly 33:361–387
Hill, C (2003) What is to be Done? Foreign Policy as a Site for Political Action. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 79(2):233–255
Hudson VM (2005) Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1):1–30
Jakoson L, Knox D (2010) New Foreign Policy Actors in China. SIPRI No. 26. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/PP/SIPRIPP26.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2018
Jeon H-K, Yoon S-S (2006) From International Linkages to Internal Divisions in China. The Political Response to Climate Change Negotiations Asian Survey 46(6):846–866
Jessop B (2001) Institutional Re(Turns) and the Strategic-Relational Approach. Environment and Planning A 33:1213–1235
Joll J (1977) Antonio Gramsci Collins. Fontana, Glasgow
Jones S (2006) Antonio Gramsci. Routledge, London
Keohane RO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. University Press Princeton, Princeton
Levi M (1997) Research Traditions in Comparative Politics: 2. A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis. In: Lichbach MI, Zuckerman AS (eds) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–41
Lieberthal K, Lampton D (eds) (1992) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in Post-Mao China. University of California Press, Berkeley
Mahoney J (2001) Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central America in Comparative Perspective. Studies in Comparative International Development 36(1):111–141
Nadezhda S, Cleveland F (2006) Path Dependence and Foreign Policy: A Case Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, CA, 22 March
Olson M (1971) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Rev. edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Ostrom CW Jr (1977) Evaluating Alternative Foreign Policy Decision-Making Models: An Empirical Test Between an Arms Race Model and an Organizational Politics Model. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 21(2):235–266
Ostrom EA (2000) Behavioral Approach to Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. In: McGinnis MD (ed) Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp 472–522
Overbeek H (ed) (1993) Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy: The Rise of Transnational Neoliberalism in the 1980s. Routledge, London
Pierson P (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Schwartz H (2003) Down the Wrong Path: What’s Wrong with Theories of Path Dependence. Paper present at 102nd American Political Science Association annual meeting, Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, 31 August–3 September 2003
Simon HA (1997) Models of Bounded Rationality. Volume 3. Empirically Grounded Economic Reason. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Steiner M (1977) The Elusive Essence of Decision. International Studies Quarterly 21:389–442
Thelen K (2004) How Institutions Evolve. The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vertzberger Y (1984) Bureaucratic-Organizational Politics and Information Processing in a Developing State. International Studies Quarterly 28:69–95
Zhang Q (2016) Bureaucratic Politics and Chinese Foreign Policy-making. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9(4):435–458
Zhou Z (2010) Bureaucratic Politics and the Research of Chinese Foreign Policy Making in the US. Foreign Affairs Review 4:68–80
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duggan, N. (2020). Research Structure. In: Competition and Compromise among Chinese Actors in Africa. Governing China in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8813-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8813-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8812-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8813-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)