Abstract
In the spring of 2005, most Americans got a rude shock. Private Chinese firms bought two staples of the U.S. economy, IBM’s personal computer business and the Maytag appliance company.1 If there was any further need to announce the arrival of China’s economic power on the world stage, it was evident when a Chinese government-controlled company, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), made a bid of $18.5 billion to buy an American oil company, Unocal. In addition to the size of the bid, it was clear that the Chinese government was giving notice that it would use its leverage to trump a lower bid for Unocal, made by Chevron-Texaco, one of the four largest oil companies in the world.2 Although the Chinese government ultimately withdrew the bid, this episode was a wake-up call demonstrating that China’s massive foreign exchange reserves give it the potential to compete actively for the natural resources and technology that it seeks.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, 2004–2005 (London: IISS, 2004), pp. 151–154.
Hofheinz, R., and K. Calder, The East Asian Edge (New York: Basic Books, 1982);
Haggard, S., Pathways From the Periphery (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990).
An exception is the book by F. Frankel and H. Harding, eds., The India-China Relationship: What the United States Needs to Know (New York: Columbia University Press and Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004).
Ganguly, S., ed., India as an Emerging Power (London: Frank Cass, 2003).
Denoon, D., “Cycles in Indian Economic Liberalization, 1966–1996,” Comparative Politics 31, no. 1, October 1999, pp. 43–60.
For an overview of the Japanese strategy in the 1960s and 1970s, see H. Patrick and H. Rosovsky, eds., Asia’s New Giant: How the Japanese Economy Works (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1976).
Krueger, A., Political Economy of Policy Reform in Developing Countries (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993).
Fingleton, E., Blindside: Why Japan Is Still on Track to Overtake the U.S. by the Year 2000 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995).
See, for example, R. Muscat, The Fifth Tiger: A Study of Thai Development Policy (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994);
D. Cole and B. Slade, Building a Modern Financial System: The Indonesian Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
For views on the debate, see S. Haggard, C. H. Lee, and S. Maxfield, eds., The Politics of Finance in Developing Countries (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).
World Bank, The East Asian Miracle (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Krugman, P., “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle,” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 6, November/December 1994, pp. 62–78.
Bhagwati, J., “The Capital Myth,” Foreign Affairs 77, no. 6, May/June 1998, pp. 7–12.
For a detailed, country-by-country description of corrupt practices and faulty investment decisions, see M. Backman, Asian Eclipse: Exposing the Dark Side of Business in Asia (New York: Wiley, 1999).
For a historical discussion of corruption in Southeast Asia, see D. G. E. Hall, A History of Southeast Asia, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1968), p. 477.
Schwarz, A., A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s (New York: Allen & Unwin, 1994).
Joseph Stiglitz’s Globalization and Its Discontents (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002) provides a broad-ranging critique of the IMF and an alternative set of policies for developing countries to pursue.
For a recent book developing related themes, see Z. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-Strategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997).
Overholt, W., The Rise of China: How Economic Reform Is Creating a New Superpower (New York: W. W. Norton, 1993).
For an analysis of those situations where China has used force, see A. Scobell, Chinas Use of Military Force: Beyond the Great Wall and the Long March (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
See, for example, S. Cohen and R. Park, India: Emergent Power? (New York: Crane Russack, 1978);
G. Choudhury, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Major Powers (New York: Free Press, 1978).
Mohan, C. R., Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Perkovich, G., “Is India a Major Power?” Washington Quarterly 27, no.1, Winter 2003–2004, p. 137.
Talbot, S., Engaging India (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004), pp. 23–51.
In addition to India’s further tests of fission weapons, it appears that its 1998 efforts included a failed test of a hydrogen bomb. See G. Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p. 433.
For a discussion of this kind of leverage, see D. Denoon, Devaluation Under Pressure: India, Indonesia, and Ghana (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986), pp. 9–16. In the IMF’s case, these would usually entail specific targets for each major macroeconomic indicator (such as budget deficit, trade deficit or surplus, and inflation). In the World Bank’s case, the most influence came from “structural adjustment loans,” which specified how an entire sector or industry should be reorganized.
The original members were Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines. For an assessment of ASEAN’s performance, see D. Denoon and E. Colbert, “Challenges for ASEAN,” Pacific Affairs 71, no. 4, Winter 1988–1989, pp. 505–523.
For a summary of the ASEAN rationale for expanding to ten states, see S. Paribatra, “From ASEAN Six to ASEAN Ten: Issues and Prospects,” Contemporary Southeast Asia 16, no. 3, December 1994, pp. 243–258.
For an overview of the original objectives of the ASEAN Regional Forum, see M. Leifer, The ASEAN Regional Forum, Adelphi Paper No. 302 (London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, 1996).
Trenin, D., The End of Eurasia: Russia on the Border between Geopolitics and Globalization (Washington, DC, and Moscow: Carnegie Endowment, 2002), pp. 203–220.
For an overview of the South China Sea territorial issues and proposals regarding the Spratly Islands, see D. Denoon and S. Brams, “Fair Division: A New Approach to the Spratly Islands Controversy,” International Negotiation 2, no. 1, 1997, pp. 303–329.
On Japan’s ambivalence about great power politics, see T. Inoguchi, Japans Foreign Policy in an Era of Global Change (London: Pinter, 1993), pp. 117–138.
Vogel, E., “Pax Nipponica,” Foreign Affairs 64, no. 1, Spring 1986, pp. 752–767.
Schlossstein, S., Asia’s New Little Dragons: The Dynamic Emergence of Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia (San Francisco: Contemporary, 1991).
For an argument in favor of theoretical eclecticism, see P. Katzenstein and N. Okawara, “Japan, Asian Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism,” International Security 26, no. 3, Winter 2001–2002, p. 154.
Hagen, E., The Economics of Development (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1968; rev. ed., 1975).
For a summary of the orthodox IMF view, see IMF, International Capital Markets: Developments, Prospects and Policy Issues (Washington, DC: IMF, 1995).
For an overview of these schools and an assessment of optimistic and pessimistic variants of each in their judgments about Sino-American relations, see A. Friedberg, “The Future of U.S.-China Relations,” International Security 30, no. 2, Fall 2005, pp. 7–45.
Keohane, R., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Wendt, A., “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review 88, no. 2, June 1994, pp. 384–396.
For examples of a realist perspective over a sixty-year period, see E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1939);
H. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1948);
K. Waltz, Theory of International Relations (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979);
J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001).
There is no need here to go into the distinctions between realism and its updated theoretical variant, structural realism. For a discussion of structural realism in Asia, see A. Goldstein, “Structural Realism and Chinas Foreign Policy: Much (But Never All) of the Story,” in A. Hanami, ed., Perspectives on Structural Realism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 119–154.
Christensen, T., “Chinese Realpolitik,” Foreign Affairs 75, no. 5, September–October 1996, pp. 37–52.
Calder, K., “Japan and China as Rivals,” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2, March–April 2006, pp. 129–140.
Sridharan, E., “Improving Indo-Pakistani Relations: IR Theory, Nuclear Deterrence, and Possibilities for Nuclear Cooperation,” Contemporary South Asia 14, no. 3, September 2005, pp. 321–339. The Indian government has not released figures on the number of its nuclear weapons, but they are estimated to be between 50 and 100.
For a discussion of why the United States might remain dominant even when there is dissatisfaction with American leadership, see S. Brooks and W. Wohlforth, “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 4, July–August 2002, pp. 20–33.
Gong, G., ed., Remembering and Forgetting: The Legacy of War and Peace in East Asia (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1996).
The two earliest classics in this school are A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1805 (1890; repr., Mineola, NY: Dover, 1987); and
H. Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” Geographical Journal 23, no. 4, 1904, pp. 421–437.
Spykman, N., The Geography of the Peace (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1944), p. 60.
Copyright information
© 2007 David B.H. Denoon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Denoon, D.B.H. (2007). Overview. In: The Economic and Strategic Rise of China and India. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606869_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606869_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53895-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-60686-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)